King-Victoria Transit Hub

[tomh009]

When 95% of the population was needed for the labour of creating food to sustain itself, it had most people employed, as they were needed, and we had no choice but to obtain what they generated (our food). Then farming became less labour intensive, and much of that population shifted into assembly lines, with us absorbing the products we made, the remaining farmers getting enough to still get by and take part in commerce. Now, with automation, and on a national level with outsourcing, we haven't found a way to employ the freed up labour that used to be needed for the tasks we have automated or outsourced. Those employed in automated labour, or the outsourced workers, haven't had the money, or the desire to spend it, in such a way that a new job is available for the freed up labour to fill. Nor have the things which we have automated the production of become so cheap as to free up enough disposable income of the buyers of those products to let them buy (and create demand and jobs for) new industries and things.

If you examine the original industrial revolution and migration to the cities in the 1800s; the rise of the assembly lines in the early 1900s; and computerization and the onset of automation in the late 1900s, you will find each time there have been convulsions, and some people have suffered while others have prospered.  And yet, here we are in 2015, with an unemployment rate of well below 10%, and a far higher labour force participation rate than 100 years ago.

Things are changing, manufacturing jobs are disappearing etc.  And yet there is no evidence that we are on the precipice of mass unemployment.  Each time in the past, the society has adjusted (with some pains, to be sure) and found new ways of employing people.  Without evidence, I'm not convinced that this time will be any different.

[zanate]

Things are changing, manufacturing jobs are disappearing etc.  And yet there is no evidence that we are on the precipice of mass unemployment.  Each time in the past, the society has adjusted (with some pains, to be sure) and found new ways of employing people.  Without evidence, I'm not convinced that this time will be any different.

Sorry for the tangent...

This may not be sufficient evidence for you (to be fair, it's not sufficient to convince me on its own, either). But it is persuasive, and describes the mechanisms in play which back the case for why this time might be different.

[tomh009]

Yes, it might be. Past is not a completely valid predictor of the future. I agree there is some risk, yet I'm not convinced it's a given that disaster is just around the corner.

At least not before I'm dead and buried.

[numberguy]

Is it an understood maxim that economic growth #measured by GDP, I presume?# is tied to population growth? It would seem to me that rising wages, or rising efficiency #increased automation#, or lower cost of debt #spurring an increase in expenditures# would also move that number up#

That being said, I'm not sure economic growth should be the only goal# I would be okay with stagnant GDP #in #url=https://en#wikipedia#org/wiki/Real_versus_nominal_value_%28economics%29#real#/url# terms, to keep this statement slightly less controversial# if it meant an increase in the social safety net, better ecological protection, and all those other hard-to-measure non-monetary factors in standard of living# With those at acceptable levels, we can then reach out and help other nations#

Yes, GDP is GENERALLY (not always) associated with population growth.   Why?  
A)  More people = more people with jobs or at least looking for work.  More workers = more wages = more GDP, usually
B)  Demographics.   This one has bitten Japan in the arse.   As one's population declines and ages, the amount of workers supporting non-workers decreases.   If one has a young population, one doesn't have as many health and retiree costs (say 7 workers to support 1 retiree).   With an older population, you get less workers paying for more health and retiree costs (say 3 workers to support 1 retiree)

Canada has been horrible for efficiency, one of the alternate growth avenues you mention.   Mexico and the US are killing us in terms of relative efficiency.   Look at automotive plant investment over the past 5 years and it makes you wonder if Canada will become like Australia (no cars manufactured there at all).

Our cost of debt (interest rates) is at historic lows.   That leaves that out as an avenue for growth.  To finance a larger social safety net, where does the additional revenue come from as our population ages?

For the intermodal hub, the question remains:   where will the money come from?   A private developer?   If so, what is in it for them?   How do we attract such a partner without being gouged a la the 407 (as an extreme example)

[numberguy]

Sorry for the tangent...

This may not be sufficient evidence for you (to be fair, it's not sufficient to convince me on its own, either). But it is persuasive, and describes the mechanisms in play which back the case for why this time might be different.

Counterpoint:
https://hbr.org/2015/06/robots-seem-to-b...sting-jobs

https://hbr.org/resources/images/article..._SOFAR.png

Between 1996 and 2012, there was no relationship between manufacturing jobs lost and a country's use of robots.

[tomh009]

For the intermodal hub, the question remains:   where will the money come from?   A private developer?   If so, what is in it for them?   How do we attract such a partner without being gouged a la the 407 (as an extreme example)

It's a different venture than something like 407, where users pay tolls.

But the simplest approach for this would be for the region to lease the land to the private company for X years (20? 50? 100?), with the developer in turn providing space for the station operations.  The money they make on retail, office or residential space would be the private company's, and that would be the reason for the company to be involved.

Keep it simple and there are far fewer opportunities to make a bad deal by mistake.

[numberguy]

For the intermodal hub, the question remains:   where will the money come from?   A private developer?   If so, what is in it for them?   How do we attract such a partner without being gouged a la the 407 (as an extreme example)

It's a different venture than something like 407, where users pay tolls.

But the simplest approach for this would be for the region to lease the land to the private company for X years (20? 50? 100?), with the developer in turn providing space for the station operations.  The money they make on retail, office or residential space would be the private company's, and that would be the reason for the company to be involved.

Keep it simple and there are far fewer opportunities to make a bad deal by mistake.

The comparison with the 407 is that it was built as a piece of public infrastructure but its revenue stream goes to the (mostly) private bondholders and owners. That's the danger with using private funds to finance public works: does the public end up getting gouged? For all intents and purposes, the project is risk free (no beta) as it is backstopped by the taxpayer. And yet, all the profit goes to the private investor.

Combine that with any sort of service that is a natural monopoly (IE, electrical power transmission) or with a massive barrier to entrance (mega project highways) and you end up with a formula for private profit on the back of the public taxpayer.

I would love to see any lease proposal and the ROI calculations for any such proposal.

[tomh009]

The ROI is pretty good if the region does not need to spend any money on construction, and receives lease payments as well as transit centre space.

And in this scenario there is really no risk of the public "being gouged" as the transit operations would be run by the region, the developer would just provide space for them. The region would receive transit facilities at zero construction cost, and also receive lease payments on the land.

The developer would have an opportunity to build residential, retail and office space, and make money from those. No monopolies or barriers to entry on those, other developers could do the same on other parcels of land.

[MacBerry]

The ROI is pretty good if the region does not need to spend any money on construction, and receives lease payments as well as transit centre space.

And in this scenario there is really no risk of the public "being gouged" as the transit operations would be run by the region, the developer would just provide space for them.  The region would receive transit facilities at zero construction cost, and also receive lease payments on the land.  

The developer would have an opportunity to build residential, retail and office space, and make money from those.  No monopolies or barriers to entry on those, other developers could do the same on other parcels of land.

ROI for politicians at every level is where will this be in four years? That is what screws this country up.

Their thinking is: Will I get re-elected? Which is a sad state for citizens as politicians have only four-year brain/life cycle plans.

Wynne Liberals = we will have zero budget deficit in 2017-18 = screw everybody else until election year

Harper CONs =  we will have zero budget deficit in 2015 = screw everybody else until election year

No long term planning or thought by politicians based on a four-year life cycle.

On the other hand, I do give real strong kudos to Region politicians who stuck their elected necks out on a 10-15-20 year LRT proposal ... I guess my long-winded pontificating fails my own test ... sometimes.

[Canard]

This is why Toronto is in such a dire situation when it comes to transit. The politicians there are making 100-year decisions with the anticipation that they'll not be around in 3. Ford absolutely destroyed whatever vision or momentum Toronto might have had. Pledging to scrap the Scarborough rt and replace *8* light rail lines with 1 because he has this obsession with shoving stuff underground will put Toronto transit progress back at least 2 decades.

[DHLawrence]

Toronto has a long history as the embodiment of "This is why we can't have nice things."

[BuildingScout]

Here's an example of very nice train station that could serve as inspiration for ours. This one is from Birmingham, UK:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/gall...n-pictures

[Drake]

I would be happy to get the Birmingham train station from the 1960's...

[DHLawrence]

I'm hoping for something like the Hamilton GO Centre but on a grander scale (glassed over platforms for a start).

[tomh009]

Birmingham looks great, but I suspect they have 10x the passenger volume that we can expect in the short to medium term.