Why are we not allowing businesses to have an attendant who looks after cleanliness/order like every other country?! I get that some on here will stamp their feet and yell no but I have never had a problem paying a token amount to have access. Sigh šŸ˜† And before someone calls me really mean we still have free ones.
 
Mihairokov said:
How difficult is it for the city to hire and staff custodians for public washrooms? How difficult is it for the city to hire and staff people to just walk around sweeping up garbage? This isn't rocket science.
Click to expand...

It's not difficult. Though the costs do add up. To be clear, I'm all in favour; I just want to put out there that it's not a rounding error.

Let's start with 'open year round'; many washrooms are not insulated or heated, the washrooms are closed for the winter, because just like a seasonal cottage the water is drained from the pipes at the end of fall.

Retrofits vary in cost.......but would generally be at least 100k; and where building replacement made more sense, likely around 1.2M per washroom.

So re-fitting/replacing non-winterized washrooms (just the existing ones) would be in the tens of millions.

***

Extended hours for washrooms. The direct costs (electricity/water) are very low; but how much maintenance/security do you want? For a washroom open til 11pm? Or 24/7.

I think for single-use occupancy, in high visibility locations, you could probably keep those costs low. But for washrooms that further from the street, or near low-traffic areas, you might want frequent checks, say 0.5 FTE staff for each 40 open hours.

So that's probably another 30 staff for existing facilities..........for 24/7, you might want attendants overnight, if the washroom weren't unisex, probably 2 staff, that's likely upwards of 400k per washroom, per year for 7 night per week, full-night operation.

That's before you add additional facilities.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour, and the money can be found, and we can do unisex, single occupancy facilities, including those with self-cleaning etc.

It's just to say, it will require a real budgetary allocation, if done at scale.
 
Northern Light said:
It's not difficult. Though the costs do add up. To be clear, I'm all in favour; I just want to put out there that it's not a rounding error.

Let's start with 'open year round'; many washrooms are not insulated or heated, the washrooms are closed for the winter, because just like a seasonal cottage the water is drained from the pipes at the end of fall.

Retrofits vary in cost.......but would generally be at least 100k; and where building replacement made more sense, likely around 1.2M per washroom.

So re-fitting/replacing non-winterized washrooms (just the existing ones) would be in the tens of millions.

***

Extended hours for washrooms. The direct costs (electricity/water) are very low; but how much maintenance/security do you want? For a washroom open til 11pm? Or 24/7.

I think for single-use occupancy, in high visibility locations, you could probably keep those costs low. But for washrooms that further from the street, or near low-traffic areas, you might want frequent checks, say 0.5 FTE staff for each 40 open hours.

So that's probably another 30 staff for existing facilities..........for 24/7, you might want attendants overnight, if the washroom weren't unisex, probably 2 staff, that's likely upwards of 400k per washroom, per year for 7 night per week, full-night operation.

That's before you add additional facilities.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour, and the money can be found, and we can do unisex, single occupancy facilities, including those with self-cleaning etc.

It's just to say, it will require a real budgetary allocation, if done at scale.
Click to expand...
To be clear though, I was factoring all this mind when I posted what I said about this....so I wasn't saying this to have my Andy Rooney moment of complaining about this here. Rather, I do believe in preventative strategy that will likely save public money in the end.

...plus, it's never good for our public health to have unsanitary conditions whether it cost us more money or not to prevent that. But that really should go without saying, IMO.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
Northern Light said:
It's not difficult. Though the costs do add up. To be clear, I'm all in favour; I just want to put out there that it's not a rounding error.

Let's start with 'open year round'; many washrooms are not insulated or heated, the washrooms are closed for the winter, because just like a seasonal cottage the water is drained from the pipes at the end of fall.

Retrofits vary in cost.......but would generally be at least 100k; and where building replacement made more sense, likely around 1.2M per washroom.

So re-fitting/replacing non-winterized washrooms (just the existing ones) would be in the tens of millions.

***

Extended hours for washrooms. The direct costs (electricity/water) are very low; but how much maintenance/security do you want? For a washroom open til 11pm? Or 24/7.

I think for single-use occupancy, in high visibility locations, you could probably keep those costs low. But for washrooms that further from the street, or near low-traffic areas, you might want frequent checks, say 0.5 FTE staff for each 40 open hours.

So that's probably another 30 staff for existing facilities..........for 24/7, you might want attendants overnight, if the washroom weren't unisex, probably 2 staff, that's likely upwards of 400k per washroom, per year for 7 night per week, full-night operation.

That's before you add additional facilities.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour, and the money can be found, and we can do unisex, single occupancy facilities, including those with self-cleaning etc.

It's just to say, it will require a real budgetary allocation, if done at scale.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Great! Of course fees could be adjusted. They make it work elsewhere so there is a precedent.
 
They rather spend umpteen millions for untested and late ferries with negligible positive environmental impact plus even more on additional infrastructure - while barely spending any on the outmoded and insufficient terminal itself (murals anyone?) Priorities, priorities.

The decision-makers should be ashamed of themselves.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
They rather spend umpteen millions for untested and late ferries plus additional infrastructure - with negligible environmental impact - while barely spending any on the outmoded and insufficient terminal itself. Priorities, priorities.

AoD
Click to expand...
I really do hate the term 'virtue signaling', but between this and 931 Yonge, I'm having trouble coming up with a different descriptor...
 
ProjectEnd said:
I really do hate the term 'virtue signaling', but between this and 931 Yonge, I'm having trouble coming up with a different descriptor...
Click to expand...
On the side, there is really nothing wrong with the term when applied aptly...rather it's been often used by folks to back up their odious opinions and positions. So it's gotten a lot of bad rep from unfortunate circles, to put it mildly.
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
On the side, there is really nothing wrong with the term when applied aptly...rather it's been often used by folks to back up their odious opinions and positions. So it's gotten a lot of bad rep from unfortunate circles, to put it mildly.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think I only caught on when it was being used against progressives by alt-right folk.

But in the last couple years, after watching so called ā€œprogressiveā€ people/biz suddenly get cover and back away from progressive causes- Iā€™m like, nah- no more ā€œfeel goodā€ patronizing shite. Money. Do the things with money if you mean it.

Canā€™t recall how much the Dundas switchover was costing, but they could have put that money and effort to better use here. Hell- they could have just put it into getting Ferry fares onto Presto. Thatā€™s not a capital cost or a permanent building but it would help a lot
 
^The capitulation of companies and institutions to appease the anti-DEI/woke of the incoming administration down there in the example, was very telling that they never believed in that stuff to begin with. And only so when it suited their bottom line and messaging. And you know, Pride lost a lot of their funding because of that. Hence, virtue signalling is the apt term used here. And how...

...while less extreme here with the Ferry business, none of the less still as disingenuous, IMO.
 
70Challenger said:
Forget about upgrades, this needs to be reconstructed to make the waterfront promenade fully walkable without having to turn back onto the street. Both this ferry terminal and the one at the airport.
Click to expand...
I was in Shanghai recently and used their metro ferries to cross the river a couple of times. I think we can take some design elements from their ferry terminals.
Shanghai treats their ferries as natural parts of their metro system, and so they work the same as any normal station. Tap the metro card and ride the ferry across the river. Here at Dong Chang (Lujiazui), the right door is for going to the Bund, and the left door is for going further south. There's a small covered waiting area inside with some benches and chairs.
IMG_8140 (1).jpeg


The ferries have ramps specifically for bicycles and mopeds. On two of my trips the vast majority of people taking the ferry were mopeds and electric bikes, as they have no real alternative to crossing the river without going far out of their way. The ferries themselves had wide open areas on the lower level for all of the bikes and the upper level had the seating.

IMG_8161.jpeg


Most relevant for what you're speaking to is something like the below. Shanghai has walkways, either along the river or raised above the river, along most of the length of both sides of the river. These include both walking and biking paths. At this ferry terminal along Zhongshan the walking and bike paths raise into the front of the terminal, meeting it at its upper level. This means that the ferry terminal is directly connected into the path network and allows ferry access from above, as well as providing a shady spot to rest if you're not looking to take the ferry.

IMG_8183.jpeg


IMG_8184.jpeg


IMG_8189.jpeg


Anyway, the paths in less busy areas are smaller, but widen when they approach the Bund. Here, south of the Bund, the path widens quite a bit, and off to the right is the boarding area for tours, restaurant boats, etc.
IMG_8240.jpeg


There's a lot of potential in our waterfront and especially in activating our waterfront, whether that's through better accessibility or small quality-of-life changes. The Gardiner unfortunately is a physical barrier b/w the waterfront and the rest of downtown, and although there are solutions to make that connection easier (like raised pedestrian bridges to cross Lakeshore), there are lots of smaller things we can do to also make the waterfront better for people on foot. Upgrading the ferry terminal seems like a straightforward item that should be a key piece to that as the (currently only) access point to the Islands.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top