VIA Rail

[cplchanb]

And yet the most recent equipment very well used light and dark green.

well....technically that is a combination of grey yellow and blue.... b+y=g+gr= light g

I get what you mean though, green would look pretty good

 

[nfitz]

Ah, so all we really have to add to Blue and Yellow is the Red!

 

[robmausser]

unless they change their brand itll prob be some combination of grey yellow and blue, though it would be great if they minimise on the grey and more on the yellow and blue

The brand already was changed.

Its yellow and more of a forest green now.

 

[kEiThZ]

We need to paint them whatever colour the Japanese or Chinese trains are painted. There are inferiority complexes that need to be fed!

 

[steveintoronto]

We need to paint them whatever colour the Japanese or Chinese trains are painted. There are inferiority complexes that need to be fed!

Which one of about a hundred nations and different systems? CNR (one half of CRRC before amalgamation) exported to over 80.

There's no guarantee what-so-ever that HFR will be VIA's new trainsets for the rest of the system, let alone actually being VIA. If they're stainless steel or polished aluminum with a protective patina, chances are they won't be painted at all. It adds weight, expense, and requires maintenance. Decals or vinyl wrap are possibilities. Bit of a trifling issue however.

Here's nfitz' example:


The blue (outer suburban) and red (inner suburban) versions of Stagecoach’s rail visual
identity, seen at London Waterloo. Photo by Matt Buck [CC BY-SA 2.0] via this flickr

https://thebeautyoftransport.com/20...five-transport-operators-on-the-railway-1997/

Oddly, the UK, which lags in a lot of areas, but not the use of trains to service major cities, has, like Canada, invited in the Chinese:

Made by China: the UK is on the frontline of the next industrial revolution
The UK has invited China to participate in vital infrastructure project
Ben Wright, Group Business Editor, in Beijing
7 May 2016 • 12:25pm

[...]
Necessary know-how
China’s transformation over the past 30 years from an insular, agricultural country to a global manufacturing powerhouse could only be maintained through the development of new high-value industries and the building of critical infrastructure. But the necessary know-how to achieve this was in the hands of international companies.

Rather than simply rolling out the welcome mat, China has used the lure of its booming economy to persuade foreign firms to sign technology transfer agreements. That knowledge has been absorbed, adapted and turned into fresh intellectual property. “Utilising foreign expertise has probably been more important to China than foreign capital,” says Se Yan, senior China economist at Standard Chartered.
[...]
The pace is quickening. There were more attempted overseas acquisitions by Chinese companies in the first four months of this year than in the whole of last year, which was itself a record, according to Derek Scissors, the resident scholar at Washington think tank the American Enterprise Institute, who tracks overseas investments made by China.
[...]
High-speed rail
This is not to say that Beijing is constantly pulling the strings as some believe. “Companies get government support,” says Scissors. “But normal procedure does not involve directives from the government. Most of the strategic decisions are made at the corporate level.”

The formation of the China Railway Rolling Stock Corporation (CRRC) in May last year is a good example of the central government’s arms-length influence on strategy. The merger between two of China’s state-owned railroad equipment makers – CSR Corp and China CNR Corp – created the world’s second largest industrial company behind General Electric.

“The two main Chinese rail companies were merged because individually they were said not to be big enough to compete on the global stage,” says Scissors. Chinese rail companies are now (quite literally) forging international links. Last October, the Indonesian government awarded China a prized contract to build the line between Jakarta and Bandung; a Chinese consortium will build a high-speed railway connecting Moscow with Kazan in Russia.

Chancellor George Osborne – who wants China to be the UK’s second-largest trading partner by 2025 – has urged Chinese rail companies to bid for seven contracts worth £11.8bn covering the first phase of HS2, the planned high-speed rail line between London and Birmingham.
[...]
China can boast plenty of relevant experince. Its first high-speed line between Qinhuangdao and Shenyang was opened in 2003. Since then 11,800 miles of high-speed lines have been built (roughly 60pc of the global total). This figure is forecast to reach 18,600 miles – almost enough to put a girdle round the Earth – by 2020.

The CRH380 – a series of high-speed locomotives that China has developed with the likes of Siemens, Hitachi and Bombardier – has clocked an impressive 486.1 kmph (302 mph) (although its maximum operational speed is, as its name suggests, a slightly calmer 380 kmph). The proposed top speed of HS2, at 360 kmph, is clearly well within Chinese capabilities. China is also able to lay track at a cost of between $17m (£11.7m) to $21m per kilometre, according to the World Bank. This compares with a range of $25m to $39m in Europe.
[...]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...k-is-on-the-frontline-of-the-next-industrial/

The UK's last acquisition from Hitachi was London Underground and British Rail is the latest:

Super Express trains are being manufactured by Hitachi Rail Europe to replace the high speed trains of UK railway network under the Intercity Express Programme (IEP).

The trains will run on the Great Western and East Coast main lines of the UK. Running at a speed of 125mph (200kmph), the trains will reduce the journey time between London, Leeds, Newcastle and Edinburgh by up to 18 minutes.

The trains for the Great Western and East Coast main lines will be introduced by December 2017 and 2018 respectively. The first unit is expected to be delivered by the end of 2014. [...]

http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/-hitachi-super-express-trains-uk/

But of course, Canada can do what no-one else can when it comes to building trainsets according to some. Nothing to learn from others, move along now, your old-fashioned diesel coaches are due shortly....when they're delivered from Thunder Bay, be ready soon, honest...btw: Toronto's earlier H-S subway cars were a Japanese design (Kawasaki) built under licence.

 

[dowlingm]

The VIA Rail 150 livery has a certain Brightliney jauntyness to it that I find attractive. I did wonder in the past about switching VIA to a jazzed up red and white scheme to punch up the national identity aspect similar to the Air Canada 65th scheme

I'm fine with the current dark green - in a mixed set it makes the blue and yellow coaches look faded and makes me just wish VIA would get on with completing their re-liverying.

For a "understated" style I like Irish Rail's livery on the 22000 class DMUs.

 

[aquateam]

And yet on the other hand, density, contrary to the claims of Keithz and his proclamations in the MOOSE string, *even for Ottawa* are also spilling into the burbs or surrounding municipalities. From one of my favourite Globe reporters on the Infra Bank and VIA:

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/ne...33949353/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

Article is replete with Statcan graphs and links.

Apologies for not responding to this earlier, it slipped my notice. But it's worth mentioning that exurban and suburban development are the exact opposite of what you want if you are trying to build an intercity rail market. If you're in a car-dependent suburb which is a 30 minutes drive from Ottawa station, would you really drive there in advance to park and wait for a train that comes every hour for a 1.5 hour train ride to Montreal? Or would you just continue along in your car and end up right in your destination?

Suburban development is the reason that public transit and rail ridership peaked 60 years ago, even when our population was a fraction of what it is now.

Yet, even after GO RER, which will for the first time offer true regional rail in the GTA, the modal share predictions from Metrolinx don't show dramatic improvement. Basically just keeping up.

It's actually kind of depressing, looking at the statistics from the updated Big Move. The province is running hard to stand still when it comes to mode share, pouring in billions but not seeing much benefit. And that's because there are broader trends that they are fighting against.

Suburb to suburb transit is very hard to service by transit because of how dispersed the destinations are and how far away they are. Because you have a lot of ground to cover, it's expensive to get the same kind of frequency. So even if the Big Move manages to increase transit mode share by 100% in the suburbs, from 2% to 4%, and to improve the mode share within Toronto, all the office and residential growth in the 905 means that the GTHA mode share will be untouched.

The same thing is happening in Montreal:

So it's clear that even the best rail systems don't seem to dissuade people from driving, unless driving itself becomes either expensive or massively inconvenient. That's true for many cities in Australia, Europe and Asia. And where true in North America (like New York) you see the regional rail with higher modal shares.

Compare what I showed above to Vancouver, where Metro Vancouver (the equivalent of the GTHA) has seen consistent gains in year-over-year transit mode share (~3% each census) and now has a lower auto mode share than the GTHA.

They also have a very strong center city, no highways within the city of Vancouver, and policies linking density to transport corridors.

Conclusion

Ce qu'il faut comprendre absolument c'est que la guerre pour des transports durables et verts sera gagnée ou perdue non sur le plan des investissements en transport, mais sur celui du développement urbain.

"The war for green and sustainable transport will be won or lost, not on the plan on transportation spending, but on that of urban development"

And this is before we discuss things like the coming wave of automation which at a minimum will make driving easier, to flat out full automation in 10-15 years. Maybe we can hope for traffic to be bad enough that people start considering trains.

Self-driving cars are going to be a killer to transit in all except the densest cities. Right now, why do most people take the bus? So they have a more relaxing, productive commute. So they don't have to pay for parking. Why do they live near downtown? So their commute isn't so long and horrible.

If you could just nap, play games, work, whatever in your car while it drives itself, if your car could just drive itself home instead of you paying for parking, if you didn't care about commute time because you are being shuttled in your private bedroom, who would possibly want to take public transit?

I've mentioned this in the context of intra-urban transport, but the same thing applied to inter-urban transport. Right now, taking the train is a lot more comfortable than a boring 6 hour drive from Montreal to Toronto, where I can't read or work. If the car drives itself, why take the train?

 

[steveintoronto]

...it's worth mentioning that exurban and suburban development are the exact opposite of what you want if you are trying to build an intercity rail market.

Excellent post, even if there are a few details to clarify before taking the discussion further:

"Exurbs" means many things by a number of definitions. I was just Googling now, and have even less of a clear understanding of the term from before I started reading all the different interpretations. So let's begin in the case of Toronto. What is an "Exurb"? The area *before* reaching a node like Oshawa, or Oshawa itself? How about Guelph? You intuitively understand how non-linear the term is applied by detailing the difference between Van's experience for rail transit v. Toronto's. Van has perhaps even less rail corridor density than Toronto (which is actually remarkably well served *on paper*) and appear to be implying the difference (and this is a characteristic, but not a truth, by any means) is lack of highway/expressway availability. There are many European cities that defy that corollary, and even Californian cities, perhaps the best highway served in the world, are certainly in defiance of the claim. Paris is quite well served by both public and toll highways/freeways, and yet has one of the best rail transit systems in the world.

Suburban development is the reason that public transit and rail ridership peaked 60 years ago, even when our population was a fraction of what it is now.

Incredibly good link, I'll digest that later, but I do take the case study of New York to task, in that it's missing a dimension. And that is *reduced car ownership* among this generation's youth. This is a dynamic that skews within the last few years even, and between Cdn v. US youth, let alone rural v. urban. Calgary, for instance displays the same behaviour as Toronto on this.

I'd post a number of references, but they're all dated by at least three years....long enough for the trend to waver, but still show direction. And that remains avoiding car ownership where possible.

Example, since it's the Globe and Mail and closely domestic, even though using US data:

Cato: The real reason millennials don't drive or buy cars
Jeremy Cato
Special to The Globe and Mail
March 25, 2017 January 23, 2014
[...]
"It looks like teens just can't afford to drive," says Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) vice-president Matt Moore. "Paying for their own cars, gas and insurance is hard if they can't find a job. At the same time, kids who count on Mom and Dad to help them also may be out of luck if their parents have been affected by the recession."

Young people have turned to transit because they can't afford vehicle ownership. Yes, the proportion of young drivers has dropped in the last decade. But HLDI data suggests that drop has coincided with the economic downturn – which has not only hammered youth employment, but also has had an impact on parents who might otherwise help their kids take the wheel.

As HLDI points out, "There was an inverse relationship between the growing unemployment spread and the falling ratio of teen drivers to prime-age drivers." As unemployment rises, youth driving sinks.

The evidence, instead, suggests that young people are keen to get a licence and buy a car. "Buying a car is less attainable for the young, but that quickly changes as they get older," he said.


Research from Edmunds.com also argues that economics are at the root of what's put an arrow into a youthful love affair with cars. Buyers 18 to 34 have an affordability issue.

"Millennials haven't seen the same benefits in the labour, housing and stock markets that baby boomers and others have enjoyed over the last year," said Edmunds chief economist Lacey Plache. "As a result, younger Americans across all income levels have had trouble pulling together the financial motivation to buy a new car."
[...]

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/gl...16449511/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

Suburb to suburb transit is very hard to service by transit because of how dispersed the destinations are and how far away they are.

Depends on the city! Even New York, since you've used it as a model in comparisons, is now building a subway from Brooklyn to Queens w/o going near Manhattan, not to mention LRTs, ditto Jerseyside. Sydney and Melbourne, the latter especially, does very well with rail transit with the last mile by tram (largest tram system in the world, by far) and yet slightly larger than Toronto, and a higher standard of living.

So I think we have grounds for excellent discussion as to how that relates to Toronto, and Ontario and Quebec dense corridors (different factors will have a different result).

HFR is to get people out of their cars, not out of planes. But that might be about to change too as HFR takes on an impetus of its own. HFR+ will compete with flying between some of the major cities concerned.

But first, please offer me a definition of "Exurban". And then we can continue at this level of discussion. You offer some excellent links, btw. I'll delve on them later.

Edit to Add: I'd love to use some of the references to make a point on car ownership, here's one of many, but it too is dated, and in Canada at least, this stat has bounced back again, even though the general trend is down. Trying to find the latest indicators are difficult, but five years dated, here's a reference:

Car use declining in North America
Throughout the developed world we’re driving less and less every year. Oil companies and automakers should be getting nervous.


Aug 7, 2012 Michael McCullough

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/author/michael_mccullough/

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/bus...mer-goods/car-use-declining-in-north-america/

 

[kEiThZ]

They also have a very strong center city, no highways within the city of Vancouver, and policies linking density to transport corridors.

Great example of the point I was making. Australian cities are somewhat similar too. Putting up a list of highways is of course a red herring. Sure they have lots of highways in Australia. They don't have as many highways through their urban cores though. Nor do they have tons of parking. And that's before we talk about the cost of parking in the city centre in any Australian metro.

Make it expensive or inconvenient to drive, and you'll get people taking the train even if car ownership is high.

Suburban development is the reason that public transit and rail ridership peaked 60 years ago, even when our population was a fraction of what it is now.

Exactly why Ottawa refused to extend the LRT outside the Greenbelt for so long. Even now, with the exception of Orleans, they've not gone substantially outside the Greenbelt after Stage 2 (though I personally wish they stuck to the rule hard and fast about the greenbelt). And Orleans has the highest modal share of transit in Ottawa, so the decision to give them LRT was more defensible. Moose's entire gameplan depends on massive sprawl, which is the only reason I'm not a fan. Their argument is that you get density around the stations. But that's of course a debatable outcome (who moves to the country to stay in a condo near a train station?) and an irrelevant one when the end result is massive expansion in the population share of the exurbs and suburbs.

Ottawa is actually trying somewhat to avoid becoming the GTA. It's not doing great in my opinion. They definitely need to do more to promote densification in Central Ottawa. But it's far better than the GTA where we now see commutes from 100 km away in Barrie, as perfectly normal.

 

[Urban Sky]

And this is before we discuss things like the coming wave of automation which at a minimum will make driving easier, to flat out full automation in 10-15 years. Maybe we can hope for traffic to be bad enough that people start considering trains.

Self-driving cars are going to be a killer to transit in all except the densest cities. Right now, why do most people take the bus? So they have a more relaxing, productive commute. So they don't have to pay for parking. Why do they live near downtown? So their commute isn't so long and horrible.

If you could just nap, play games, work, whatever in your car while it drives itself, if your car could just drive itself home instead of you paying for parking, if you didn't care about commute time because you are being shuttled in your private bedroom, who would possibly want to take public transit?

I've mentioned this in the context of intra-urban transport, but the same thing applied to inter-urban transport. Right now, taking the train is a lot more comfortable than a boring 6 hour drive from Montreal to Toronto, where I can't read or work. If the car drives itself, why take the train?

A few comments from my (admittedly) not entirely bias-free corner:

• 10-15 year for full automation of automobile travel is not much less than the time frame the automobile industry has provided at the World's Fair in New York in 1939 (!), where it promised this vision by 1960. These 21 years of wait have become 78 years (and counting)...
• Just a small overview over some of the problems, which driver-less cars are still struggling with:
  • The ability to respond to spoken commands or hand signals from law enforcement or highway safety employees.
    
  • Driving safely despite unclear lane markings.
    
  • Reliably recognizing traffic lights that are not working.
    
  • Making left turns into intersections with fast-moving traffic.
  • Detecting which small objects in the roadway must be avoided.
  • The ability to operate safely in all weather conditions.
  • Cybersecurity: There is no evidence yet that autonomous cars will be any more secure than any other networked computers.
• Some of the human and societal problems will not be easier to solve:
  • Public acceptability: We are used to accept that human error kills people at quite a remarkable frequency, but not that computer errors do the same
  • Interaction with humans: Machines are very good at predicting rational behaviour, which is often very different from how humans interact, especially in already dangerous situations
  • Safety paradox: while roads will undoubtedly safer once all human drivers have been removed, the safety will first become worse, while the gap between the number of autonomous and human-driven cars closes (before the former overtakes the latter)
  • Liability: who is liable if an autonomous car causes an accident? And even more: what responsibilities does the owner or lead passenger (i.e. the passenger who provides the commands to the car)? If you are expected to intervene if the car reacts unexpectedly and inappropriately, you will not be able to sit on the back seat and watch a movie or enjoy an alcoholic drink...
  • Ethical: while human drivers have only instinct and intuition to rely on making a split-second decision to situations where a collision is unavoidable, on-board computers can make a very rational decision in choosing the least undesirable obstacle to collide with. Who protects the human life of the people outside the autonomous vehicle about-to-crash against the bias of the car manufacturer to protect the life of their customer (inside the car) over the life of bystanders...
• You are assuming that driving is what makes driving a car a nuisance. I would rather make the opposite case: it's one of the few things which makes driving bearable (at least when driving alone, which accounted for 76.1% of all commutes in the US in 2007 and for 93.3% of the employment access increase in the 5 following years). The task of driving a car gives you something to occupy yourself with and the feeling of control. What do you think why people get so frustrated when they are caught in congestion? Because they realise that their vehicles have turned into mobile prison cells and the feeling of control into an illusion. Oh yes, and do you want to know what would be much more boring than driving? Having to watch your car driving itself, thus: supervising a computer because you might still be considered the legally responsible driver.
• In the same way, you seem to assume that the avoidance of any human interaction (with anyone else than other car passengers) is what makes driving (in) a car desirable. In my view, it is (again) the opposite: the moment where you have to beg your autopilot to find you a washroom or some place to eat, you might realise how lonely and dependent you are in your car, while in a train, you only have to get up (for the washroom) or talk to an attendant for food or beverages.

However, I still believe that there is a space for self-driving cars: and that is for those driving jobs which neither require driving at high speeds nor through crowded speeds, such as an automated taxi service from your house to the next public transit (preferably: commuter rail) station or to the next supermarket - and of course: also back - or any deliveries to your home. This Mobility as a Service would dramatically reduce the costs of car access and the need for parking facilities etc., but the car would inevitably evolve from a status symbol to a commodity, just like the consumption of movies and music at home has transformed from treasured CD and DVD collections to subscriptions at Spotify and Netflix...

 

[aquateam]

There are many European cities that defy that corollary, and even Californian cities, perhaps the best highway served in the world, are certainly in defiance of the claim.

Outside of the city of SF, I couldn't imagine living in California without a car. Even in LA, which has expanded its subway system tremendously over the past while, has not really made a dent in mode share because driving is just too attractive and destinations are too spread out.

Paris is quite well served by both public and toll highways/freeways, and yet has one of the best rail transit systems in the world.
Incredibly good link, I'll digest that later, but I do take the case study of New York to task, in that it's missing a dimension. And that is *reduced car ownership* among this generation's youth. This is a dynamic that skews within the last few years even, and between Cdn v. US youth, let alone rural v. urban. Calgary, for instance displays the same behaviour as Toronto on this.

I'd post a number of references, but they're all dated by at least three years....long enough for the trend to waver, but still show direction. And that remains avoiding car ownership where possible.

Example, since it's the Globe and Mail and closely domestic, even though using US data:

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/gl...16449511/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

There may be a preference for public transit, but preference is a very shaky basis for the hopes of transit ridership.

And among that decline, most of it is absorbed by carpooling, not transit or active transport.

This is the broader trend:

Transit usage and car ownership may be dropping in the downtowns of North America's largest cities, but that doesn't make a large blip in the overall statistics. The media likes to portray a happy narrative about transit usage, but because so much of it is focused disproportionately on the young and on large cities, it misses the bigger picture.

But the real problem is not the logic of planners; making the case to them that they should alter their metrics to reflect generational change is missing the point. Indeed, if generational change is altering the decisions about the way some people get around, it is not, in itself, nearly enough to alter the way a lot of people get around, and as the figures cited above suggest, the large majority of young people still use cars to get around. Importantly, we will go back to rampant increases in car use—and perhaps we already are—if we rely only on the hope that younger people will act differently and adjust our models to reflect that.

We must do a better job developing a political argument—an ideological claim—that can support a transition away from road building and a society built around it that works not just in the aforementioned center cities but also in the suburbs of those cities and in other regions. Only with a change in the way our society is built—meaning not only the way our transportation is planned but also the way our neighborhoods are structured—will the level of automobile use actually decline, and that change requires political support. A generational change of mindset is not enough.

This above is the point that I am trying to get at: we cannot look at the preferences of some millennials and at the skyscrapers being constructed downtown and assume that we are in the middle of some great inevitable green shift. The actual statistics show that we are losing badly the war for a walkable and low-carbon urban future.

Depends on the city! Even New York, since you've used it as a model in comparisons, is now building a subway from Brooklyn to Queens w/o going near Manhattan, not to mention LRTs, ditto Jerseyside. Sydney and Melbourne, the latter especially, does very well with rail transit with the last mile by tram (largest tram system in the world, by far) and yet slightly larger than Toronto, and a higher standard of living.

Queens and Brooklyn are the two most populated counties in the entire US, and two of the five most densely populated. They've existed since the 17th century and have had subway service for over a century. Very different from the post-war suburbs you'll find anywhere else. It's comparable to how in Toronto Bloordale is connected to Greektown without going through downtown, except if those areas were more densely populated.

Australia does well but not amazing for mode share:

Which ties in with what I was saying: size doesn't matter. How the city is built makes a much greater difference.

HFR is to get people out of their cars, not out of planes. But that might be about to change too as HFR takes on an impetus of its own. HFR+ will compete with flying between some of the major cities concerned.

But first, please offer me a definition of "Exurban". And then we can continue at this level of discussion. You offer some excellent links, btw. I'll delve on them later.

Edit to Add: I'd love to use some of the references to make a point on car ownership, here's one of many, but it too is dated, and in Canada at least, this stat has bounced back again, even though the general trend is down. Trying to find the latest indicators are difficult, but five years dated, here's a reference:

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/bus...mer-goods/car-use-declining-in-north-america/

Here are some statistics about car ownership:

The article you linked to points to a lot of statistics that are unrelated to the actual amount of driving: about the price of real estate near transit, the number of gas stations, and the growth of uber. The closest it gets to a direct measure of kilometers driven is this:

U.S. crude oil consumption peaked in 2007 at almost 21 million barrels a day. When the recession hit the next year, as you might expect, it dropped to between 18 million and 19 million barrels per day. But instead of recovering, consumption has stayed around 19 million barrels ever since.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that there is less driving, just that cars are smaller and more fuel-efficient. There are also many more hybrid and electrical vehicles on the road than 10 years ago. The crux of the article is here:

Compared to other countries, Canada lacks reliable data on driving participation rates and mileage

Let's look at the US, which actually does take detailed driving data:

 

[steveintoronto]

@aquateam :

I just got a chance to take a more analytical read of your primary reference...and it just wasn't adding up, even though the author *appears* to put on airs of objectivity. He does make a very pro case for NYC, but then disses the rest of the nation. Odd...so I thought the author sounded familiar, and indeed, he is, he's infamous:

Wendell Cox is an American urban policy analyst and academic, known as a leading proponent of the use of the private car over rail projects. He is the principal and sole owner of Wendell Cox Consultancy/Demographia, based in the St. Louis metropolitan region and editor of three web sites, Demographia, The Public Purpose and Urban Tours by Rental Car. Cox is a fellow of numerous conservative think tanks and a frequent op-ed commenter in conservative US and UK newspapers.

Cox generally opposes planning policies aimed at increasing rail service and density, while favoring planning policies that reinforce and serve the existing transportation and building infrastructure. He believes that existing transportation and building infrastructure reflect what people prefer, while his opponents argue that his positions are based more on a belief that road transport and low density are inherently superior. [...]

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

Ah yes, Demographia. Know it well, makes the Heritage and CATO institutes appear positively socialist.

One of Cox's favourite comparators for a 'city to copy' when it comes to urban planning? Wait for it...Houston. Because they have no zoning or master plan.

Best I reference my subjective claim:

The Texas Growth Machine
The data show that the Lone Star State’s prosperity is no mirage.
Wendell Cox
Winter 2013
Economy, finance, and budgets
Cities
[...]

https://www.city-journal.org/html/texas-growth-machine-13532.html

Ah yes, Houston, I'm just so shocked at what happened...I'm sorry, I can't hide the sarcasm, Houston was a disaster waiting to happen, and it will happen again with the help of persons like Cox. The Ozzies had a field day with him a few years back, as Demographia had some Ozzie connections, ( http://www.demographia.com.au/ )I forget what they were. One of the reasons Melbourne is considered the world's most livable city (often tied with Vienna) and not Sydney is the exact inverse of Cox' view on reality.

So perhaps you could provide something more neutral than Cox to make your case?

From the site that Cox roosts from, which I initially scanned to believe to be "excellent" (I was mistaken) the following appears:

Ryerson University Research Cites Urban Containment Policy as Major Factor in Toronto House Price Escalation

by Wendell Cox 04/26/2017
A Globe and Mail article on April 25 cites Ryerson University research found that Ontario's urban containment based growth controls have "spurred soaring increases in house prices in the Toronto region by limiting construction of new low-rise family homes..." This effect was predicted by a number of analysts when the program was being formulated more than a decade ago and has been associated with huge price increases relative to incomes in such widely distributed metropolitan areas as Vancouver, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Sydney, Auckland, Melbourne and others.

According to reporter Janet McFarland, the Centre for Urban Research and Land Development report identified “'a marked mismatch” between the types of units completed and the types demanded, according to the report from the Centre for Urban Research and Land Development at Ryerson University in Toronto." The report concludes that "The public discussion on the fundamental causes behind the rise in prices of ground-related housing (singles, semis and townhouses) in the GTA over the past decade by ignoring or downplaying the role played by the shortfall of serviced sites available to build new homes misses the only viable solution to dealing with deteriorating longer-term affordability – significantly increasing the number of new ground-related housing units built."

Over the 13 years of the Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey, Toronto's housing affordability has substantially worsened, with median prices at 3.8 times median incomes in 2004 (before the growth controls were fully implemented) to 7.7 times in 2016. This measure, the "median multiple," had changed little between 1970 and 2004, when land use regulations were more liberal in the Toronto area.

Without liberalization of the housing market to permit supply that meets demand (not only in numbers but also in preferred type of housing), Toronto can expect its house prices to rise even more. Already, Vancouver and Sydney, for example are more than 50 percent higher (at median multiples of 11.8 and 12.2 respectively).

http://www.newgeography.com/content...y-major-factor-toronto-house-price-escalation

[Without liberalization of the housing market to permit supply that meets demand (not only in numbers but also in preferred type of housing), Toronto can expect its house prices to rise even more. ]
Errr...yes, getting back to "sprawl" and Places to Grow, and "greenbelts"...it seems Wendell has some walking in circles. No wonder they can't find a train station...

Edit to Add: Btw: On his touted causation of Toronto prices, none less than Ryerson themselves have made the case, it is *not* to do with "lack of supply"!

Again, best I qualify my claim: (And note it's *exactly* the same author he contorts to make the opposite case)

Demand fuels Toronto house prices, not lack of supply, study finds

News source: Janet Mcfarland, The Globe and Mail

Date: March 13th, 2017

Summary: Recent house price increases in Toronto are being driven by demand from foreign and domestic buyers who are caught up in a bubble of growing price expectations, and are not due to a fundamental lack of housing in the city, according to a new study released Monday.Read article.

http://www.ryerson.ca/fcs/news-and-...-house-prices-not-lack-of-supply-study-finds/

 

[aquateam]

@aquateam :

I just got a chance to take a more analytical read of your primary reference...and it just wasn't adding up, even though the author *appears* to put on airs of objectivity. He does make a very pro case for NYC, but then disses the rest of the nation. Odd...so I thought the author sounded familiar, and indeed, he is, he's infamous:

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

Ah yes, Demographia. Know it well, makes the Heritage and CATO institutes appear positively socialist.

I know Wendell Cox is ideologically opposed to transit spending, but that is kind of irrelevant to my point. He was just quoting APTA statistics when he stated that transit ridership has only just now reached the same levels it had in the mid 1950s despite significant population growth.

One of Cox's favourite comparators for a 'city to copy' when it comes to urban planning? Wait for it...Houston. Because they have no zoning or master plan.

Best I reference my subjective claim:

https://www.city-journal.org/html/texas-growth-machine-13532.html

Ah yes, Houston, I'm just so shocked at what happened...I'm sorry, I can't hide the sarcasm, Houston was a disaster waiting to happen, and it will happen again with the help of persons like Cox.

Hurricane Harvey's impact on Houston was not caused by its lack of land-use zoning. What zoning regulations it did have (parking minimums) worsened the flooding by increasing the amount of impermiable paved surfaces.

The Ozzies had a field day with him a few years back, as Demographia had some Ozzie connections, ( http://www.demographia.com.au/ )I forget what they were. One of the reasons Melbourne is considered the world's most livable city (often tied with Vienna) and not Sydney is the exact inverse of Cox' view on reality.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make on Sydney vs. Melbourne. Melbourne was ranked more liveable than Sydney this year, but Sydney was ranked more liveable than Melbourne last year. Either way this is a bit of a tangent.

http://www.newgeography.com/content...y-major-factor-toronto-house-price-escalation

[Without liberalization of the housing market to permit supply that meets demand (not only in numbers but also in preferred type of housing), Toronto can expect its house prices to rise even more. ]
Errr...yes, getting back to "sprawl" and Places to Grow, and "greenbelts"...it seems Wendell has some walking in circles. No wonder they can't find a train station...

Edit to Add: Btw: On his touted causation of Toronto prices, and none less than Ryerson themselves have made the case, is *not* to do with lack of supply!

Again, best I qualify my claim: (And note it's *exactly* the same author he contorts to make the opposite case)

http://www.ryerson.ca/fcs/news-and-...-house-prices-not-lack-of-supply-study-finds/

Well, well, Wendell. Say Hi to the Donald for me...(Fake news)(Sad)

There is definitely a relationship between supply, demand, cost and price: that's just economics. It's important, though, to distinguish between supply of LAND and supply of HOUSING. I would argue that there is plenty of land, not enough housing. He is arguing that there is not enough land. Others might argue that supply is irrelevant and I think that's just as ideological as claiming that the greenbelt is the only reason for high prices.

Again, I quoted an article by Wendell Cox because he quoted APTA statistics, which I could have just directly linked to. His views are irrelevant to the point I was making.

 

[steveintoronto]

I might reply to answer all your claims point by point, but frankly I don't see the point at this time. You obviously fail to see how you're being easily manipulated by an author who has a steep agenda.

I find it suffice to make the point with Houston:
Houston's Flood Is a Design Problem - The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/08/why-cities-flood/538251/
Aug 28, 2017 - There's the storm surge from hurricanes, the runoff from snowmelt, the inundation .... city council and school board, but local planning, zoning, and urban design .... As Hurricane Irma, now a tropical storm, moves out of Florida, ...
How Houston's Zoning Can Help Hurricane Harvey Recovery - CityLab
https://www.citylab.com/environment/2017/09/is-houstons-zoning-to.../538626/
Sep 4, 2017 - With a few tweaks, the city's relaxed land-use regulations might be an ... As the floodwaters of Hurricane Harvey recede, Houston must think ...
A Storm Forces Houston, the Limitless City, to Consider Its Limits - The ...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/us/houston-flooding-growth-regulation.html?...
Aug 30, 2017 - As it reels from the impact of Hurricane Harvey, a muscular ... spate of post-stormimprovisation that helped truly put Houston on the map. ... “We had no zoning. .... WatchingHurricanes Irma, Jose and Katia From 22,000 Miles ...
Houston's Flooding Problem Reflects Shortfalls In City Planning : NPR
www.npr.org/2017/08/.../houstons-flooding-problem-reflects-shortfalls-in-city-planning
Aug 31, 2017 - Lack of proper drainage, no real zoning code and rapid unregulated growth had a hand in damage caused by Hurricane Harvey in Houston.
Less Sprawl Would Have Helped Houston Weather Harvey - NYMag
nymag.com/daily/.../08/less-sprawl-would-have-helped-houston-weather-harvey.html
Aug 29, 2017 - Houston is famous for its hostility to land-use planning. ... More Zoning Wouldn't Have Protected Houston From Harvey's Fury, But Less ... As we watch Houston struggle with the catastrophic flooding associated with Hurricane Harvey's biblical .... 12:47 p.m. Scenes From Irma'sPath of Destruction, From the ...

And so on. But of course, if you're Wendell Cox, that's all Leftie Talk.

Car use and purchase is down, and transit use is up in *many* locales. Picking one to make a point and not another in aggregate can go on forever.

TTC ridership is down, GO and surrounding regional ridership is up. Spin that whichever way you wish.

VIA, btw, is breaking recent records for ridership. Feel free to post Wendell's take on that. I can't be bothered spending time to filter it for you:

VIA RAIL REPORTS OUTSTANDING GROWTH FOR THE THIRD ...
www.viarail.ca › Home › About VIA Rail
May 10, 2017 - Ridership up 4.1% • Passenger Revenues up 9.5%. Montréal, May 10, 2017 – VIA RailCanada (VIA Rail) reported record results today for ...
RECORD RIDERSHIP ON VIA RAIL TRAINS OVER MAY LONG ...
www.viarail.ca › Home › About VIA Rail
May 26, 2017 - Trains in the Quebec City-Windsor Corridor also posted strong growth, with an 8.5% increase in ridership and revenues up by approximately ...
via rail continues strong performance: growth in revenue and ridership
www.viarail.ca › Home › About VIA Rail
May 31, 2016 - Montréal, May 31st, 2016 – During the first quarter of 2016, VIA Rail Canada (VIA Rail) saw another increase in ridership and reported the best ...

 

[kEiThZ]

@aquateam

Thanks for those posts and sources. Super informative. Lines up with my experiences living in California for the last year too.

Anybody who thinks transit is usable in California hasn't been here. Coming from Toronto, the Bay Area is such a mess. Again they only get ridership because traffic is horrendous and parking is expensive. Driving around Silicon Valley at rush is just insane. Lol. San Jose is so bad for traffic, local transit and real estate prices, Google is building a campus beside Diridon station so their employees can commute from Fresno on high speed rail.

Driving in LA? That's a whole other level. I hate LA. Want to see the walk of Fame? Subway doesn't go to Hollywood. Want to use the subway? Frequency is crap. Was so bad that the staff at the hotel I stayed at didn't know about transit, when the hotel was literally next door to a station. Transit just seems impressive in these cities because for most Americans transit is something they either don't have, or have very little of. And most of the middle class thinks it's for poor people. That's literally how they view it. Car broken down? They'll get a ride before they take the bus.

One positive though. Biking is very popular here.

@Urban Sky

My post came off far too optimistic. I've seen a lot of work down here in autonomous vehicles so I know how far along it is. And I agree that it'll be 20-30 years at least before full autonomy.

That said, what we're talking about doesn't require full autonomy. Studies on Teslas show their driving aids (like autopilot) reduce fatigue. And I fear that maybe enough to get suburbanization going again. 100km bumper to bumper is stressful. But what if the car handled the braking and am you had to do was steer? You might just put up with it.