Markham GTA Centre | ?m | ?s | GTA S. and E. | BBB

[Markham VIP]

Well let's just do that math here:

-20,000 seat arena
-Assume 30% of people will take transit
-Assume an average of 2 people per car (some will be 3 or 4, but some will only be 1)

That means 7,000 cars will be going for the game. The choke point is going to be the capacity of Warden. The vast majority of people are going to be heading west, and Warden is the main route to get to both Highway 7 and the 407 (albeit in different directions). Assume half going north (Highway 7 and north on Warden), and half going south (407 and Warden south). 1,000 cars may go east, so that leaves 6,000 cars going out westbound. That means 3,000 cars going north on Warden and 3,000 cars going south.

The biggest problem is going to be the left turns from the downtown to southbound Warden, and from northbound Warden to westbound Highway 7. That's going to severely limit the ability to push people through the area. I've seen what it's like exiting SBP after a game, and the left turn lane from Palladium Dr onto Terry Fox Dr, it takes forever to turn left there.

In order to not have it be a complete traffic nightmare after the game, there's going to need at least a 40% transit modal split.

There are some critical assumptions you make in your numbers.
First off, I feel that a 30% transit usage is a low estimate. If people knew ahead of time that parking may be an issue, or that it was expensive, don't you think they would make the effort to take transit instead? Not all people are brainless, most of us will adapt to the situation and find a solution. If parking is an issue then I will take public transit...no big deal, I take transit also when going to the ACC.

As a result of the pre-knowledge everyone will have about parking, I feel that a 50% transit usage rate is more accurate. So of our 20,000 people, approximately 10,000 will be driving. Of those 10,000, how many people will be in each car? Now I wish I had some actual data to use, but for now I'll go with the following breakdown:
5% of people = 1 person per car = 500 cars
50% of people = 2 person per car = 2500 cars
25% of people = 3 person per car = 833 cars
20% of people = 4 person per car = 500 cars
Therefore, TOTAL PARKING SPOTS NEEDED = 4333

These are just rough numbers of course, but in my opinion, it is much more accurate than your estimation.
The main point is that more people will take transit if they know ahead of time that parking will be a hassle.

Lastly, there are more than 2 ways to go west my friend, the 407 and Hwy 7 from Warden are not the only ways. As mentioned before, human beings will find a solution and adapt. As a previous poster has pointed out, you may choose to take Kennedy, which is actually closer to the arena site than Warden. From Enterprise, you can turn North on Kennedy to hit Hwy 7, or you can turn South on Kennedy to hit the 407. In addition, you could also decide to take Birchmount Road north to Hwy 7 (which should be connected by the time arena is built). Moreover, if one wanted to go west, you could take Birchmount south to any number of roads that you could easily turn west on (Steeles, Finch, Sheppard, etc), or you could just go to 401 and take that west.

Parking will not be an issue, like I said, if it ends up being that they need extra parking spots, there are hundreds of office parking lots just outside of Downtown Markham that could easily be utilized by the Town to assist with parking. And as a very last resort, they could easily pave more temporary surface parking spots (which I am against doing).

I am not worried about the parking. I feel that people will make the extra effort to take transit when visiting Downtown Markham, which is exactly what we want to happen. Downtown Markham is suppose to be a transit-oriented and pedestrian-friendly environment. If people know ahead of time that driving is going to be a hassle, then they will adapt and take transit. Afterall, who wants to risk missing the Markham Blue Jackets in Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals!

 

[gweed123]

There are some critical assumptions you make in your numbers.
First off, I feel that a 30% transit usage is a low estimate. If people knew ahead of time that parking may be an issue, or that it was expensive, don't you think they would make the effort to take transit instead? Not all people are brainless, most of us will adapt to the situation and find a solution. If parking is an issue then I will take public transit...no big deal, I take transit also when going to the ACC.

As a result of the pre-knowledge everyone will have about parking, I feel that a 50% transit usage rate is more accurate. So of our 20,000 people, approximately 10,000 will be driving. Of those 10,000, how many people will be in each car? Now I wish I had some actual data to use, but for now I'll go with the following breakdown:
5% of people = 1 person per car = 500 cars
50% of people = 2 person per car = 2500 cars
25% of people = 3 person per car = 833 cars
20% of people = 4 person per car = 500 cars
Therefore, TOTAL PARKING SPOTS NEEDED = 4333

These are just rough numbers of course, but in my opinion, it is much more accurate than your estimation.
The main point is that more people will take transit if they know ahead of time that parking will be a hassle.

Lastly, there are more than 2 ways to go west my friend, the 407 and Hwy 7 from Warden are not the only ways. As mentioned before, human beings will find a solution and adapt. As a previous poster has pointed out, you may choose to take Kennedy, which is actually closer to the arena site than Warden. From Enterprise, you can turn North on Kennedy to hit Hwy 7, or you can turn South on Kennedy to hit the 407. In addition, you could also decide to take Birchmount Road north to Hwy 7 (which should be connected by the time arena is built). Moreover, if one wanted to go west, you could take Birchmount south to any number of roads that you could easily turn west on (Steeles, Finch, Sheppard, etc), or you could just go to 401 and take that west.

Parking will not be an issue, like I said, if it ends up being that they need extra parking spots, there are hundreds of office parking lots just outside of Downtown Markham that could easily be utilized by the Town to assist with parking. And as a very last resort, they could easily pave more temporary surface parking spots (which I am against doing).

I am not worried about the parking. I feel that people will make the extra effort to take transit when visiting Downtown Markham, which is exactly what we want to happen. Downtown Markham is suppose to be a transit-oriented and pedestrian-friendly environment. If people know ahead of time that driving is going to be a hassle, then they will adapt and take transit. Afterall, who wants to risk missing the Markham Blue Jackets in Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals!

I agree with you that I may have missed a few alternative routes when I made my analysis, and that my car totals number was simply an average. But I really don't think I'm that off with my 30% modal split. I've been going to Sens games at SBP for over 15 years, and the traffic hasn't changed since opening day (in fact, it's gotten slightly worse because they've added seats since opening day, was originally 18,500, it's now 19,153, 20,500 with standing room).

People know that taking transit may in fact be faster, but many people, I'd say about 75%, still use their cars to get there. People may be very adept at finding alternative routes to get there, but people are very stubborn about changing modes. It will be interesting to see if it changes when the new direct ramp from the SBP bus loop to the 417 gets built.

Now 30% may be a conservative estimate because the transit connections there may be better than what SBP has, but I think it will be 30% on opening day. When there's all-day 2 way service on the Stouffville line, yes that may eventually climb to 50%.

So for now, my prediction is this: 30% if the VIVA and GO bus service is adequate, 40% if they do it really well, and 50% if the bus service is done well and all-day 2 way hourly service (or even special service) is on the Stouffville line.

And PS: I have my bets on the Markham Panthers

 

[Automation Gallery]

Sorry guys, Markham gets the rink Toronto gets the name.

 

[Markham VIP]

Sorry guys, Markham gets the rink Toronto gets the name.

From a marketing point of view...yes, the name should be "Toronto".
Question: If they choose the name "Markham" instead, will the indemnification fees paid to the Leafs be reduced?
Even still...the marketing benefit of the name "Toronto" will far outweigh the increase in indemnification fees.

 

[Markham VIP]

I agree with you that I may have missed a few alternative routes when I made my analysis, and that my car totals number was simply an average. But I really don't think I'm that off with my 30% modal split. I've been going to Sens games at SBP for over 15 years, and the traffic hasn't changed since opening day (in fact, it's gotten slightly worse because they've added seats since opening day, was originally 18,500, it's now 19,153, 20,500 with standing room).

People know that taking transit may in fact be faster, but many people, I'd say about 75%, still use their cars to get there. People may be very adept at finding alternative routes to get there, but people are very stubborn about changing modes. It will be interesting to see if it changes when the new direct ramp from the SBP bus loop to the 417 gets built.

Now 30% may be a conservative estimate because the transit connections there may be better than what SBP has, but I think it will be 30% on opening day. When there's all-day 2 way service on the Stouffville line, yes that may eventually climb to 50%.

So for now, my prediction is this: 30% if the VIVA and GO bus service is adequate, 40% if they do it really well, and 50% if the bus service is done well and all-day 2 way hourly service (or even special service) is on the Stouffville line.

And PS: I have my bets on the Markham Panthers

You are correct, the transit usage will most likely be lower at first. The problem is that most people are not use to taking transit to the suburbs. However, once people see that parking is a hassle and expensive, and that transit to Downtown Markham is infact very possible and easy, then transit usage will increase quickly.

In my estimated numbers from my previous post.....of the 10,000 that take transit...some may choose to park at Finch Station or some other TTC station or parking lot along a transit route. Then after parking their cars, they can take transit the rest of the way. People will adapt......

 

[Markham VIP]

Where would you want to relocate your team???

Many people have floated the idea that Quebec City and Hamilton are also bidding for NHL teams. If you were the owner of the Blue Jackets, where would you want to relocate your team? Would you want to move to small-market, french-speaking Quebec City? Would you want to move to industrial, blue-collar Hamilton? Or would you want to bring a second team to CORPORATE Toronto?

Quebec City is okay, but it is a relatively small market. The size of the market, coupled with the french-speaking aspect of the City, will result less revenue than a Toronto team.

Hamilton is okay, but is not recession proof. If things take a turn for the worst in the Canadian manufacturing and industrial sectors, then Hamilton's economy would suffer and any NHL team located there would feel the impact. Moving a team to a city who's economy is centred around manuracturing and industry is more risky than a team in Corporate Toronto would be.

Corporate Toronto (Markham) is the largest/richest hockey market in the WORLD. We have a 99.9% season ticket renewal rate, and are proven to sell out each game regardless of recessions, losing seasons, or ticket price. Toronto is the economic hub of Canada and the centre of the Hockey Universe. Seems pretty obvious that, from a business point of view, the safest and most profitable route would be to bring a second team to Toronto.

In my opinion, Markham already has a secret agreement with the NHL. Let's just look at the facts....in 2010, Markham Official have a secret meeting with the NHL....then 2 years later, Markham starts construction on a new arena. Also, why is Town Council so sure about the $162.5 million liability that many people in Markham object to? Why was it voted through 11-2? Such a confident vote for people who are "unsure" about an NHL team? Thirdly, why the rush? This is a big decision right? is the liability too risky? are there any other private parties interested? These are all reasonable questions, and waiting a bit to review the financial famework would have been a smart thing to do. So why was the motion to defer 60 days shot-down 11-2?

It seems pretty obvious to me that Markham council knows something that the media and the public do not know. If infact they were given the "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" by the NHL in that 2010 meeting, then that would explain the confidentiality agreements that Markham Council signed, it would explain the reason they are so willing to take on the financial risk, and it would explain their need to rush it through and not defer 60 days.

A second NHL team is coming to the GTA within the next 5 years my friends!

 

[taal]

Many people have floated the idea that Quebec City and Hamilton are also bidding for NHL teams. If you were the owner of the Blue Jackets, where would you want to relocate your team? Would you want to move to small-market, french-speaking Quebec City? Would you want to move to industrial, blue-collar Hamilton? Or would you want to bring a second team to CORPORATE Toronto?

Quebec City is okay, but it is a relatively small market. The size of the market, coupled with the french-speaking aspect of the City, will result less revenue than a Toronto team.

Hamilton is okay, but is not recession proof. If things take a turn for the worst in the Canadian manufacturing and industrial sectors, then Hamilton's economy would suffer and any NHL team located there would feel the impact. Moving a team to a city who's economy is centred around manuracturing and industry is more risky than a team in Corporate Toronto would be.

Corporate Toronto (Markham) is the largest/richest hockey market in the WORLD. We have a 99.9% season ticket renewal rate, and are proven to sell out each game regardless of recessions, losing seasons, or ticket price. Toronto is the economic hub of Canada and the centre of the Hockey Universe. Seems pretty obvious that, from a business point of view, the safest and most profitable route would be to bring a second team to Toronto.

In my opinion, Markham already has a secret agreement with the NHL. Let's just look at the facts....in 2010, Markham Official have a secret meeting with the NHL....then 2 years later, Markham starts construction on a new arena. Also, why is Town Council so sure about the $162.5 million liability that many people in Markham object to? Why was it voted through 11-2? Such a confident vote for people who are "unsure" about an NHL team? Thirdly, why the rush? This is a big decision right? is the liability too risky? are there any other private parties interested? These are all reasonable questions, and waiting a bit to review the financial famework would have been a smart thing to do. So why was the motion to defer 60 days shot-down 11-2?

It seems pretty obvious to me that Markham council knows something that the media and the public do not know. If infact they were given the "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" by the NHL in that 2010 meeting, then that would explain the confidentiality agreements that Markham Council signed, it would explain the reason they are so willing to take on the financial risk, and it would explain their need to rush it through and not defer 60 days.

A second NHL team is coming to the GTA within the next 5 years my friends!

My only beef with this theory is 2 councilors voted against this ... and re-coping the costs based solely on concerts was one of their stated concerns, frankly all their concerns stemmed around that. Seems strange they would make that statement if they know something else is in the works ... even if they can't say something about it. Unless it was all part of the show ...

 

[valkoholic]

Suburban employment districts typically have an auto mode split in the 90-95% range. The hope here will be a restricted parking supply will change the mode split to something that works. I'm not convinced, I think this is a terrible place for a venue of this size from a transportation standpoint (especially when we are building subway lines into the suburbs elsewhere).

Normally these issues would be addressed through a municipal approvals process. Is this required for this project (i.e. do they have zoning for this)? If not, a neighbor could take them to the OMB to force them to demonstrate the transportation plan works.

 

[TOareaFan]

If your question is where would you locate a team to produce the greatest return on the investment then this segment of your quote shows why the question cannot be answered.

Corporate Toronto (Markham) is the largest/richest hockey market in the WORLD. We have a 99.9% season ticket renewal rate, and are proven to sell out each game regardless of recessions, losing seasons, or ticket price. Toronto is the economic hub of Canada and the centre of the Hockey Universe. Seems pretty obvious that, from a business point of view, the safest and most profitable route would be to bring a second team to Toronto.

Those are the reasons MLSE will ask for and deserve a significant, but as yet undetermined, territorial indemnification fee for giving up their exclusive right to that territory.

If the amount of the investment cannot be determined....the return on that investment cannot be measured and your question cannot be answered.

 

[jn_12]

Those are the reasons MLSE will ask for and deserve a significant, but as yet undetermined, territorial indemnification fee for giving up their exclusive right to that territory.

It's always been assumed that territorial rights exist and that compensation would need to be paid (both the Devils and the Ducks paid out to their neighbours when they acquired their franchises), but it's never been challenged in the courts and the NHL would like to keep it that way because it doesn't want the courts to chime in on how anti-trust laws might apply to the league. It certainly wouldn't be putting the best foot forward if a potential Markham owner wanted to challenge this, but if it saved said owner $100million then it could happen.

 

[Markham VIP]

My only beef with this theory is 2 councilors voted against this ... and re-coping the costs based solely on concerts was one of their stated concerns, frankly all their concerns stemmed around that. Seems strange they would make that statement if they know something else is in the works ... even if they can't say something about it. Unless it was all part of the show ...

I see your point....why would 2 councillors be opposed to it if they KNEW an NHL team was going to relocate there?
Those two individuals who voted against it are Regional Councillors, not the Councillors of any particular ward. I don't know if that means anything but it is worth pointing out.
Who knows if it is just political positioning for next election when they may plan to run for mayor.
Also, there are many people who are opposed to the new arena, maybe those Councillors are just playing to the voters.
Maybe they are just not convinced that the NHL will relocate there based on a "wink-wink, nudge-nudge", and they see the risk to be too great.
Or maybe having a vote 13-0 would be too obvious that something was in the works with the NHL.

I can't speak for those 2 Councillors, nor can I say for sure what their motivation was to vote against the arena.
However, while it may not be unanimous, having 11 Councillors vote for the arena, and against deferring 60 days, in my opinon still shows that they know more than we do.

Or maybe this has nothing to do with an NHL team at all....maybe it's all about securing the casino for Downtown Markham.

Only time will tell........

 

[TOareaFan]

There are some critical assumptions you make in your numbers.
First off, I feel that a 30% transit usage is a low estimate. If people knew ahead of time that parking may be an issue, or that it was expensive, don't you think they would make the effort to take transit instead? Not all people are brainless, most of us will adapt to the situation and find a solution. If parking is an issue then I will take public transit...no big deal, I take transit also when going to the ACC.

As a result of the pre-knowledge everyone will have about parking, I feel that a 50% transit usage rate is more accurate. So of our 20,000 people, approximately 10,000 will be driving.

If Markham can get close to 50% of the people attending this rink showing up via public transit they can, most likely, repay their share of the arena cost by selling a "How We did it" book to municipalities around North America. Geez, if they get to 30% there might be a business case for that publication.

Of course, profit from the book might be needed to buy the necessary buses to, somehow, get 10k people away from a rink in a reasonable period of time after those 130 ( ) concerts a year.

Of those 10,000, how many people will be in each car? Now I wish I had some actual data to use, but for now I'll go with the following breakdown:
5% of people = 1 person per car = 500 cars
50% of people = 2 person per car = 2500 cars
25% of people = 3 person per car = 833 cars
20% of people = 4 person per car = 500 cars
Therefore, TOTAL PARKING SPOTS NEEDED = 4333

Now that we have waved a magic wand and got 50% of the attendees to take transit we have enough magic left in the wand to get 95% of the non-transit attendees to car pool? Forget the GTA Centre, whoever is coming up with these numbers has "planet saving potential".

What is the next trick?

 

[Markham VIP]

If your question is where would you locate a team to produce the greatest return on the investment then this segment of your quote shows why the question cannot be answered.

Those are the reasons MLSE will ask for and deserve a significant, but as yet undetermined, territorial indemnification fee for giving up their exclusive right to that territory.

If the amount of the investment cannot be determined....the return on that investment cannot be measured and your question cannot be answered.

Good point...one cannot determine ROI if the amount of investment cannot be measured.
At this time, we do not know the amount of indemnification fees that may or may not be paid to the Leafs.
As people have pointed out before, the new owners of the Leafs, Rogers and Bell, may not be as opposed to a new GTA team as you think as it would allow them access to all that new content. I'm sure that certain agreements can be worked out regarding exclusivity agreements for mobile content, etc. The fact is that, with or without indemnification fees, Rogers and Bell would make money from a new GTA team, even though they do not own it.

 

[TOareaFan]

The fact is that, with or without indemnification fees, Rogers and Bell would make money from a new GTA team, even though they do not own it.

That is a statement you can make about any new team in any Canadian market place. What a new team inside the GTA would do that no other team would do is create competition (and therefore price softness for things like corporate seating, advertisement, sponsorships, ticket sales, memorabilia sales, etc.) and that is the revenue that would need to be, somehow, calculated and compensated for in a territorial fee.

 

[Markham VIP]

If Markham can get close to 50% of the people attending this rink showing up via public transit they can, most likely, repay their share of the arena cost by selling a "How We did it" book to municipalities around North America. Geez, if they get to 30% there might be a business case for that publication.

Of course, profit from the book might be needed to buy the necessary buses to, somehow, get 10k people away from a rink in a reasonable period of time after those 130 ( ) concerts a year.

Now that we have waved a magic wand and got 50% of the attendees to take transit we have enough magic left in the wand to get 95% of the non-transit attendees to car pool? Forget the GTA Centre, whoever is coming up with these numbers has "planet saving potential".

What is the next trick?

Well if you must know...the next trick is to secure the new GTA casino for Downtown Markham and to use the new revenues to mitigate the financial risk of the arena deal by allocating casino revenues to service the arena debt. Moreover, new casino revenues can be allocated to transportation upgrades in the area (i.e. new buses, etc). Wouldn't it be nice to have a casino for people to go after the concert/hockey game, thereby reducing the number of people leaving at the same time? Also, wouldn't it be nice to have some world-class restaurants to have dinner or a few drinks before going home?

In regards to the 50% transit usage.....I agree that in the beginning, this may be a high estimate because people are not use to taking transit to the suburbs. However, once people realize that it is infact possible and much easier to take tranist to Downtown Markham, transit usage will increase quickly. Downtown Markham is suppose to be a tranist-oriented/pedestrian-friendly environment, I believe that it will be advertised that way and transit usage will be promoted. Also, like I said, people will find a way. What's stopping someone from parking at Finch Station or another TTC station or parking lot and then taking transit the rest of the way? If people know ahead of time that transit will be a problem or will be expensive, don't you think that they would plan not to drive into the core? I agree with you that people are stubborn beings, however, we will changed when FORCED TO.

In regards to the 95% car pool rate....Personally, I believe that a very small number of people actually drive to an event by themselves. I don't have actual data to use, but I estimated 5%....maybe that's 10% who knows, but without actual data to use we are left guessing. Are you suggesting that the number of people who drive to a game by themselves is greater than 10%? Don't people tend to go to events together?

And Yes...maybe Markham should write a book. Downtown Markham will one day be an example of world-class urban design, economic development, and environmental sustainability. It will merge economic growth with open park spaces and public transit. People will look to us and ask..."how did you do it?"