Maggie
Active Member
Yep, you could rent the ACC for $15,000 for 3 hours of ice timehttp://www.theaircanadacentre.com/venuerentals/FullVenueRentals.asp
|
|
|
Yep, you could rent the ACC for $15,000 for 3 hours of ice timehttp://www.theaircanadacentre.com/venuerentals/FullVenueRentals.asp
299 bloor call control.
Senior Member
The meeting ran from 9:30-4:30... it would have been more expensive at the ACC.
They could have rented my apartment and just paid my rent for the month.
They could have rented my apartment and just paid my rent for the month.
GraphicMatt
Looking forward to a FRESH START for Toronto
It'd be incredibly easy to break even on, really - just charge riders more. This is what private companies like Westjet do.
The difference is that public transit operates as a public service. It exists (at least in part) to provide mobility to those who would otherwise be unable to afford it.
Good news on the streetcars, though!
Last edited:
rbt
Senior Member
"The Metro Toronto Convention Centre (MTCC) is a Crown Corporation of the Province of Ontario. The creation of MTCC was a joint venture between the Federal Government of Canada, the Province of Ontario and the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, and its construction was intended to help increase tourism revenue to the City and Province."
http://www.mtccc.com/corporateinfo/corporatehistory.cfm
In short, the $20,000 is an accounting manoeuvrer only. Taking government money out of the right pocket and putting it into the left pocket.
Aside from that, it's in line with and possibly cheaper than what a downtown hotel (Hilton) charges for a similar sized event including catering, security (strikers could have crashed the party), recording equipment (transparency, accountability, etc.), late booking notice (1 days notice, maybe less?), etc.
nfitz
Superstar
With 30,000 workers on strike, $20,000 to move the meeting is a pittance. I'm not sure what the average city salary is, but the must be saving well over $3-million a day in salaries.
TOareaFan
Superstar
Even if you could....you couldn't...the ACC has been closed since June 16th while they do multi-million dollar interior renovations. The last show at the "old ACC" (lol) was No Doubt.
golodhendil
Active Member
(mods: move the discussion to another thread if you feel this is getting OT, eg the idiosyncrasy thread)
Re: fare recovery and public transit profit
It really isn't a strange idea for public transit to be cost-effective and profitable. Many transit systems in the Asia Pacific (HK, Tokyo, Taipei, Singapore) don't only break even, but make hundred of millions of dollars (CAD) in profit, at fare prices that are very affordable by North American standards. In most cases, fare revenue constitutes 60% to well over 95% of the agencies' total revenue, and the fare revenue alone is already sufficient to cover all operating costs and derive profit, and that's not even counting revenue from ads and station retail rents. As well, many of these systems have an operating cost rate of 80 cents to $1 (CAD)/passenger, compared TTC's $2/passenger (which actually isn't too bad compared to other North American systems). A big problem is the bus network, as bus operations usually have much worse operating cost / passenger ratios and much harder to be cost effective, hence part of the push for more rail operations.
Now, I understand people will say this is North America and the situation is different, and urban areas simply aren't as dense to support such profitable service. In that case then, densify! The Yonge and Sheppard corridors have done a very good job with that, but it could still be done much better. As I have said in other threads before, TTC has much valuable land in the most urban areas of the city taken up by yards and bus terminals and open-cut ROW. Deck over Davisville, the existing yards, the future yard on Eglinton; build over the bus terminals. For the current extensions into York region, if land is already going to be expropriated for stations, expropriate slightly more so that a significant parcel can be put together for development (commerical or residential) above each of the stations. These will all be prime real estates with direct access to transit service right below/outside their doorsteps, and at the very least they will increase the amount of passengers close to subway lines who will use the system. Many of the Asian systems derive significant profit by developing real estate around or above their stations and yards, and the TTC could either sell the land / air rights, or partner up with private developers (by itself or perhaps through establishing some subsidiary entities) to build TODs along their rail lines. It's profitable, effective and enviromentally friendly. Toronto is one of the rare North American cities that have successfully spurred significant intensification along its metro lines, and there are plenty of opportunities to do better.
I don't disagree that public transit shouldn't be solely profit-oriented at all cost and price out the needy, but that is not an excuse to not put in some (not-even-that) innovative thinking and find ways to make the system more efficient, effective, take some load off the government and taxpayers and at the same time promote business and positive urban development.
Re: fare recovery and public transit profit
It really isn't a strange idea for public transit to be cost-effective and profitable. Many transit systems in the Asia Pacific (HK, Tokyo, Taipei, Singapore) don't only break even, but make hundred of millions of dollars (CAD) in profit, at fare prices that are very affordable by North American standards. In most cases, fare revenue constitutes 60% to well over 95% of the agencies' total revenue, and the fare revenue alone is already sufficient to cover all operating costs and derive profit, and that's not even counting revenue from ads and station retail rents. As well, many of these systems have an operating cost rate of 80 cents to $1 (CAD)/passenger, compared TTC's $2/passenger (which actually isn't too bad compared to other North American systems). A big problem is the bus network, as bus operations usually have much worse operating cost / passenger ratios and much harder to be cost effective, hence part of the push for more rail operations.
Now, I understand people will say this is North America and the situation is different, and urban areas simply aren't as dense to support such profitable service. In that case then, densify! The Yonge and Sheppard corridors have done a very good job with that, but it could still be done much better. As I have said in other threads before, TTC has much valuable land in the most urban areas of the city taken up by yards and bus terminals and open-cut ROW. Deck over Davisville, the existing yards, the future yard on Eglinton; build over the bus terminals. For the current extensions into York region, if land is already going to be expropriated for stations, expropriate slightly more so that a significant parcel can be put together for development (commerical or residential) above each of the stations. These will all be prime real estates with direct access to transit service right below/outside their doorsteps, and at the very least they will increase the amount of passengers close to subway lines who will use the system. Many of the Asian systems derive significant profit by developing real estate around or above their stations and yards, and the TTC could either sell the land / air rights, or partner up with private developers (by itself or perhaps through establishing some subsidiary entities) to build TODs along their rail lines. It's profitable, effective and enviromentally friendly. Toronto is one of the rare North American cities that have successfully spurred significant intensification along its metro lines, and there are plenty of opportunities to do better.
I don't disagree that public transit shouldn't be solely profit-oriented at all cost and price out the needy, but that is not an excuse to not put in some (not-even-that) innovative thinking and find ways to make the system more efficient, effective, take some load off the government and taxpayers and at the same time promote business and positive urban development.
andomano
Active Member
It is much easier for most Asian systems to break even or better due to crush loads such as below. Is that really desirable?
Second_in_pie
Senior Member
I was thinking this, but couldn't get a good picture to demonstrate how crazy it actually is. When you have people who's sole job is to cram commuters into subway cars, something's either going very well, or very, very wrong.It is much easier for most Asian systems to break even or better due to crush loads such as below. Is that really desirable?
Also, there's a lot of things that the TTC (as well as many other transit operators) could do to lower their operating costs and get closer to breaking even. Put LRT or higher capacity busses on busy bus routes, run subways driverless, have more subway lines so you can run them driverless, make developers to pay for your oh-so precious land, etc. It doesn't even need to happen, but it's definitely possible.
Last edited:
golodhendil
Active Member
The above picture does not happen in HK, Taipei or Singapore, but they still are profitable. So your point is moot.It is much easier for most Asian systems to break even or better due to crush loads such as below. Is that really desirable?
drum118
Superstar
OT: 4067 and 4137 collision of tanks
There was a collision today at Spadina and Queens Quay where 4067 was making a left turn and was ran into by 4137 going west.
4137 got the worse of it and will be out of action for some time. 4067 needs a new small sliding window as well a front skirt and some body work on the side.
It been said both drivers had the right of way leading to signal problems.
From the looks of the marks on the road, 4067 left the tracks.
A restaging of the event was try twice with switches malfuctioning. In the end, crews work on getting stwiches to work and the 2 cars left for the yard.
509 cars were going north to King on Spadina and then back to Bathurst. 510 were going south, then west to Bathurst and then back by King.
5:45, 509 4067 was the first car to return to Union and was heading southbound at the time. It was follow by a convoy of 509 and 510 coming south. 3 cars then short turn at the loop allowing us to be the first to get on to go north.
Every stop was packed as we head north and was at crush load by King. Driver skip stops until someone wanted off. He would tell riders wanting to get on that there was a string of cars behind him.
When we hit Spadina loop, everything was 7 or more minutes behind us.
When I hit Union before 4 pm, was told to go to Bay St and catch a shuttle. Shuttle bus my eye was my first thought considering I knew nothing was plan for the waterfront at this time and would be better off walking.
Walking was the right choice as I only saw 1 eastbound Orion VIIR at York in my walk.
As I head toward Simcoe Wavedeck, I could see a GMC sitting down the road in the distance. After leaving the wavedeck and head toward Ress deck, the bus was still there. As I past it at Robertson, there was no driver around and it was dead. I said if this one of the shuttle buses, it not anymore.
I could see flashing lights at Spadina and said an accident that cause of no service most likely.
I could see 2 streetcar sitting side by side as I near the intersection with the overhead truck in the westbound curve lane, Chief inspector behind the westbound car and a car facing west in front of the eastbound car.
As I pass the eastbound car, I noticed the skirt was missing.
I was told by the inspector that there was only 3 buses running for shuttle service. When I asked about the GMC, he said it was one of the 3 and a replacement was coming for it.
Never saw any shuttle buses in either direction for close to an hour. At the end, a number of other buses did show up as 510 and 509.
Comments by riders at both ends cannot be said about service or what was taking place. Even the car folks were up sit with buses stopping in the curb lane at Spadina to pickup riders.
3 more years until we will not have to worry about traffic for QQ.
I was talking to someone I know and is a transit advocate who said he found the light signal odd early in the day as he rode the 509.
Photo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-ZkpdD8y9k
Video's to follow
There was a collision today at Spadina and Queens Quay where 4067 was making a left turn and was ran into by 4137 going west.
4137 got the worse of it and will be out of action for some time. 4067 needs a new small sliding window as well a front skirt and some body work on the side.
It been said both drivers had the right of way leading to signal problems.
From the looks of the marks on the road, 4067 left the tracks.
A restaging of the event was try twice with switches malfuctioning. In the end, crews work on getting stwiches to work and the 2 cars left for the yard.
509 cars were going north to King on Spadina and then back to Bathurst. 510 were going south, then west to Bathurst and then back by King.
5:45, 509 4067 was the first car to return to Union and was heading southbound at the time. It was follow by a convoy of 509 and 510 coming south. 3 cars then short turn at the loop allowing us to be the first to get on to go north.
Every stop was packed as we head north and was at crush load by King. Driver skip stops until someone wanted off. He would tell riders wanting to get on that there was a string of cars behind him.
When we hit Spadina loop, everything was 7 or more minutes behind us.
When I hit Union before 4 pm, was told to go to Bay St and catch a shuttle. Shuttle bus my eye was my first thought considering I knew nothing was plan for the waterfront at this time and would be better off walking.
Walking was the right choice as I only saw 1 eastbound Orion VIIR at York in my walk.
As I head toward Simcoe Wavedeck, I could see a GMC sitting down the road in the distance. After leaving the wavedeck and head toward Ress deck, the bus was still there. As I past it at Robertson, there was no driver around and it was dead. I said if this one of the shuttle buses, it not anymore.
I could see flashing lights at Spadina and said an accident that cause of no service most likely.
I could see 2 streetcar sitting side by side as I near the intersection with the overhead truck in the westbound curve lane, Chief inspector behind the westbound car and a car facing west in front of the eastbound car.
As I pass the eastbound car, I noticed the skirt was missing.
I was told by the inspector that there was only 3 buses running for shuttle service. When I asked about the GMC, he said it was one of the 3 and a replacement was coming for it.
Never saw any shuttle buses in either direction for close to an hour. At the end, a number of other buses did show up as 510 and 509.
Comments by riders at both ends cannot be said about service or what was taking place. Even the car folks were up sit with buses stopping in the curb lane at Spadina to pickup riders.
3 more years until we will not have to worry about traffic for QQ.
I was talking to someone I know and is a transit advocate who said he found the light signal odd early in the day as he rode the 509.
Photo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-ZkpdD8y9k
Video's to follow
EnviroTO
Senior Member
What is happening in three years?
299 bloor call control.
Senior Member
I've been hearing the figure is closer to $6-million daily.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
My big concern with this doubling of TTC spending on the streetcars is where the money is going to come from. I would wager that it may well be from subway projects.
To give you an idea of the magnitude of cuts that would be required to bring the TTC to profitability, I did a little bit of back-of-envelope math with the operating budget.
The TTC spends $978,846,000 (75% of its total budget of $1,304,902,000) on operating employees. The proposed subsidy for 2009 is $369,292,000.
Those costs work out to an average annual employment cost per employee of $90,499. To get the TTC to profitability without eliminating any positions would require a cut in the average employment cost to $56,356. This is obviously a pretty massive cut.
To give you an idea of the magnitude of cuts that would be required to bring the TTC to profitability, I did a little bit of back-of-envelope math with the operating budget.
The TTC spends $978,846,000 (75% of its total budget of $1,304,902,000) on operating employees. The proposed subsidy for 2009 is $369,292,000.
Those costs work out to an average annual employment cost per employee of $90,499. To get the TTC to profitability without eliminating any positions would require a cut in the average employment cost to $56,356. This is obviously a pretty massive cut.
DavidH
Senior Member
The City has already identified the sources of the money.
Realistically, though, there may be a shell game going on here:
1) TTC defers projects to pay for streetcars
2) City identifies infrastructure projects that can be accelerated and paid for with federal funding
3) Monies saved from #2 pay to "undefer" TTC projects.