How did Canada become more culturally public transit than the US?

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yeah, those are additional factors. U.S. has significantly higher incomes, vehicles in U.S. are somewhat cheaper, and U.S. has lots of beaters providing working poor mobility.

In Germany, every vehicle is inspected annually and the old ones are forcibly retired per federal regulations. There are no beaters, so no such thing as working poor cars. Of course every village has bus service and walking/biking trails to adjacent towns.

This is honestly a bigger factor than most realize.

Regulations around autos in Canada is stricter than much of the US - licensing is tougher to get, insurance more expensive, fuel more expensive, paid parking more common, standards on vehicles is higher (and vehicles fail faster due to the climate), etc.

The answer to the original question is a wide variety of small factors combining:

1. higher vehicle costs
2. Built Form differences supporting transit more
3. Lower incomes
4. Different cultural attitudes
5. Different racial histories of cities leading to different stigmas and higher transit use in middle income households
6. Different infrastructure choices meaning vehicle vs. transit use practicalities are very different for many trip types

probably a few more thrown in there, and a lot of those intermix as well.

Somewhere like Vancouver is probably the most extreme - very little road infrastructure, sky-high vehicle operation costs ($7/gallon gas, expensive, socialized, auto insurance, high registration costs, expensive parking costs, etc.). Compared to somewhere like the US midwest, it's almost shocking on the differences in not only the costs but also the value proposition of owning and operating a car.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

until it removed racial screening on immigration in the late 1970's.

"White Flight" can't happen if there aren't any minorities to run away from.

Also, black Americans as a group were always poor compared to whites as a group (although there were wealthy blacks in the north and now there are a ton of wealthy black Americans all over the country), but they were wealthy by world standards. The bus boycotts in the southern United States in the 1950s and 1960s were possible because a lot of blacks in those areas (despite being the poorest areas of the country) owned cars and could give people rides.

No Green Book would have existed if blacks couldn't afford cars. The Green Book itself (at least the year I looked at, which I think was around 1947) had large multi-page advertisements for new cars. Everyone in the present day wants to think that all black Americans were all toiling as sharecroppers until recently but it's simply not true.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

The answer to the original question is a wide variety of small factors combining:

1. higher vehicle costs
2. Built Form differences supporting transit more
3. Lower incomes
4. Different cultural attitudes
5. Different racial histories of cities leading to different stigmas and higher transit use in middle income households
6. Different infrastructure choices meaning vehicle vs. transit use practicalities are very different for many trip types

probably a few more thrown in there, and a lot of those intermix as well.

BULLSEYE!


solid summary

[jmecklenborg]

Also, bus ridership is still trending downward after substantial completion of the interstate highway system AND job/population growth within an area. I submit annual stats from the TANK (Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky) system, a three-county bus consortium:

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

This is honestly a bigger factor than most realize.

Regulations around autos in Canada is stricter than much of the US - licensing is tougher to get, insurance more expensive, fuel more expensive, paid parking more common, standards on vehicles is higher (and vehicles fail faster due to the climate), etc.

The answer to the original question is a wide variety of small factors combining:

1. higher vehicle costs
2. Built Form differences supporting transit more
3. Lower incomes
4. Different cultural attitudes
5. Different racial histories of cities leading to different stigmas and higher transit use in middle income households
6. Different infrastructure choices meaning vehicle vs. transit use practicalities are very different for many trip types

probably a few more thrown in there, and a lot of those intermix as well.

Somewhere like Vancouver is probably the most extreme - very little road infrastructure, sky-high vehicle operation costs ($7/gallon gas, expensive, socialized, auto insurance, high registration costs, expensive parking costs, etc.). Compared to somewhere like the US midwest, it's almost shocking on the differences in not only the costs but also the value proposition of owning and operating a car.

In the U.S. wealthier metros have the better transit options and usage. The poorer the metro, typically the worse the transit usage.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

In the U.S. wealthier metros have the better transit options and usage. The poorer the metro, typically the worse the transit usage.

For most US cities, transit doesn't make sense. People don't work or live near any transit points and the bus is typically more sequitis than driving. How the city was developed and continue to urbanize makes all the difference and very few cities are conducive to living car free.

[edale]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Also, bus ridership is still trending downward after substantial completion of the interstate highway system AND job/population growth within an area. I submit annual stats from the TANK (Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky) system, a three-county bus consortium:

What point are you trying to make here? That NKY has abysmal transit? Or that the region continues to experience job sprawl? TANK is a pretty pathetic system, and I can't imagine relying on it for everyday use. Look at the absolutely stupidly circuitous route map for the Southbank Shuttle-- something that's supposed to serve as a quick and easy connector between Covington, Newport, and Downtown Cincinnati. No wonder ridership on that system continues to dwindle.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by JManc

How the city was developed and continue to urbanize makes all the difference and very few cities are conducive to living car free.

And even then, it's not always just about the urbanist holy grail of "living car free".

There's A LOT of space between "I need a car to accomplish virtually every daily task" and "I don't own a car at all".

I take the L to work everyday. my self-employed wife works from home. Our two kids walk to and from school everyday. Much of our daily shopping needs are accomplished on foot within our neighborhood.

But we are not "living car-free".

We're a middle class family of 4 who live in neighborhood Chicago where owning a car is not particularly onerous and we can comfortably afford to do so.

So we do.

Because sometimes it makes life a million times easier.

[lio45]

Also, looking at the environmental footprint, a good old reliable car that barely gets used is a lot closer to "no car" than to "I have a car and drive it everywhere all the time". It's not all or nothing. Sacrificing your car would have little impact on the environment.

My trucks are pretty damn green, knowing they only serve when needed, are old, were bought used, and might even have been scrapped right now if it hadn't been for me (i.e. at the end of that chain of causality, a new truck gets manufactured because someone needs it.) There's probably no realistic greener way to occasionally take heavy stuff from point A to point B, except to use animal or human slave labor.

[nec209]

Delete.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by JManc

For most US cities, transit doesn't make sense. People don't work or live near any transit points and the bus is typically more sequitis than driving. How the city was developed and continue to urbanize makes all the difference and very few cities are conducive to living car free.

I agree if your point that it is just harder to serve low density office parks and spaced out residential areas with transit. But there's clearly a use case for transit that Americans have just settled to not have anymore. We traded a lot of convenience for space.

[lio45]

The U.S. has a lot more usable space than Canada. Our entire West Coast is a postage-stamp sized Lower Mainland of BC; most Canadians live in the Corridor, sandwiched between the Shield and the border. The Maritimes don't have that much usable land and it's the same for the Prairies, when you contrast them against their American counterparts.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by nec209

Canadian cities and suburbs are lot more dense than American cities and suburbs probably because city planners know there are public transit riders and so zone more density.

Well had Canada been more car culture the cities in Canada and suburbs probably would be more like the US.

Canadian cities aren't more dense than their American equivalents. Toronto is most analogous to Chicago and they are at just about the same density. Montreal and Boston seem like fair comparisons, and same there too.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Look at a map. Several giant highways were built directly through every U.S. city. Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver were spared a similar treatment.

That's an old comment but I meant to reply: yes, it's true for Vancouver (and traffic there is absolutely horrible as a result...) but not for Montreal.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I agree if your point that it is just harder to serve low density office parks and spaced out residential areas with transit. But there's clearly a use case for transit that Americans have just settled to not have anymore. We traded a lot of convenience for space.

If there was a demand, planners would find a way to make it work even in the more suburban areas; i.e. the Bay Area but there is generally a well earned stigma with mass transit around the country which stifles public interest.

[nec209]

Originally Posted by JManc

If there was a demand, planners would find a way to make it work even in the more suburban areas; i.e. the Bay Area but there is generally a well earned stigma with mass transit around the country which stifles public interest.

What I’m saying is if Canada was car culture they would be way more sprawl. I think the reason they built so dense is they know there was already a transit culture so built more dense.

The homes are close together and more high rise apartments where in the US the homes are far away and more low rise apartments.

[nec209]

Canadian cities and suburbs are lot more dense than American cities and suburbs probably because city planners know there are public transit riders and so zone more density.

Well had Canada been more car culture the cities in Canada and suburbs probably would be more like the US.


The suburbs in Southern Ontario and BC are more dense compared to southern US. Well oblivious rest belt at time where zone dense because that was pre WW2.

If the US own Canada all the suburbs would be way worse than Calgary.


Just to show you how bad the sprawl is base on Wikipedia Dallas has 1,304,379 people in 339.604 sq mi well Mississauga has 717,961 people in 112.91 sq mi

Tulsa has 413,066 people in 201.85 sq mi

Well Fort Worth has 918,915 people in 347.27 sq mi

Brampton has 656,480 people in 102.66 sq mi

I’m sure Brampton and Mississauga has lot more transit ridership than Tulsa, Fort Worth or Dallas.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Both US and Canada are at 80% "urban".

Sccording to Statistics Canada, the 2021 urban population was 30,389,999 people.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/dail...g-a003-eng.htm

Comparing the public transit ridership of a bi-coastal 4M sq mi country of 38M people to the public transit ridership of a bi-coastal 4M sq mi country of 338M people with any validity is pure nonsense.

Especially when over one-third of that 38M reside in three cities.



They could also never grow cotton.

The difference is that Canadian live in large (1 million+) metropolitan areas while Americans live in smaller cities

[nec209]

Originally Posted by JManc

If there was a demand, planners would find a way to make it work even in the more suburban areas; i.e. the Bay Area but there is generally a well earned stigma with mass transit around the country which stifles public interest.

What I’m saying is public transit is big factor. If most people own a car and drive why build dense where if lot of people take public transit they going to build more dense.

As you can see when you look at Canada.

[nec209]

Originally Posted by Nite

The difference is that Canadian live in large (1 million+) metropolitan areas while Americans live in smaller cities

Compared to the US no. The Dallas Fort Worth has 7 million, Houston mentro 7 million, Miami mentro 6 million, Tampa bay 3 million , New York 19 million, LA 13 million, Chicago 9 million, Philadelphia 6 million, Atlanta 6 million, Detroit 6 million, Phoenix 5 million, San Diego 5 million, Boston 5 million so on. US cities are measured in millions of people.

Toronto only 6 million, Montreal 4 million and Vancouver 2.5 million well the other metros are less.