Danish tourists lament Canadian car culture

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

The problem with cars isn't just their harmful emissions, but what they do to a city's built form. Even if we have hydrogen powered self-driving cars, the landscape still looks ugly with very wide roads and buildings set back from the street by surface parking lots while giant signs tower above this all. Urban planning's focus on minimizing car use isn't just for the environment, it's to make places prettier and more pleasant to be in.

I would go further and say that the environmental benefits of reduced automobile dependency are far down the list of rationale for policy that enables and accelerates a transition to a more walkable, bike-able, and transit-focused mixed-use city. It's about resource and space efficiency, improving public health, creating exponentially greater real estate value through mixed-use nodes and corridors, and facilitating vibrancy and attractive urban spaces that attract investment and have an appreciated sense of place.

[Nouvellecosse]

I would say the #1 reason that the automobile based culture cannot continue is that it isn't economically feasible to do so. Most of the enery we consume today comes from fossil fuel sources and that isn't a renewable resource and won't last forever. We have no feasible way of creating such a large amount of energy so cheaply once it runs out. And having society designed with everything spread out with low density and having everyone get from place to place in individual vehicles takes a huge amount of energy. Too much for us to produce solely from alternate means at a practical cost.

And I really don't know why anyone would be discussing hydrogen in this situation. Hydrogen isn't a source of energy; it's really just an energy storage mechanism, considering it takes as much energy to isolate it from water as we can get back from burning it or running it through a fuel cell. Sure it might be a more practical energy storage mechanism in some ways compared to batteries, but either way you need a source of energy to store.

[FREKI]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I would say the #1 reason that the automobile based culture cannot continue is that it isn't economically feasible to do so.

But the "problem" is that is IS economically feasable - heck for state and industry it doesn't get any better..

The house itself is very expesive so people need to loan a lot of money and work a lot of hours - the construction and maintenece, as well as all the things that goes it it creates a lot of jobs and all in all it circulates more money than any other option around.. so that means a lot of jobs, taxes and work..

Then comes the roads - while innitially an expense for a state they still creates jobs in many ways ( heavy machinery, engeneers, cityplaners, construction and so on ) and depending on financial system taxation for the roads can easily cover the expenses

The cars also creates jobs and puts money into circulation and while fossil fuels may not be unlimited that's not a major problem as the more expensive gas becomes the harder people will work to pay for it and the more tax the state will get from it..
Eventually alternative technology becomes the cheaper alternative and will take over ( be it hydrogen or electricity time will tell )


So suburbs are here to stay for a lot of reasons - that it's what most people want is by no means the main reason - the main reason is that it's the way of life that brings the most money into circulation - thus brings in tax revenue, creates jobs and increases land value..


Humans do have the technology to make huge structures that can house 100.000 people and as many workplaces, heck even create the food needed locally, but it's too efficient to be of interest of anyone with enough power to make it happen - we need money to flow in capitalistic world and the more expenses people have the more they will work creating a circle of "win win" for all.. so neither cars nor suburbs will go anywhere anytime soon regardless of how they affect land, people or nations

[Nouvellecosse]

it's economically feasible NOW, but not to continue it as a long term strategy.

[Those Who Squirm!]

Originally Posted by Muji

Sure, it comes off as a little snarky and holier-than-thou, but it's hard to deny that we in North America are woefully bad at building streets and communities that are safe and pleasant for people who aren't driving. I can't imagine how these Danes would have felt in one of our Sunbelt cities.

Or, now that you mention it, some places in the far north of Scandinavia, where the population is sparse and people may be similarly dependent on cars. (Though, of course, I realize this doesn't really apply to Denmark itself.)

As I understand it, too, the tourists were mostly couchsurfing with friends; which means they weren't able to choose the neighborhoods they stayed in.

Aside from all this, I'm surprised that Ottawa is so car dependent, at least in the judgment of these rather critical visitors.

ETA: According to the Wiki article, Ottawa's population density is either 1860 or 316 people per square kilometer, depending on which density statistic you use. The figures are marked as urban density and simply density, respectively. Either way, though, it's much less than that of L.A., that epitome of car culture.

[Those Who Squirm!]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

I whole heartedly agree. Outside of NYC which, after all, is NYC, the US public transit friendless can truly stink.

I would rank the most auto dedicated countries something like this:

1. The US
2. Saudi Arabia (they now are working hard to improve public transit).
3. New Zealand
4. Australia
5. Canada
6. Argentina
7. Brazil (Sao Paulo being the exception)

Fair enough with regard to the U.S., the latter half of the last century saw tremendous population growth in some cities like L.A., where rail mass transit has been re-introduced. Ottawa has also seen an increase in population, but if I understand the situation aright, this has come about almost entirely due to suburban annexations. As a result, the population density has dropped precipitously.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Those Who Squirm

Fair enough with regard to the U.S., the latter half of the last century saw tremendous population growth in some cities like L.A., where rail mass transit has been re-introduced. Ottawa has also seen an increase in population, but if I understand the situation aright, this has come about almost entirely due to suburban annexations. As a result, the population density has dropped precipitously.

The Province of Ontario imposed a municipal amalgamation in 2001. All former municipalities in the old Carleton County were merged into the City of Ottawa. Consequently, at least 75% of the area within the city boundary is rural. This has naturally greatly affected population density statistics for Ottawa.

[Innsertnamehere]

Ottawa's greenbelt also creates a bunch of suburbs surrounding the inner city without being contiguous with it, meaning you have the inner city and 3 other suburban cities of around 100,000 people each surrounding it.

[isaidso]

The reality is that Canada and Denmark have vastly different geographies and climates. Only a few places in the country have the density to support non-auto centric transportation. In most places the car not only makes the most sense but it's a necessity. It's not feasible to live with out a car in places like New Brunswick, northern Ontario, or anywhere in western Canada outside a few select metros. Nor is it safe. Try living without a car in Fort Frances, ON or Bathurst, NB. The car made those places viable.

That Dane was well intentioned but is trying fit a square peg in a round hole... so to speak. What makes sense for Denmark doesn't necessarily make sense for Canada. Canada needs to figure out an environmentally friendly way forward that makes sense for Canada.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by isaidso

The reality is that Canada and Denmark have vastly different geographies and climates. Only a few places in the country have the density to support non-auto centric transportation. In most places the car not only makes the most sense but it's a necessity. It's not feasible to live with out a car in places like New Brunswick, northern Ontario, or anywhere in western Canada outside a few select metros. Nor is it safe. Try living without a car in Fort Frances, ON or Bathurst, NB. The car made those places viable.

That Dane was well intentioned but is trying fit a square peg in a round hole... so to speak. What makes sense for Denmark doesn't necessarily make sense for Canada. Canada needs to figure out an environmentally friendly way forward that makes sense for Canada.

What you say is so true. The realities of Canada and Denmark are so different. Canada is huge with very scattered population compared to tiny and dense Denmark, and Canada is so much colder in winter, and hotter in summer, at least in the south central parts of the country.

Sure, Canada can greatly improve on its public transport options in major cities, but it is best to improve what we have, rather than trying to reach the impossible based on a completely different situation.

I think that Canadian cities are moving forward on numerous transit projects, the most in decades and as this starts to come together, moving around our cities without a car will get better.

On the other hand, I am the first one to criticize my own city, Ottawa, for spinning its tires for a decade, flushing money down the toilet on an abandoned project and spending a boat load of money on a transit conversion project that will not likely improve transit a whole lot for a long time. It will provide dividends down the road, but it will be a long time coming. Which provides a lesson for other cities, to not build grade separated BRT with the intension of converting it to rail later. Either build rail from day one or stick with BRT or supplement BRT with new rail routes.

[Doady]

Nunavut is mostly uninhabitated, but that makes zero difference on how feasible transit is in Toronto. The only density that matters for transit in Toronto is the density of Toronto. The density of the rest of Canada does not matter.

Canadian are 2.5 times more likely to use transit than people in the US, even though Canada has like one-tenth the density.

The GTA has a higher population than all of Denmark in an area that is less than one-fifth the size of Denmark. The GTA is much denser than Denmark.

What really matters is the urban area density. That means the population vs. the land area of the builtup areas only, no rural areas. After all, transit does not serve rural areas.

The Toronto urban area (refered to as "population centres" by Stats Can) had a population density 2930 per square km in 2011. The Copenhagen urban area has a population density of 2052 per square km as of 2015.

So, the Toronto urban area is 43% denser than Copenhagen's.

The first question is, can a truly car-oriented city be 43% denser than Copenhagen? Think of the effect of the car on density. The space taken up for parking lots, for roads. The ability that car gives to allow people to travel farther distances and thus enable sprawl.

The second question is, does Toronto have a transit system that an urban area as dense as it is should have? Is Toronto dense enough to support much more transit?

Personally, I think the supposed car-dependence of Toronto is exaggerated. 23% of people in the Toronto metropolitan area use transit to get to work. That's a very high number. But at the same time, it is not high enough.

I don't see the point in pretending that living car-free in Toronto is normal. But at the same time, I don't see the point in pretending that Toronto is dominated by the car either. Seriously, it is not.