Quote:
Originally Posted by Winnipegger
Not sure who in their right mind would compare rapid transit/TOD in Paris, Tokyo, and Bangkok to Winnipeg? Apples and oranges. Like, you're comparing cities with populations of 2 to 20 million to Winnipeg, which doesn't even have a million yet. Of course TOD is going to take a lot longer, and the market for premium sandwiches within 10 meters of a rapid transit station is much smaller.
Why don't we make a more fair comparison, and see how Winnipeg's rapid transit and transit-orientated development plays out compared to Hamilton, Quebec, Tulsa, Omaha, or El Paso? Those would be much more fair comparisons population-wise.
Instead of wondering why the Honda CRV doesn't perform the same as a Lamborghini Huracán, maybe compare the CRV to the Rav4, Rogue, or Sportage.
|
Yea there always seems to be a constant comparison to major international cities. I mean, I get it, many people travel to these places from a typical North American city and are baffled by how well a well-oiled transit system can move people. They're also common destinations (esp. Paris, London, Tokyo) so it can be a common ground for conversation with anyone who is somewhat traveled.
A lot of posters miss the fact that public transit is so well built and utilized because these cities were not built for the automobile, and such driving in these places is a much worse experience and time suck than to take public transport.
It's a self perpetuating cycle where more public transport usage leads to more revenues and pressure on governments to expand.
The reverse is also true where in Winnipeg we keep catering to the automobile, so the pressure from the public to expand roadways (e.g. Kenaston, CPT extension, freewaying the inner ring road) is greater than transit or AT. Generally someone will champion a cause that impacts them the most, and elected officials will lean to what will get them elected (especially the wealthier voices).