[Euphoria]

"It's amazing that they were able to pull that off without the Olympics"

I agree, but an Olympics would likely force the issue on a number of projects that we've thought about for a long time but couldn't muster the energy to support.

 

[SunriseChampion]

As much as I'd like to see the Olympics here for my own reasons, I think the idea of the Olympics as a means to an end is somewhat sad. It's sort of like extorting a kid into doing chores by making promises of material or financial reward.
The only reason we need to build this city up as quickly and as well as possible is Toronto's potential.

PS: That Boston v Toronto bit was a cute change from the usual Chicago v Toronto bickering around here.

 

[animatronic]

Also note that the distance between Eglinton and Allen and Front and Spadina is under 9 km. Look, do I think the entire capital cost of DRL gets paid for this way? Maybe not, but surely it will cover a sizeable portion, probably the lion's share. What's more, you get an underground expressway out of the deal that, if integrated properly, can eventually replace the Gardner.

Tolls would come nowhere close to covering the cost of a two-storey buried highway, let alone a highway plus a pair of subway tunnels. There would be almost zero cost synergies so you'd be digging almost 30km of tunnels (one massive highway and two subways) and trying to pay for it with a couple of bucks in tolls. You'd recovery maybe 5-10% of the cost at best

There is no free money for infrastructure. Tolls and P3 only offset/defer part of the cost. Tax increment financing is a fantasy. Olympic operating revenues don't even cover the cost of operations, so there is no contribution to infrastructure. Massive public works have to be financed by taking on debt that is paid out of general tax revenues because there is no other source of funds. And that is why the Olympics are a shell game. In the end you are still paying for your own infrastructure out of your own tax dollars, except you've also flushed a couple of billion dollars down the drain on things like security and logistics. No amount of air pistol and dressage is going to help.

 

[Euphoria]

No, you would need two tunnels of about 9k each, one tunnel for the subway, another for the expressway. The boring device used for the A86 allowed for the dimensions shown below. Look, I'm not a civil engineer, but I think there might be something we can do here. Remember, the tolls on this system would be very expensive and I believe there would be a market for this option. Again, the toll highway doesn't replace any existing highway. It's an additional north-south route from Allen and Eglinton to about Front and Spadina. Yes, you also need exit ramps, and if eventually you want a replacement for the Gardner, you're going to need to connect with the western portion of the Gardner, probably along a Front St. extension west of Bathurst, perhaps running north under Niagara or Bathurst, and you would have to continue the tunnel to the DVP. Look, how do you expect to pay for anything? There are a few funding tools available: tolls, tax increment financing as land becomes available for development (for example, along land opened up by the removal of the Gardner), spectacles that provide private media coverage sponsorship such as the Olympics, or general tax revenues. The worst option, the one that doesn't include tolls or an Olympics, is the one that draws entirely on general tax revenues (bonds are the same as general tax revenues, but with interest). Within that worst category there are worse subcategories, i.e. the city picking up the entire bill! Look, we want use as much private financing as possible. Also, if we're going to draw from any tax revenues, let's try to share the funding with the province and the Feds. The problem is that the higher levels of government aren't always on board with what the city wants. We have a better chance of leveraging funding from higher levels of government through something like an Olympics, because our athletes represent regions across the country, obviously. Also, we want the fucking party, alright. Only a complete nihilist, bean-counting, joyless drone found nothing to celebrate in the Pan Am Games, and the same type of character will hate an Olympics.

 

[animatronic]

No, you would need two tunnels of about 9k each, one tunnel for the subway, another for the expressway. The boring device used for the A86 allowed for the dimensions shown below. Look, I'm not a civil engineer, but I think there might be something we can do here. Remember, the tolls on this system would be very expensive and I believe there would be a market for this option. Again, the toll highway doesn't replace any existing highway. It's an additional north-south route from Allen and Eglinton to about Front and Spadina. Yes, you also need exit ramps, and if eventually you want a replacement for the Gardner, you're going to need to connect with the western portion of the Gardner, probably along a Front St. extension west of Bathurst, perhaps running north under Niagara or Bathurst, and you would have to continue the tunnel to the DVP. Look, how do you expect to pay for anything? There are a few funding tools available: tolls, tax increment financing as land becomes available for development (for example, along land opened up by the removal of the Gardner), spectacles that provide private media coverage sponsorship such as the Olympics, or general tax revenues. The worst option, the one that doesn't include tolls or an Olympics, is the one that draws entirely on general tax revenues (bonds are the same as general tax revenues, but with interest). Within that worst category there are worse subcategories, i.e. the city picking up the entire bill! Look, we want use as much private financing as possible. Also, if we're going to draw from any tax revenues, let's try to share the funding with the province and the Feds. The problem is that the higher levels of government aren't always on board with what the city wants. We have a better chance of leveraging funding from higher levels of government through something like an Olympics, because our athletes represent regions across the country, obviously. Also, we want the fucking party, alright. Only a complete nihilist, bean-counting, joyless drone found nothing to celebrate in the Pan Am Games, and the same type of character will hate an Olympics.

1. Subways need two tunnels
2. The Olympics are not a revenue source for infrastructure. Games revenues don't even cover games costs

Go get some sleep

 

[Euphoria]

How can you say the Olympics aren't a revenue source for infrastructure? That's absurd. Most of the Olympics budget is for infrastructure. It's one of the IOC's main selection criteria. There are many ways to do the tunneling. I'm sure a five-storey boring device leaves enough room for a few lanes of highway and one direction of subway, so two tunnels is sufficient. Good night.

 

[rbt]

1. Subways need two tunnels

They need space for 2 tracks.

Soil conditions in Toronto and our distaste for cracking adjacent foundations pretty much requires that those tracks are in separate tunnels.

A single large bore was considered for Eglinton due to a combination of the space between the buildings being insufficient and soil removal costs being much higher. I'm not aware of a written report on this but it was discussed briefly at some of the meetings.

 

[Tewder]

It's amazing that they were able to pull that off without the Olympics.

... and yet Paris is bidding on 2024! Not at all surprising really. It takes the same degree of long term vision to bury highways, add transit infrastructure consistently, maintain a beautiful public realm and build a tunnel under the English channel as it does to conceive of the benefits of an Olympics games.

There's a reason why city staff keeps rejecting the Gardiner tunnel alternative: $2.5 billion just for 1 km of tunnel with long ramps at both ends.

We know the reason(s): lack of vision, lack of political will, public apathy, political gridlock, blah, blah, blah.

It's easy to throw a $3billion number around and all gasp as we clutch our pearls. The real vision comes in assessing what an investment yields, short term and long term, and being willing to invest resources now for returns later. Unfortunately, this is not how our city works, as you so deftly demonstrate. We are a city that knows the cost of everything, down to the penny, yet the value of nothing.

As for Euphoria's fantasy scenarios? I'm certainly not qualified to judge. I trust we have people in the right positions that are. In the meantime I appreciate his ability to think big. Why beat up on him for that? Oh yeah, I forgot, this is Toronto... have at it.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

... It takes the same degree of long term vision to bury highways, add transit infrastructure consistently, maintain a beautiful public realm and build a tunnel under the English channel as it does to conceive of the benefits of an Olympics games.

...

The real vision comes in assessing what an investment yields, short term and long term, and being willing to invest resources now for returns later.

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/1997-12-21/a-money-pit-called-the-chunnel

My bolding, naturally. You kind of stepped into that one, Tewder. The investment yields on the Chunnel are so beyond negative it's insane. The 'investment yields' on an Olympics are also beyond negative into imaginary numbers.

Where are you going to put your billion-dollar track & field stadium so that the DRL gets built? Sunnybrook Park? Kick out OSC or Celestica? Or do we build a DRL that loops down into the Portlands, becomes a monorail, but then plunges into the harbour to be a cool underwater ride and not disturb the new jet flightpaths to Billy Bishop?

Contorting infrastructure in order to accommodate an Olympics somehow makes Toronto's usual eccentric transportation infrastructure decision-making seem rational.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/1997-12-21/a-money-pit-called-the-chunnel

My bolding, naturally. You kind of stepped into that one, Tewder. The investment yields on the Chunnel are so beyond negative it's insane. The 'investment yields' on an Olympics are also beyond negative into imaginary numbers.

You really could have done better than citing a story/book from 1997 - and besides, it's pretty easy to argue that benefit of connecting London to the broader European rail network far exceed the construction costs and operating loss of the Chunnel (which wouldn't have been that much of an issue if it was undertaken as a public venture with little expectation of capital cost recovery in the first place). It's another case of knowing the cost but not the value of everything - like this, perhaps?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2014/08/france-s-tgv

Not that I would seriously argue that example was anything but a success story by my criteria.

AoD

 

[Tewder]

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/1997-12-21/a-money-pit-called-the-chunnel

My bolding, naturally. You kind of stepped into that one, Tewder. The investment yields on the Chunnel are so beyond negative it's insane. The 'investment yields' on an Olympics are also beyond negative into imaginary numbers.

I agree with AoD. Long term thinking and infrastructure planning means looking beyond the next quarter. Expecting short term returns is exactly what our 'what's in it for me' 'instant gratification' society demands. Lord help us.

Where are you going to put your billion-dollar track & field stadium so that the DRL gets built? Sunnybrook Park? Kick out OSC or Celestica? Or do we build a DRL that loops down into the Portlands, becomes a monorail, but then plunges into the harbour to be a cool underwater ride and not disturb the new jet flightpaths to Billy Bishop?

Contorting infrastructure in order to accommodate an Olympics somehow makes Toronto's usual eccentric transportation infrastructure decision-making seem rational.

Well let's see a plan? I'm not a transit planner. As far as I can determine there would be two governing objectives:
1. Accessibility to a new Portlands district and games facilities
2. Relieving wider gridlock and keeping the city and region moving during the games

The transit ideals for achieving these two objectives may involve a combination of different modes of transit. Great!

The monorail plunge into the harbour would be pretty durn cool though.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

You really could have done better than citing a story/book from 1997 - and besides, it's pretty easy to argue that benefit of connecting London to the broader European rail network far exceed the construction costs and operating loss of the Chunnel (which wouldn't have been that much of an issue if it was undertaken as a public venture with little expectation of capital cost recovery). It's another case of knowing the cost but not the value of everything - like this, perhaps?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2014/08/france-s-tgv

Not that I would seriously argue that example was anything but a success story by my criteria.

AoD

Seriously, y'all want me to start researching posts on a forum to a higher standard, y'all need to start calling out Euphoria's laughing-gas induced plans as well. Until then, I'll cite stuff from the first page of a quick Google search...

I'm a big fan of the TGV. Gets me from Roissy directly to the in-law's house in Britanny in a respectable timeframe (when the schedules didn't match up and we had to drag kids and luggage through the Metro to Montparnasse... not as good.) I'm happy the A86 has been connected so that the Boul Periph is not quite as big a nightmare as it used to be. And we're straying a long way from my original point of contention with a Toronto Olympics (my fault more than most, I know), but France's building a toll road or the TGV is actually the kind of project I'd like to see happen in Toronto: a long debate about the merits of infrastructure, the agreeing on a plan, the building of a toll road or subway or an LRT without the bullshit interference of our political class. To hook the infrastructure to an Olympics bid -- or, in Tewder's case, specifically bid for an Olympics so that you can get infrastructure 'thrown in' - is the Bizzaro world part of this debate for me.

I'm happy that the Eglinton Crosstown is actually being built, and that York will finally get a subway stop. Neither of those things needed an Olympics to do.

 

[Tewder]

Seriously, y'all want me to start researching posts on a forum to a higher standard, y'all need to start calling out Euphoria's laughing-gas induced plans as well. Until then, I'll cite stuff from the first page of a quick Google search...

I'm a big fan of the TGV. Gets me from Roissy directly to the in-law's house in Britanny in a respectable timeframe (when the schedules didn't match up and we had to drag kids and luggage through the Metro to Montparnasse... not as good.) I'm happy the A86 has been connected so that the Boul Periph is not quite as big a nightmare as it used to be. And we're straying a long way from my original point of contention with a Toronto Olympics (my fault more than most, I know), but France's building a toll road or the TGV is actually the kind of project I'd like to see happen in Toronto: a long debate about the merits of infrastructure, the agreeing on a plan, the building of a toll road or subway or an LRT without the bullshit interference of our political class. To hook the infrastructure to an Olympics bid -- or, in Tewder's case, specifically bid for an Olympics so that you can get infrastructure 'thrown in' - is the Bizzaro world part of this debate for me.

I'm happy that the Eglinton Crosstown is actually being built, and that York will finally get a subway stop. Neither of those things needed an Olympics to do.

My point Riverdale is that it takes the same 'high order' thinking to leverage an olympics games as it does to be as prolific and invested in long term transit infrastructure as France is... they are bidding on the same olympics as us for god's sake!! Yeah sure, I wish our council, provincial and federal governments practised this type of thinking, had a history of it or showed signs of it, but they don't.

Now you can be smugly satisfied that we've achieved a crosstown line on Eglinton, and claim it a victory for the merits of our approach to transit planning and funding but you are sorely missing the point. Y'all is grossly out of touch with the needs in this city, the gap between what we have achieved and where we need to be.

 

[NoTO2024]

There's been a lot of discussion about the revenue creating potential of an Olympics. Here's a chart of what 2024 would look like, based on London's experience. as you can see the direct games revenues don't even come close to recovering operating revenues, let alone subsidize infrastructure. In the end it's all about the tax dollars. Note that in London about 2/3 came from the National government, 23% from the national lottery and 10% from the city. More details are at www.noto2024.ca.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

My point Riverdale is that it takes the same 'high order' thinking to leverage an olympics games as it does to be as prolific and invested in long term transit infrastructure as France is... they are bidding on the same olympics as us for god's sake!! Yeah sure, I wish our council, provincial and federal governments practised this type of thinking, had a history of it or showed signs of it, but they don't.

Now you can be smugly satisfied that we've achieved a crosstown line on Eglinton, and claim it a victory for the merits of our approach to transit planning and funding but you are sorely missing the point. Y'all is grossly out of touch with the needs in this city, the gap between what we have achieved and where we need to be.

Oh, hush. I'm not 'smugly satisfied', I'm just pointing out the fact that we're currently building two hugely expensive higher-order transit lines in parts of the city that need them. That's a fact, despite neither project being attached to some other aim or goal or fantasy. The point was -- and is -- that bidding for an Olympics and building infrastructure are two different conversations. You're conflating them for your own purposes. There's nothing particularly 'higher order' about spending money on an Olympics, even if you want there to be.

And right back at'cha, Tewds. IMHO, y'all are grossly out of touch with the needs of this city and the great strides in a very short period of time that have been made in the part of town I particularly love, Riverdale, and the downtown east and east end. Olympic advocates are starry-eyed about putting a billion-dollar Olympic track & field stadium smack dab in the middle of WT's flood plain and calling that progress. I believe it's the worst possible thing, from a cost and waste of resources point of view, that can be done in the Portlands. We have the opportunity to continue the great work of WT in knitting back together my part of the city (despite council caving to the car people on the Gardiner.) There's no need for an Olympics from a city building point of view. That city is already being built.

There's been a lot of discussion about the revenue creating potential of an Olympics. Here's a chart of what 2024 would look like, based on London's experience. as you can see the direct games revenues don't even come close to recovering operating revenues, let alone subsidize infrastructure. In the end it's all about the tax dollars. Note that in London about 2/3 came from the National government, 23% from the national lottery and 10% from the city. More details are at www.noto2024.ca.

Welcome to the debate NoTO2024! It's an extended and fulsome one here at UT. I, for one, will appreciate your input.