[TOareaFan]

If you are limiting your analysis to the TTC's balance sheet, then yes the carried cost versus today's build cost may be comparable. What matters more is how much economic benefit people derive as individuals and as a community from the subway. That's a much fuzzier analysis, but I would speculate that the property tax and business tax revenue from the increased development of the Harris era subway project would bring things close to break even by now.

Re not having the money then - does anyone believe we have it now?

- Paul

I wasn't proposing limiting anything.....but it is far to easy (as some do) to think along the lines of "we could have built a subway along Eglinton in the 90's for $X ...but we cancelled it...now we are building ECLRT for so much more"...ignoring such things as the cost of borrowing that money over the last 20 years and the clear fact that the subway in the 90s was no where near the length of the current ECLRT contstruction......it is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison and people default to easily to a simplistic statement.

and the fact that our current governments are willing to pile on debt does not, in itself, mean that it would have been wrong to do it in the 90s

 

[crs1026]

the clear fact that the subway in the 90s was no where near the length of the current ECLRT contstruction

This is a very big point. A 90's subway would not have broken the back of our accumulated deficit today - but - an Eglinton subway that is length constrained (similar to Sheppard) is would not have been enough of a development/economic driver to make anyone glad it happened.

The lesson (as usual, we're drifting off topic) is that every line we build needs to be long enough to do the full job. TYSSE is long enough, and not one stop less would do. Just need to make good use of it up in the north.

- Paul

 

[salsa]

Today I was getting a ride from someone. We were on Steeles and as we drove past Pioneer Village station, the driver asks me "what is this rusty building for?". I told him that it's one of the new subway stations, and he was almost in disbelief. "Why is it so ugly"? "Are you sure this won't be covered with something else when it's done?"

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2016/08/inside-ttcs-will-alsop-designed-pioneer-village-station



A lot of people will be having the same feelings. And to be honest, I'm also not too sure what to think. Especially over time if the surrounding surfaces start to look like this:

 

[BurlOak]

Today I was getting a ride from someone. We were on Steeles and as we drove past Pioneer Village station, the driver asks me "what is this rusty building for?". I told him that it's one of the new subway stations, and he was almost in disbelief. "Why is it so ugly"? "Are you sure this won't be covered with something else when it's done?"

And to think of the ugly cost premium that we paid.

That's a common problem on bridge piers and abutments. Especially before the deck is cast, water takes the rust and the rust coloured run-off gets on everything. (They now have drip details to force the water to drip down before reaching the face of pier or abutment).

 

[Voltz]

I still say it looks like something from the Flintstones

 

[TOareaFan]

I still say it looks like something from the Flintstones

I have been saying that too since the design was released.....really think they should have held this design back until the extension to Wonderland opens and it could be a homage to Hanna Barbera Land

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Today I was getting a ride from someone. We were on Steeles and as we drove past Pioneer Village station, the driver asks me "what is this rusty building for?". I told him that it's one of the new subway stations, and he was almost in disbelief. "Why is it so ugly"? "Are you sure this won't be covered with something else when it's done?"


View attachment 91033
http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2016/08/inside-ttcs-will-alsop-designed-pioneer-village-station



A lot of people will be having the same feelings. And to be honest, I'm also not too sure what to think. Especially over time if the surrounding surfaces start to look like this:

View attachment 91026

It's rare that good architecture is not polarizing.

 

[lead82]

It will have an antique charm to it, like its namesake village.

 

[PMT]

York University. Taken November 5:

Sidewalk & landscaping work:

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I would love to see your work on that....how much was saved over the last 20 years ....intitial capital cost, operating costs and debt service on the capital borrowing {as the reason it was chopped was we did not actually have the money} versus cost today for the portion of crosstown that runs from Eglinton West to Renforth......I am not saying your wrong but I would think it might be closer than most gut instincts think.

It's not just the capital costs, as I said above (though it's clearly way more per/km now). Can you calculate, for example, what development would have taken place along Eglinton had the subway opened 15 years ago? what development charges were never collected? What property taxes were redistributed elsewhere, maybe even to the 905? How many jobs were similarly redistributed? The productivity effects of not having rapid transit in that corridor?

(Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "we did not actually have the money." We (Ontario) had enough money to give everyone in the province a $200 cheque, for starters. And for an across-the-board massive income tax cut. It was a political choice, not a financial reality. Public transit is an investment, not an expense. They chose not to invest in it.)

There are so many ripple effects from infrastructure of that level...I think it would be shocking if, assuming you could calculate everything, it didn't turn out there was a huge net loss to Toronto, essentially being forced to build the same project that was literally under construction, 20 years later. (It's not a parallel but it is on-thread: imagine the costs of developing VMC in 1996 vs 2016. It would be a very different world, in all sorts of ways, if the subway set to open next year had somehow opened 20 years ago, even if somehow interest rates etc off-set other capital costs.)

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

I like the look of the york university sation better then the Steels West station (Sorry Pioneer Village station is just ridiculous its;' too far from it and can't be seen, at least with Museum and Since Centre you can see the buildings they are named for from the station.)

 

[TOareaFan]

It's not just the capital costs, as I said above (though it's clearly way more per/km now). Can you calculate, for example, what development would have taken place along Eglinton had the subway opened 15 years ago? what development charges were never collected? What property taxes were redistributed elsewhere, maybe even to the 905? How many jobs were similarly redistributed? The productivity effects of not having rapid transit in that corridor?

(Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "we did not actually have the money." We (Ontario) had enough money to give everyone in the province a $200 cheque, for starters. And for an across-the-board massive income tax cut. It was a political choice, not a financial reality. Public transit is an investment, not an expense. They chose not to invest in it.)

There are so many ripple effects from infrastructure of that level...I think it would be shocking if, assuming you could calculate everything, it didn't turn out there was a huge net loss to Toronto, essentially being forced to build the same project that was literally under construction, 20 years later. (It's not a parallel but it is on-thread: imagine the costs of developing VMC in 1996 vs 2016. It would be a very different world, in all sorts of ways, if the subway set to open next year had somehow opened 20 years ago, even if somehow interest rates etc off-set other capital costs.)

Precisely my point.....none of us can calculate all of those things....we just can't....so you can't possibly just assume that the so called "fiscal conservatism" that was used cost us money....also can't say with any certainty that it saved money....go back to my original post, i was just questioning the certainty some have when critiquing "fiscal conservatives"

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I see what you're saying. We can't be certain about any alternate futures but I think, looking at what's happened with infrastructure and development in Toronto in the past 20 years, that it is extremely likely that Mike Harris's short-sighted decision to can a subway that we are now building anyway, a generation later, "saved money," in any fair assessment. There's no question that borrowing rates are lower now and that he certainly lopped major short-term expenses off in his first few years of governing, but I think it cost us a lot more than we'll ever know. I can't prove it but I look at our general lack of transit investment since that era, our explosive population growth (still greater in the 905 than the core; though both are impressive), our increasing "gridlock" etc. and draw my conclusion based on that.

Maybe there's no point bashing "fiscal conservatives," in general but at least in this example, I think we see a decision that superficially saves money in the short term, while costing us in the long-term. I don't think it's unique, in that sense; SOME "fiscal conservatives" see all public investment as wasteful spending (that was definitely a pillar of the Common Sense Revolution), but we can pick our battles.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

I wonder if people at the time considered the SkyDome as a waste of money.

Today, the SkyDome is used in my economics lectures as an example of the multiplier effect infrastructure investment has on the economy.

 

[rbt]

I wonder if people at the time considered the SkyDome as a waste of money.

If you tell them it cost $500M to construct and was sold 15 years later for $50M (hotel + stadium) most people would say it was a waste of government money now too.

However, when you look at the finances of about 70% of households, it's pretty clear very few people look more than 5 minutes ahead or at consequences.