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

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Right. And I'm estimating here, but a quarter of the population live in Canada's two largest cities... a third in its three largest. The needs of this outsized portion concentrated in few places is certainly going to set national precedent. There's definitely additional contributing factors, but it starts with where all the people are.

Ontario and Quebec are seeing incredible growth. With the amount of new people coming in, a HSR between Toronto and Quebec City is more and more inevitable.

Q1 2023 to Q1 2024 estimates: Ontario +610k , Quebec +268k

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by nec209

The thing is when in time did Canada become more public transit culture than the US? Was it the massive European immigration post WW2 unlike the US that had little immigration? The lack of middle class in Canada unlike the US.

There isn't a single trigger moment and Canada has a large middle class as well, reasonably similar to the US. (Canada has fewer really really rich people than the US, and fewer really really poor people as well.)

I think it's probably due to the fact that while transit also declined in Canada starting in the 1950s, it didn't almost completely collapse like it did in much of the US.

Transit has always had at least a pulse here in almost all our cities.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

Canada isn't the outlier, the US is. It dismantled its transit systems in the postwar storm of the interstates, racial turmoil, sprawl and all the rest. Canada is basically the same as Australia, New Zealand, Germany or whatever other country with regard to transit. The US made a radical move with its settlement and transportation patterns.

The opposition to transit service and development that one has sometimes heard about in the US (we don't want transit because it will allow undesirables to have cheap and easy access to our neighbourhood) is something that is quite alien to most any non-American in the western world, including Canadians.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

No longer on the site, but I believe around 2.1 billion?

It isn't really worth comparing, at least in U.S.-Canada.

New York is at 1.793 billion in 2022. It's probably getting close to 2 billion in 2023. PATH adds only 45 million.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metro_systems

-------------------------------------

New York has very impressive numbers, even when compared to the rest of Americas. São Paulo Metro+CPTM got 1.83 billion passengers in 2023. Mexico City 1.06 billion (2022).

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The opposition to transit service and development that one has sometimes heard about in the US (we don't want transit because it will allow undesirables to have cheap and easy access to our neighbourhood) is something that is quite alien to most any non-American in the western world, including Canadians.

Yeah, the Canada element of this thread is a bit superfluous. It is about a particularity of US urban history.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

Yeah, the Canada element of this thread is a bit superfluous. It is about a particularity of US urban history.

Peculiarity?

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

Ontario and Quebec are seeing incredible growth. With the amount of new people coming in, a HSR between Toronto and Quebec City is more and more inevitable.

That would be incredible!

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by pj3000

That would be incredible!

In the works - exactly how fast however, TBD:

https://hfr-tgf.ca/

The government is going to build a dedicated rail line between Toronto and Quebec City - how fast the trains are is to be determined through the procurement process. They are asking bidders to submit a 200km/h version and a higher speed version, and the government will decide based on costs, benefits, etc.

[iheartthed]

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.

You could easily argue the opposite point. If there wasn't demand for that type of development then so many governments would have created so many laws to make it virtually illegal to build. The Bay Area made dense building mostly illegal outside of San Francisco and a couple of bordering cities.

[nec209]

Originally Posted by Acajack

There isn't a single trigger moment and Canada has a large middle class as well, reasonably similar to the US. (Canada has fewer really really rich people than the US, and fewer really really poor people as well.)

I think it's probably due to the fact that while transit also declined in Canada starting in the 1950s, it didn't almost completely collapse like it did in much of the US.

Transit has always had at least a pulse here in almost all our cities.

That is the thing I don’t know if the US had stronger middle class in the 50s, 60s and 70s than say Canada. Just more cheap access to housing in the US.

But I hear the US built massive highway system and many cities and suburbs got money to build highway system unlike Canada lacking highway system. And in the US houses built along the highway and new communities popping up along the highway. I also hear the federal government subsidies housing in the US.

I hear stories from boomers in Canada oh I got good job paying good money and move into high rise apartment paying rent and taking public transit than in the 80s I bought my first house.

Well it in the US boomers probably skip that and bought house and got car ASAP if the government was subsidies housing and cars.

So probably in the US housing was easier for new emerging middle class people and boomers than in Canada where they moved into apartments first and took public transit than in the 80s move into house.

So in way the government made sure in the US emerging middle class people and boomers move into house.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by nec209

That is the thing I don’t know if the US had stronger middle class in the 50s, 60s and 70s than say Canada. Just more cheap access to housing in the US.

The U.S. had a lot more buying power, especially in that era. I don't know if you want to call it "stronger middle class" as that's kind of a subjective/loaded phrase. But Americans, on average, could live a sprawly, auto-oriented lifestyle more easily than in Canada.

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The U.S. had a lot more buying power, especially in that era. I don't know if you want to call it "stronger middle class" as that's kind of a subjective/loaded phrase. But Americans, on average, could live a sprawly, auto-oriented lifestyle more easily than in Canada.

And the massive amount of postwar wealth put into the interstate system and the VA home loan program only broadened the gap.

[nec209]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

You could easily argue the opposite point. If there wasn't demand for that type of development then so many governments would have created so many laws to make it virtually illegal to build. The Bay Area made dense building mostly illegal outside of San Francisco and a couple of bordering cities.

If there already was a public transit culture of strong public transit ridership the city planners could of zone higher density. That may explain why cities and suburbs are more dense in Canada.

Where if a area has little to no public transit ridership they will zone low density sprawl.

[nec209]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The U.S. had a lot more buying power, especially in that era. I don't know if you want to call it "stronger middle class" as that's kind of a subjective/loaded phrase. But Americans, on average, could live a sprawly, auto-oriented lifestyle more easily than in Canada.

May be better word is access that homes where cheaper or easier to get home in the US than Canada.

I also hear the government subsidies housing in the US and it was easier to get car than say Canada.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by nec209

If there already was a public transit culture of strong public transit ridership the city planners could of zone higher density. That may explain why cities and suburbs are more dense in Canada.

Where if a area has little to no public transit ridership they will zone low density sprawl.

That's not what happened. Cities zoned against higher density because that is what developers would have built for otherwise. I can't think of any common example of minimum density zoning, but city zoning books are overflowing with rules to cap density. There would be no need to cap density if there wasn't demand forit, and a logical reason for building it.

[nec209]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

That's not what happened. Cities zoned against higher density because that is what developers would have built for otherwise. I can't think of any common example of minimum density zoning, but city zoning books are overflowing with rules to cap density. There would be no need to cap density if there wasn't demand forit, and a logical reason for building it.

Well in the Bay Area was there a reason why the city said no to higher density if the investors and developers wanted to build more dense?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by nec209

Well in the Bay Area was there a reason why the city said no to higher density if the investors and developers wanted to build more dense?

These zoning laws have been on the books for decade so the developers have long ago conformed. But there absolutely was demand for dense development and there still would be widespread demand if governments did not deliberately force lower density development.

The Bay Area is the perfect example of a place that is obviously being limited in what it can build by zoning. Land values have shot up because there's no room to build anything, but residents have been reluctant to allow denser building to accommodate the pressure for additional housing. The is pretty clear if you look at San Francisco vs Manhattan:

Median sale price in February 2024 (per realtor.com)
Manhattan: $999K
San Francisco: $1.4M

Median listing price per square foot
Manhattan: $1.5k
San Francisco: $978

San Francisco has a median sales price 40% higher than Manhattan, but Manhattan has a price per square foot 40% higher than SF. The reason is that units are much larger in San Francisco than Manhattan. San Francisco could bring down their unit costs by allowing more smaller units to be built.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

And the massive amount of postwar wealth put into the interstate system and the VA home loan program only broadened the gap.

Ontario and Quebec had pretty equivalent "Interstate" programs which lead to comparable freeway networks being built, but they ran a bit later. Ontario didn't really "finish" it's core freeway network until the 1990's with the 403 and 416 being built, but the 401 ran from Windsor to Montreal by the mid 1970's along with the QEW, 400, and 417 at that time.

It also built less inner-city freeways, but at even then at the time Toronto had two 6-lane freeways running into it's core for a relatively small city. It really wasn't that far off.

The US Feds have always subsidized both houses and especially mortgages more than Canada though - you get things like 30-year fixed mortgages in the US which are only possible because of government subsidies which don't happen in Canada.

[softee]

Originally Posted by nec209

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.

The Greater Toronto-Hamilton area (GTHA) is well past 7.5 million now, it might be around 8 million by the 2026 census.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Ontario and Quebec had pretty equivalent "Interstate" programs which lead to comparable freeway networks being built, but they ran a bit later. Ontario didn't really "finish" it's core freeway network until the 1990's with the 403 and 416 being built, but the 401 ran from Windsor to Montreal by the mid 1970's along with the QEW, 400, and 417 at that time.

It also built less inner-city freeways, but at even then at the time Toronto had two 6-lane freeways running into it's core for a relatively small city. It really wasn't that far off.

I think his point was that the freeways in the U.S. were built into the hearts of cities but that didn't happen in Canada. The interstates were not supposed to go into cities in the U.S. either but mayors wanted access to all of the money that the feds were pouring into the interstate highway project.