[Euphoria]

Funny, the only funding sources anyone has identified outside of tolls and Olympic private sponsorship is the fare box and the bits of lawn in front of condos that developers are required to provide, with the odd blue light tossed in for the blue steel douchebags and maybe a Stella-inspired ironwork sliver of public art for good measure. You all know as well as I do that the fare box barely, if ever, funds the total operating costs of transit. It never funds the building costs of new projects. So, if the funding for all new infrastructure comes through tax revenue, you're constantly begging levels of government for funding, and if you exceed annual budget lines, guess what, you have to raise taxes. You have to get the public onside for tax increases and we'd hope to exhaust other funding sources first. If the Olympics provide about $4 billion in private sponsorship and event ticket sales, even stripping out a billion for security costs, you're looking at about $3 billion for infrastructure. The only big ticket Olympics-only-related item that we'd have to buy out of that sum is a stadium. Well, stadiums can be leased or sold after construction. I also think there could be other uses, but whatever, people on here seem to hate NFL or old-time style baseball parks, so I won't go there. If done right, that stadium could be iconic, no less than our the CN Tower or Rogers Centre have been. Architecture can be part of the draw. Then there are all of the less tangible but no less important byproducts of hosting an Olympics: bringing the country together through sport, providing a legacy of sports facilities, inspiring future generations to strive for excellence and keep fit, building our profile on the world stage to draw tourism and investment, and speeding up many of the projects we've been wanting to see for a long time: DRL, revamped Gardner, remediation of the Portlands, LRT access to the eastern waterfront. I've said all of this in different ways before, so I apologize for being repetitive, but let's not lose sight of the opportunities here if we get the vision of a bid right. One more thing for the anti-Olympics crowd that expects to use tax money to pay for all of our big infrastructure projects: How will you convince senior levels of government to fund these projects, especially the Feds? If you've ever been out West, out East, Quebec, Alberta, or actually anywhere outside Toronto, there's a fair amount of anti-Toronto sentiment out there, so you better start spamming shiny happy emoticons country-wide.

 

[sixrings]

I do NOT agree in a buried highway but i do agree that t olympics would help get the DRL moving. I have lived many place in Canada (montreal, ottawa, stratford, calgary, vancouver) and i agree also that the country dislikes us and it is NOT easy getting federal money because of it.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Funny, the only funding sources anyone has identified outside of tolls and Olympic private sponsorship is the fare box and the bits of lawn in front of condos that developers are required to provide, with the odd blue light tossed in for the blue steel douchebags and maybe a Stella-inspired ironwork sliver of public art for good measure. You all know as well as I do that the fare box barely, if ever, funds the total operating costs of transit. It never funds the building costs of new projects. So, if the funding for all new infrastructure comes through tax revenue, you're constantly begging levels of government for funding, and if you exceed annual budget lines, guess what, you have to raise taxes. You have to get the public onside for tax increases and we'd hope to exhaust other funding sources first. If the Olympics provide about $4 billion in private sponsorship and event ticket sales, even stripping out a billion for security costs, you're looking at about $3 billion for infrastructure. The only big ticket Olympics-only-related item that we'd have to buy out of that sum is a stadium. Well, stadiums can be leased or sold after construction. I also think there could be other uses, but whatever, people on here seem to hate NFL or old-time style baseball parks, so I won't go there. If done right, that stadium could be iconic, no less than our the CN Tower or Rogers Centre have been. Architecture can be part of the draw. Then there are all of the less tangible but no less important byproducts of hosting an Olympics: bringing the country together through sport, providing a legacy of sports facilities, inspiring future generations to strive for excellence and keep fit, building our profile on the world stage to draw tourism and investment, and speeding up many of the projects we've been wanting to see for a long time: DRL, revamped Gardner, remediation of the Portlands, LRT access to the eastern waterfront. I've said all of this in different ways before, so I apologize for being repetitive, but let's not lose sight of the opportunities here if we get the vision of a bid right. One more thing for the anti-Olympics crowd that expects to use tax money to pay for all of our big infrastructure projects: How will you convince senior levels of government to fund these projects, especially the Feds? If you've ever been out West, out East, Quebec, Alberta, or actually anywhere outside Toronto, there's a fair amount of anti-Toronto sentiment out there, so you better start spamming shiny happy emoticons country-wide.

Seriously, take a deep breath. This is barely readable, much less a cogent argument. Waterfront Toronto is a tripartite gov't organization dedicated to planning and funding the rebuilding of Toronto's Waterfront (hence the name.) You don't need to spend $9 billion on an Olympics to fund $1 billion in transit and infrastructure at the mouth of the Don. Just fund Waterfront 2.0.

Could someone PLEASE make an argument for this Olympic bid that actually references the sports? I'd like to object to something tangible.

 

[animatronic]

NotoTO2024, are you saying that we'll get around $3 billion of private funds towards infrastructure if Toronto hosts 2024?

Look at the chart again - that $4B of games-related revenue wouldn't even cover half the $9B operations and security costs of running the games. Sure you'll get $11B in infrastructure, but what they are showing is that the $5B in event-related losses amounts to a a 40% "Games tax" on all infrastructure spend. Add on the extra costs to meet deadlines and repurpose venues after the games and you are looking at around 50% overpayment to get the infrastructure built.

I agree we need to think big and invest in the city. I just don't feel like flushing 1/3 of our spend down the toilet to get what could be built without the Games.

 

[diminutive]

I do NOT agree in a buried highway but i do agree that t olympics would help get the DRL moving. I have lived many place in Canada (montreal, ottawa, stratford, calgary, vancouver) and i agree also that the country dislikes us and it is NOT easy getting federal money because of it.

We're at least 12-15 years out from the DRL opening. No Federal govt is going to be so stupid as to get fooled into giving us billions to build a subway for the Olympics knowing that it will open half a decade after the Games (and cause traffic disruptions during the Games).

This reasoning that it's hard to get money from Ottawa -> we need the Olympics to get money from Ottawa makes this bizare assumption that a hostile Rest of Canada would be happier giving us money for a party than money for a subway.

2024 boosters need to realize that infrastructure for the Olympics is typically much more modest than they think. I think a realistic bid would see some kind of LRT connection to the main games site (QQELRT) and maybe a rearranged GO Train service (Cherry Station). That's what we did last time.

I'm not even sure we'd want the DRL hitched to the Olympics. That could run the risk of dragging it to Lakeshore in order to serve the Portlands/Skydome/ACC/Exhibition venues. It seems obvious that cities shouldn't plan such long term projects around two-week events (who would build their house to host a one off party?). Strangely though 2024 boosters don't seem to grasp the conflict within longterm planning around short term events.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

We're at least 12-15 years out from the DRL opening. No Federal govt is going to be so stupid as to get fooled into giving us billions to build a subway for the Olympics knowing that it will open half a decade after the Games (and cause traffic disruptions during the Games).

Actually, the merit of attaching DRL to whatever plans there might be aside (something to be assessed on its' own) the timeframe can be comparable to that of Canada Line - there is no inherit reason why it need to take 12 to 15 years to happen beyond feet-dragging.

2024 boosters need to realize that infrastructure for the Olympics is typically much more modest than they think. I think a realistic bid would see some kind of LRT connection to the main games site (QQELRT) and maybe a rearranged GO Train service (Cherry Station). That's what we did last time.

I agree with the assessment on the direct transportation infrastructural needs in reference to the 2008 bid (though EBF would not have been cheap, and the Ex-Union-Cherry line might exact significant cost as part of a broader effort along the corridor). Keep in mind though, site prep in the Portland will be a billion dollar+ range project on its' own, and things like QQ revitalization envisioned in the bid would also be considered an infrastructure cost (like how the QEII ended up in the total cost for London as well).

I'm not even sure we'd want the DRL hitched to the Olympics. That could run the risk of dragging it to Lakeshore in order to serve the Portlands/Skydome/ACC/Exhibition venues. It seems obvious that cities shouldn't plan such long term projects around two-week events (who would build their house to host a one off party?). Strangely though 2024 boosters don't seem to grasp the conflict within longterm planning around short term events.

It is highly unlikely that any plan will involve the DRL taking a dip all the way to the core of the Portlands, but a slight southward dip in the Eastern Ave. area may have merit given the amount of redevelopable space. Not something to assess without the plans illustrating what's going where at this point.

AoD

 

[Tewder]

Look at the chart again...

Why? For a study in distorted, self-serving numbers? Ok.

The costs shown are way out to lunch, for starters. The official cost for London was finalized at about $14billion US, not $20.4 This includes operating costs and infrastructure. Accounting for revenues and other funding mechanisms the official cost to the UK taxpayer was about $6billion US.

The return: in addition to steady growth in tourism since the games and the promotion of business and technology in the UK, a massive central area of derelict London was regenerated and now will be home to business parks, housing, community and athletic centres, a media centre and so on. The stadium will be the new home for Westham Football team... and over two thirds of people polled in Britain believe they got a good return on their money, that the games were worth it and that they'd do it again.

To borrow from Riverdale... 'Y'all' best back off from the London case!

I agree we need to think big and invest in the city.

Yes! I agree. We also need to think outside of the box to accomplish this because not much that has been tried has been very effective so far. A subway to Scarborough isn't exactly the best use of tax funds!

Dragging our feet on infrastructure, continuing the status quo, incremental approach - one that is ever vulnerable to politics - is costing our economy billions in gridlock (estimates up to $11billion a year). From this angle at least, in one year our region's economy would recoup the investment in an olympics games just by tackling this issue alone!

 

[salsa]

We're at least 12-15 years out from the DRL opening. No Federal govt is going to be so stupid as to get fooled into giving us billions to build a subway for the Olympics knowing that it will open half a decade after the Games (and cause traffic disruptions during the Games).

Not all infrastructure legacy projects are meant to be finished on time. The Pan Am Path for example will take a few more years to finish completely.

 

[diminutive]

The return: in addition to steady growth in tourism since the games and the promotion of business and technology in the UK, a massive central area of derelict London was regenerated and now will be home to business parks, housing, community and athletic centres, a media centre and so on. The stadium will be the new home for Westham Football team... and over two thirds of people polled in Britain believe they got a good return on their money, that the games were worth it and that they'd do it again.

To borrow from Riverdale... 'Y'all' best back off from the London case!

I don't understand why you keep acting as though showing something happened after the Olympics is proof that one caused the other. This is such a basic flaw that I don't understand how you can keep repeating it for weeks.

London's tourism has been growing since the 2008-9 recession. So has the UK's. So has Toronto's. So has the entire world. London's post 2009 growth isn't even that impressive by comparison to global trends and post 2012 growth simply looks good since the Olympics caused an actual downturn in tourism that summer. Moreover, what kind of unsophisticated rube would travel to London, the global capital of everything from fashion to art to business to, because of the Olympics? This is just stupid.

And every single derelict part of London has been regenerated. Have you even been to London? It's the most overheated real estate market in the world. There are literally tens of billions of pounds invested in London real estate every year, which started well before the Olympics. Investment in Stratford isn't even particularly large compared to projects like Battersea. There was never any shortage of money for London real estate. Period.

Westham?!?!! Subsidizing the business enterprise of two of England's richest men is exactly the kind of parasitic cronyism people constantly accuse the Olympics of perpetuating. You're literally praising transferring money to two men who are collectively worth hundreds of millions, if not billions, of pounds.

Yes! I agree. We also need to think outside of the box to accomplish this because not much that has been tried has been very effective so far. A subway to Scarborough isn't exactly the best use of tax funds! Dragging our feet on infrastructure, continuing the status quo, incremental approach - one that is ever vulnerable to politics - is costing our economy billions in gridlock (estimates up to $11billion a year). From this angle at least, in one year our region's economy would recoup the investment in an olympics games just by tackling this issue alone!

SSE isn't the best use of money since our politicians can't be trusted to make informed spending decisions. Therefore, lets entrust our politicians to throw a multi-billion dollar party overseen by an organization plagued by accusations of corruption and kickbacks.

Brilliant.

Never mind the inevitable conflict of interests between the organizing comittees and municipal elites.

 

[NoTO2024]

Why? For a study in distorted, self-serving numbers? Ok.

The costs shown are way out to lunch, for starters. The official cost for London was finalized at about $14billion US, not $20.4 This includes operating costs and infrastructure. Accounting for revenues and other funding mechanisms the official cost to the UK taxpayer was about $6billion US.

For clarification, as mentioned on the chart the figures are the 2012 budget converted to CAD$ and extended to 2024. Also, the data is sourced from The Guardian and if you follow the link you can see where they generated their figures. Not sure how that can be construed as distorted.

We would be interested to see your source for the $6B final figure because we do not believe it is correct. Don't forget that taxpayers include federal, municipal and national lottery expenditures.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

For clarification, as mentioned on the chart the figures are the 2012 budget converted to CAD$ and extended to 2024. Also, the data is sourced from The Guardian and if you follow the link you can see where they generated their figures. Not sure how that can be construed as distorted.

Converted to CAD without recognition of PPP, especially in London?

AoD

 

[NoTO2024]

Converted to CAD without recognition of PPP, especially in London?

AoD

That is a valid point. We had given it some thought but infrastructure parity doesn't really translate the same way that the price of milk does (for example, the £600m stadium would not have only cost CAD$600m to build here). In the end we decided to go with a straight conversion at the average 2012 rate of 1:1.58 and then grossed it up to 2024 by 1.5% compounded. The key reason for this was that all presentations of 2012 costs in US$ were done using a straight conversion so we wanted to be consistent.

If you were to run the numbers what conversion rate would you use?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

That is a valid point. We had given it some thought but infrastructure parity doesn't really translate the same way that the price of milk does. In the end we decided to go with a straight conversion at the average 2012 rate of 1:1.58 and then grossed it up to 2024 by 1.5% compounded. The key reason for this was that all presentations of 2012 costs in US$ were done using a straight conversion so we wanted to be consistent.

If you were to run the numbers what conversion rate would you use?

Don't throw the question back at me - it's an issue that you should have stated clearly without reservation when you didn't have the slightest hesitation to inflate figures - the "infrastructure parity doesn't translate the same way as milk" is a totally unsupported justification.

AoD

 

[NoTO2024]

Don't throw the question back at me - it's an issue that you should have stated clearly without reservation when you didn't have the slightest hesitation to inflate figures - the "infrastructure parity doesn't translate the same way as milk" is a totally unsupported justification.

AoD

Was actually genuinely interested to hear your thoughts. If you or anyone were to produce a compelling argument to change the figures we would do so. We clearly stated the methodology used. As it stands we don't believe that the purchasing parity issue is material to the argument, and we don't agree that the figures have been inflated. But we are happy to discuss.

 

[Tewder]

London's tourism has been growing since the 2008-9 recession. So has the UK's. So has Toronto's. So has the entire world. London's post 2009 growth isn't even that impressive by comparison to global trends and post 2012 growth simply looks good since the Olympics caused an actual downturn in tourism that summer. Moreover, what kind of unsophisticated rube would travel to London, the global capital of everything from fashion to art to business to, because of the Olympics? This is just stupid.

You can gloss over the facts all you like but London since the games has become the number one most visited city... on earth. They didn't just wave a wand, say 'voila' and it happened magically. London has achieved this by investing in itself consistently over the years, and the olympics is just one instance of this.

... and you'd be surprised why people are visiting London these days. It's not for mushy peas and a visit to the Tower or Big Ben anymore. It's because London has been forging through an international modern identity for itself, one as a world capital of music, fashion and culture. The olympics were a powerful way to message this to the world, a tool for branding. If you think it was just a big expensive party for the heck of it you're naive.

And every single derelict part of London has been regenerated.

Nonsense. This area was a massive derelict tract of land in central London, not just anywhere. The billions required for revitalization (basic infrastructure alone) are what was preventing development here. The games were leveraged for the financial justification and the political impetus. This area will now become London's third major business node, and it is shifting central London eastward.

Westham?!?!!

The stadium will have a life beyond the games, it is not the white elephant that the anti-progress Olympic nimbys insist it would be. The specifics of the deal are irrelevant to the opportunity the games provided.

SSE isn't the best use of money since our politicians can't be trusted to make informed spending decisions. Therefore, lets entrust our politicians to throw a multi-billion dollar party overseen by an organization plagued by accusations of corruption and kickbacks.

Riiiiight, so we do nothing then. That's truly brilliant. I'd rather have a tri-level government organization overseeing this and working with Waterfront Toronto to effect change and progress than sit back on our hands in gridlock just because you have trust issues. Oversight by upper levels of government will make sure we don't end up with a subway to some Toronto politician's backyard.