|
|
|
- Thread starter Monarch Butterfly
- Start date
waterloowarrior
Senior Member
Too bad Islington didn't work out with SNC Lavalin
299 bloor call control.
Senior Member
Oversimplifying, as usual.
The TTC is indeed in the process of identifying and trying to sell air rights above their stations. Eglinton Station is one example. They could move and become developer and landlord as well, but should the TTC really shift that far away from their core business (and given mandate), which is to move people? The MTR operates in a completely different framework, being a partially private corporation.
The key fault in your logic, that selling air rights will reduce or eliminate government subsidies is you're comparing land value and development pressures in Hong Kong compared to that in Toronto. Land value in Hong Kong is many many many times higher than that in Toronto, and land use allowances are a lot more liberal. So not only does the MTR reap the value of the land, they can build a whole lot more on it. Eglinton Station is probably the most valuable of TTC land right now, and even that is probably only a small fraction of what a plot of land in Hong Kong is worth. And even if something is developed, it's very unlikely the return will be high - it's unlikely anything greater in scale than Minto Midtown will be allowed.
Disparishun
Active Member
Really, though?
They did not do this for the Sheppard line.
Are they doing this for the new stations that are on the boards for the Yonge extension?
Are they doing it for the new stations on the boards for the Spadina station?
Are they doing it for the new interchange stations that will result from any of Transfer City?
I do not follow your logic.
Are you simply saying that the net gain for air rights above TTC stations is smaller than the net gain for similar rights about HK stations? (This seems obvious.)
Or are you arguing that, for certain TTC stations, selling the air rights would not be a net gain for the TTC? (This seems hard to believe.)
RedRocket191
Senior Member
In a word, yes.
The comprehensive study began last year or so and will likely be executed once the TEDCO split is complete and BuildTO is organized.
wyliepoon
Senior Member
In a way, the TTC is already in the real estate business by renting out shops at some subway stations (Islington, Warden, Eglinton, Bathurst and Finch are some that come to mind). Unfortunately much of the retail isn't very attractive (the most attractive being the Tim Hortons at Finch Station), and many being of the thrift shop, truck stop-cafe variety. I think one way that TTC could improve on this is by renovating existing retail spaces to attract better tenants, and to develop mini-PATH systems (or extensions of PATH) at major stations that would include more retail units, while at the same time creating more extensive pedestrian tunnel networks that would allow one station to cover a much greater network than it has now.
*****
299's words of caution are quite valid. Not only is the real estate situation in HK much different from Toronto, the transit situation is also very different from Toronto. MTR operates a small network (relative to other major world cities) on the strips of land between the mountain and the sea (north Hong Kong Island and the Kowloon Peninsula) where much of the city is developed. HK also has a much different commuting pattern from Toronto- whereas most GTA commuters use transit just to get to and from work/school every weekday and then for nothing else, in HK many people do not head home right after work or school - they go out to eat, go shopping, hang out with friends in the evening (where most stores stay open up to 10pm or later), and they need transit to get around. Same deal on weekends. It is not surprising that MTR subway trains are usually still packed at 10pm on weeknights and all weekend.
The MTR literally sits on a cash cow that allows it to operate with minimal subsidies even if it does not develop real estate.
Other points of difference between the MTR and the TTC:
- It has the Octopus Card smart card which allows it to easily change its distance-based fare structure for more profit (and sometimes even allows it to secretly add surcharges to fares - its platform screen doors installation program was funded by a surcharge on the Octopus Card that most passengers didn't know about until the installation was complete)
- Except for a small network of feeder buses (and aside from a suburban LRT system), the MTR does not operate an extensive surface vehicle network like the TTC
- The MTR is a publicly-traded company after privatization (with the HK government being the controlling shareholder).
- In recent years other cities have contracted out subway operations services to the MTR, including Beijing, Shenzhen, Shanghai, Hangzhou in China, the London Overground and soon, the Stockholm Metro (and in the future, the Mumbai Metro). MTR was a failed bidder to build-operate Vancouver's Canada Line. I'm sure that if Toronto contracts out its subway service, the MTR would be one of the bidders.
*****
299's words of caution are quite valid. Not only is the real estate situation in HK much different from Toronto, the transit situation is also very different from Toronto. MTR operates a small network (relative to other major world cities) on the strips of land between the mountain and the sea (north Hong Kong Island and the Kowloon Peninsula) where much of the city is developed. HK also has a much different commuting pattern from Toronto- whereas most GTA commuters use transit just to get to and from work/school every weekday and then for nothing else, in HK many people do not head home right after work or school - they go out to eat, go shopping, hang out with friends in the evening (where most stores stay open up to 10pm or later), and they need transit to get around. Same deal on weekends. It is not surprising that MTR subway trains are usually still packed at 10pm on weeknights and all weekend.
The MTR literally sits on a cash cow that allows it to operate with minimal subsidies even if it does not develop real estate.
Other points of difference between the MTR and the TTC:
- It has the Octopus Card smart card which allows it to easily change its distance-based fare structure for more profit (and sometimes even allows it to secretly add surcharges to fares - its platform screen doors installation program was funded by a surcharge on the Octopus Card that most passengers didn't know about until the installation was complete)
- Except for a small network of feeder buses (and aside from a suburban LRT system), the MTR does not operate an extensive surface vehicle network like the TTC
- The MTR is a publicly-traded company after privatization (with the HK government being the controlling shareholder).
- In recent years other cities have contracted out subway operations services to the MTR, including Beijing, Shenzhen, Shanghai, Hangzhou in China, the London Overground and soon, the Stockholm Metro (and in the future, the Mumbai Metro). MTR was a failed bidder to build-operate Vancouver's Canada Line. I'm sure that if Toronto contracts out its subway service, the MTR would be one of the bidders.
Last edited:
jks
Continuous Lurker
If the TTC is to contract out anything (which I strongly oppose), it should deifinitely NOT be the subway. The surface routes are the ones that cause deficits.
Whoaccio
Senior Member
I can appreciate there are more than a few differences between Toronto and Hong Kong, but the basic premise remains more or less applicable. It would never lead to a subsidy free TTC by itself but it is still worthwhile to at least try. One of the recommendations of the TTC report on the "Madrid Miracle" was that they reduced costs of things like stations by integrating them into larger commercial developments. Though I don't know if their metro operator actually entered the real estate business itself or just partnered with private sector developers.
I'm not entirely sure the TTC is set up to deal with real estate in its current form though. It's general incompetence with things like this (200m$ Steeles Station? St. Clair ROW?) make me more than a bit antsy to trust it with branching out into new fields. It has already proved itself worthless in my eyes that the Eglinton bus terminal has been sitting vacant through our biggest housing boom in a while on relatively prime land for half a decade. Being a public corporation, it would also be subject to certain mandates on hiring policy, which would make it less competitive right off the bat. God only knows how Councilors would try to abuse a TTC real estate arm for political points.
This would need to happen as part of a much larger restructuring of the TTC. Maybe making the TTC a publicly traded corporation (with various governments owning a cumulative 51% of shares) would be a good idea, give it incentives to branch out more and do whatever it can to raise its value. Even aside from obvious advantages Hong Kong has, I think it is clear that the managerial skills of the MTR are far ahead of anything on this continent. It must partially be the result of the CEOs having to face angry shareholders every year.
I'm not entirely sure the TTC is set up to deal with real estate in its current form though. It's general incompetence with things like this (200m$ Steeles Station? St. Clair ROW?) make me more than a bit antsy to trust it with branching out into new fields. It has already proved itself worthless in my eyes that the Eglinton bus terminal has been sitting vacant through our biggest housing boom in a while on relatively prime land for half a decade. Being a public corporation, it would also be subject to certain mandates on hiring policy, which would make it less competitive right off the bat. God only knows how Councilors would try to abuse a TTC real estate arm for political points.
This would need to happen as part of a much larger restructuring of the TTC. Maybe making the TTC a publicly traded corporation (with various governments owning a cumulative 51% of shares) would be a good idea, give it incentives to branch out more and do whatever it can to raise its value. Even aside from obvious advantages Hong Kong has, I think it is clear that the managerial skills of the MTR are far ahead of anything on this continent. It must partially be the result of the CEOs having to face angry shareholders every year.