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

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by jbermingham123

Racism is a very big factor

Obviously Canada has racism too, just like anywhere, but the US is more racist,

no, it can't be certain the usa is more racist than canada. or anywhere. at all.

what it is is its more open about its racism than anywhere.

and thats because its more open about everything.

in fact its so open people cant even wrap their heads around what that really means.

for a recent example, china built its whole economy off of usa openness. most information gathered like corporate and whatnot did not even require espionage and in fact was outright given to them.

its a characteristic of america and americans that evolved due to vast immigration and that is almost beyond belief, but not always unrecognized. some around the world would label it naive.

[edale]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

no, it can't be certain the usa is more racist than canada. or anywhere. at all.

what it is is its more open about its racism than anywhere.

and thats because its more open about everything.

in fact its so open people cant even wrap their heads around what that really means.

for a recent example, china built its whole economy off of usa openness. most information gathered like corporate and whatnot did not even require espionage and in fact was outright given to them.

its a characteristic of america and americans that evolved due to vast immigration and that is almost beyond belief, but not always unrecognized. some around the world would label it naive.

No, I feel pretty comfortable saying that Canada is less racist than the US. They never had slavery, Jim Crow, lynching, the 3/5th clause, etc. I'm sure Canada is guilty of plenty of horrible things too, but it's hard to compete with the US when it comes to how poorly we've treated Black people in this land since before the USA even became a country.

[Crawford]

It's not that America is more racist, but Canada didn't have the intense, divisive black-white issues as in the U.S. Canada has a miniscule non-immigrant-derived black population and didn't have a Great Migration.

If, say, Philly, had the demographics of Toronto, I bet it would have vastly higher transit ridership, given density, urbanity and system quality. There are a huge proportion of Americans who won't consider transit bc it's commonly associated with poor black people, bums, losers, miscreants, etc.

And you see this in the U.S. The Canada-like U.S. cities (places like Seattle, San Diego, Honolulu, Portland, etc.) have fairly high transit ridership relative to system quality, minimal white flight, strong in-town neighborhoods, etc. The big city with the worst transit collapse (Detroit) is also the blackest city. Not a coincidence.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by FromSD

American federal, state and local authorities do everything they can to accommodate automobile use: low gas taxes, abundant parking, massive road infrastructure even in the largest cities. This is much less true in Canada, where urban freeways in particular, are much less common.

There was extensive disinvestment in U.S. public transit after World War II, but even after that changed in the 1970s, public transit in most places was relegated to those who couldn't drive or couldn't afford to drive. Americans think that public transit is for poor people, and because of stubborn class and racial divisions, that limits its appeal to "choice" riders further up the economic scale.

Yes, this and I would also add that there's some historical context to why it is like this. The greatest American urban transit systems all began as privately owned companies. Most local and state governments (and certainly not the federal gov't) had no precedent for developing and maintaining public transit, and most never really developed good policy around transit expansions and improvements. OTOH, all levels of government have pretty robust policies and funding mechanisms for maintaining roads, and most of our roads are products of government planning. If the U.S. applied the same level of planning to public transit infrastructure as it does to roads then a lot more of our cities would have some of the best transit in the world.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by edale

No, I feel pretty comfortable saying that Canada is less racist than the US.

I don't think there's any supporting evidence for this.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

You forgot to put quotation marks around the word "urban".

Most Americans live in autocentric sprawl.

Here's a song for ya, Steely. from Montréal's Arcade Fire.
lyrics:
"They heard me singing and they told me to stop
Quit these pretentious things and just punch the clock
These days, my life, I feel it has no purpose
But late at night the feelings swim to the surface
'Cause on the surface the city lights shine
They're calling at me, "Come and find your kind" "
...
"Living in the sprawl
Dead shopping malls rise like mountains beyond mountains
And there's no end in sight
I need the darkness, someone please cut the lights"
• Video Link

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by edale

No, I feel pretty comfortable saying that Canada is less racist than the US. They never had slavery, Jim Crow, lynching, the 3/5th clause, etc. I'm sure Canada is guilty of plenty of horrible things too, but it's hard to compete with the US when it comes to how poorly we've treated Black people in this land since before the USA even became a country.

I think the biggest minority group in Canada was indigenous until the 20th century. Canada treated indigenous people horribly, and the treatment of Canadian "aboriginals" rivals a lot of what was done to Black Americans post slavery.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by FromSD

LA, on the other hand, LA had a huge bus system with high ridership, but that ridership was mostly people who couldn't afford car ownership. Beginning in the 1980s, voters passed a series of sales tax increases to pay for transit and road improvements. Despite the development of what now amounts to a fairly extensive subway and rail system, ridership remains anemic and has actually come down a bit in the last 10 years.

The drop in LA public transit ridership over the last decade coincides with the passage of AB 60, which, as of January 1, 2015, allowed undocumented immigrants in California to get special "AB 60" driver's licenses for the first time. I suspect this caused a large shift from such immigrants taking buses and trains to driving cars, and thus was a major cause of the ridership drop in LA since 2015.

Choice riders continue to prove elusive. As the LA economy started to recover following the Great Recession, some transit users left the system once they obtained the means to own and operate cars. The pandemic made this problem worse as reports of homelessness and crime on trains and buses became more common. Wealth inequality and class divisions, in part overlapping with racial divisions, continue to be very prevalent in LA, and that has limited the appeal of public transit there.

This is also about the last mile. The major boulevards that criss-cross the metropolis generally have decent transit options, but almost all of the neighborhoods on the sidestreets between the boulevards suffer from the last-mile problem. People don't want to walk a mile to a bus stop, wait, take the bus, and then walk another mile to arrive at their destination.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

The U.S.'s population is more urbanized than Canada's. Over 80% of Americans live in urban areas, while only 73% of Canadians do.

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.

Originally Posted by edale

No, I feel pretty comfortable saying that Canada is less racist than the US. They never had slavery, Jim Crow, lynching, the 3/5th clause, etc. I'm sure Canada is guilty of plenty of horrible things too, but it's hard to compete with the US when it comes to how poorly we've treated Black people in this land since before the USA even became a country.

They could also never grow cotton.

[Blitz]

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

The U.S. made driving so easy. The interstate highway system along with their local spurs make American cities very quick to get around. Even mid-size American cities are full of highways. Then, you look at London, Ontario...a metropolitan area of 500,000 people...and it doesn't even have a single crosstown expressway. Driving across London is hell at rush hour but it's just something that people are accustomed to...and there's no political support for demolishing neighbourhoods to build highways anyway. The city is implementing BRT instead.

[ssiguy]

Obviously race has a lot to do with it.

Post-war, racism was alive and well in Canada but it was focused on Natives who did not live in the cities but on rural reserves so most Canadians wouldn't really know one. In the US, due to the Great Migration, blacks headed to the cities and hence the whites left and they took their money, tax base, and political power with them. This also made building urban freeways thru black neighbourhoods easy in the US, destroying the urban fabric.

I don't think Canadians being any more urban in demographics has anything to do with it. EVERY single Canadian city/metro has MUCH higher transit usage than a comparable US city with the lone exception being New York. New, very wealthy, and sprawling cities like Calgary has transit ridership 15X higher than similar sized Nashville or Indy.

Much of it is just plain cultural...........Canadians are more comfortable with communal living and sharing of resources {like transit} than Americans are. The national animals reflect this and their societies. The US is the bald eagle living independently while the beaver represents Canada which lives in a communal environment. Odd analogy I know but it does reflect the difference in how each of our societies has developed.

It's great to see the US investing in transit infrastructure but no matter how much they build, the US will NEVER get to even half the ridership levels as Canada, with again New York being the sole exception.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I don't think Canadians being any more urban in demographics has anything to do with it. EVERY single Canadian city/metro has much higher transit usage than a comparable US city with the lone exception being New York. New very wealthy and sprawling cities like Calgary has transit ridership 15X higher transit ridership than similar sized Nashville or Indy.

I'm skeptical of the racism explanation precisely because American cities that are whiter than average don't have better transit than the ones that are more mixed. The best transit in the U.S. exists in cities with higher percentages of Black than the national average (NYC, Chicago, DC, Philadelphia).

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Comparing the public transit ridership of a bi-coastal 4M sq mi country of 38M people

Dear American forumers,
Canada now has over 41 million people. The real time model clock says 40,965,000+ if you want to be a pedantic schmuck.

No longer is Canada 1/10th the population of USA, in 2024 it's closer 1 : 8.21

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

It's not that America is more racist, but Canada didn't have the intense, divisive black-white issues as in the U.S. Canada has a miniscule non-immigrant-derived black population and didn't have a Great Migration..

This. I don't think you can directly compare the US and Canada primarily for this reason; despite similar cultures and urban environment, our histories were dramatically different.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Crawford

It's not that America is more racist, but Canada didn't have the intense, divisive black-white issues as in the U.S. Canada has a miniscule non-immigrant-derived black population and didn't have a Great Migration.

...because they didn't have slavery followed by ~80 years of apartheid.

Originally Posted by Crawford

If, say, Philly, had the demographics of Toronto, I bet it would have vastly higher transit ridership, given density, urbanity and system quality. There are a huge proportion of Americans who won't consider transit bc it's commonly associated with poor black people, bums, losers, miscreants, etc.

And this doesn't strike you as a racism issue? Even you lumping 'poor black people' in with 'bums, losers, miscreants' is pretty revealing of the latent racism most Americans have.

Originally Posted by Crawford

And you see this in the U.S. The Canada-like U.S. cities (places like Seattle, San Diego, Honolulu, Portland, etc.) have fairly high transit ridership relative to system quality, minimal white flight, strong in-town neighborhoods, etc. The big city with the worst transit collapse (Detroit) is also the blackest city. Not a coincidence.

Also not seeing how this doesn't point to racism being a huge factor for explaining why Americans and Canadians use transit at differing rates.

There are plenty of other factors in play, but the US' history and legacy of racism plays a huge role. Probably more than land use decisions like growth boundaries, imo.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Wigs

Dear American forumers,
Canada now has over 41 million people. The real time model clock says 40,965,000+ if you want to be a pedantic schmuck.

No longer is Canada 1/10th the population of USA, in 2024 it's closer 1 : 8.21

You gained a Denver in the past 3 years!

[Velvet_Highground]

That is a complex question.

I have a few thoughts Canada while a large country has most of its population concentrated in a few small zones. As a democracy it’s natural that people living in corridors such as Quebec to Ontario would want a quick inexpensive alternative to road or air travel. The concentration of the total percentage of the population in urban areas in Canada is one of the highest in the world. This is deceiving when considering this fact and looking at US numbers. However the total population density in Canada is much less than the US making a focus on quality of life in cities more important.

Australia can also be looked at this way as well as New Zealand though a smaller landmass it also has a much smaller population. Another question that can be asked is are western commonwealth countries more pro-transit due to the closer connection & closer history to the UK a very pro-transit country? Western countries that are part of the British Commonwealth tend to be some of the most livable in the world. Yet the US and UK have a lot of cultural similarities the Revolutionary War can be seen from a historical perspective as the second English Civil war just not fought on English soil.

I would argue that the answer is more nuanced it appears. The US was a leader in mass-transit & rail commuter or otherwise for the first half of the 20th century. I would argue that the Cold War and the specter of a sudden nuclear strike decapitating America begun to lead to profound changes.

I’ve cited Race and Inequality in Post War Detroit by Thomas Sugrue when citing dissemination of automotive manufacturing from Detroit to smaller non-union cities as an effort by the big 4 to weaken unions. I’ll cite this as part of a broader argument discussing the decentralization of US industry to the suburbs, smaller northern cities, the south & west during the Cold War. In 1945 Detroit was responsible for 25% of US GDP which was responsible for 50% of the world’s GDP with all major adversaries and allies in ruins. A surprise attack an economic Pearl Harbor against Detroit and or Philadelphia would cripple US war making capabilities let alone the key financial & industrial hubs of NYC & Chicago.

Suburbanization and the decrease in density of these areas was not only driven by the “American Dream” of owning a home that would appreciate in value over its lifetime leaving its owners with a nest egg to retire on. Newer especially wealthier or annexing cities were building hybrid urban-suburban neighborhoods. This starter in the inter-war era but by the post war era many new developments within city limits had a lawn that kids could play on and room for a garage.

The trend of single family homes in cities need not have changed the make up of US cities which were transit oriented. Detroit which is in my wheelhouse while it for a variety of reasons failed to build subway & heavy rail didn’t need to end up with arguably the densest freeway network while losing its streetcar network. Riders loved it a car arrived at best every 3 minutes to every 6 and the system was clean, efficient & reliable. Due to unfortunate circumstances such as the mayor backing the plan dying in office a year in. The city’s purchasing the privately owned street car lines in the 20’s as part of a plan to build a city owned and run mass transit system including subway left the city’s plan adrift. The new mayor supported the previous state of affairs but couldn’t get the money back and the city was left with no funds for anything beyond exploratory subway construction. Perhaps in a few years the city could have used street car revenue to fund the subway but the experience apparently wasn’t there. In the 30’s a crusader for bus transit kept trying to strangle street car service by denying funding and upgrading yet citizens voted overwhelmingly to keep it.

As the 60’s began the interstate highway program was instituted as a Cold War strategy to quickly move troops across the vast landmass of the United States. Part of the sales program was a cure for urban congestion while urban freeways were constructed & planned during the interwar years, WW2 & immediate post war years things went to the next level during the 50’s - 70’s. Detroit still upset about the loss of its streetcars was promised elevated rail along some of its new freeways (94 & 96) & potentially more like the Dan Ryan in Chicago.

1960’s were a very hard time for America and liberal politics & politicians. The assassination of JFK while I wouldn’t say would have prevented deepening US involvement in Vietnam he had solid track record of opposing what would turn out to be conventional wisdom by powerful generals that would have had disastrous consequences. Attacks against RVAN instillations & deaths of supporting U.S. troops would have brought some kind of response. However I can at least seeing Kennedy opposing The Gulf of Tonkin Incident & Resolution.

During a time of change in western society where the inequalities and injustices of the past were coming into national consciousness the US was mired in an unpopular war that drained domestic resources. LBJ’s Great Society which was in his mind to be his magnum opus alleviating rural poverty (the he grew up experiencing) & urban poverty. His alignment with the civil rights movement was part of this dual strategy to fulfill the legacy of JFK & have himself go down as one of the all time greatest presidents.

Cynically the US needed to live up to its ideals if it was going to beat communism in the international market of ideas. On a side note I think LBJ is an interesting character he could be crass and crude & a bully. He also knew where all the skeletons were buried and those without any he knew what they wanted and or how they wanted to be remembered. In some ways he could be considered a mid-century Mitch McConnell in some ways. A consummate master of the Senate in ways few others have been. Yet unlike Mitch McConnell or his contemporary Nixon he kept some his youthful idealism.

The assassinations of MLK & JFK along with LBJ getting played by Nixon’s team as he dedicated his time not campaigning for reelection to ending the Vietnam War. Not knowing the Nixon team had reached out to Saigon telling them to not sign the Paris agreement because a President Nixon would get them a better deal. The chaos of ‘68 dealt a huge blow to the progressive movement in America and with it a change in the political alignment.

Nixon forged a new conservative suburban - rural & southern coalition. Conservative white suburbanite white backlash against the riots of the late 60’s was picked up with a call for law and order as well as campaigning against bussing. Picking up conservative voters in rural communities where race wasn’t a primary issue but campaigned for traditional Christian values tapping into the burgeoning cultural backlash against the 60’s in conservative rural and suburban America. While taking advantage of LBJ signing the final pieces of civil rights legislation and the backlash it created in much of the south. Which had an odd relationship with the Democratic Party remembering the improvements to poverty stricken communities well yet as the liberal wings of the GOP joined the liberal Democrats to pass civil rights they felt betrayed. Old wounds from the civil war were reopened as local laws were nullified by the federal government who’s party in power the solid south was the backbone of those Democratic victories.

A final thought or two of note. While military spending was high all over the world during the Cold War the US as the leader of the West and the economic superpower brought countries into the western camp in a two or three fold process. One was showcasing the rise of Japan & West Germany rising from the ashes of defeat helped by U.S. financial aid to rebuild & open free trade with the largest economic engine in history the U.S. middle class. Some countries naturally took to this deal which included becoming a U.S. ally getting armed with US weapons that were better for the most part than the Soviets while the US Navy guaranteed freedom of access to the high seas. Each European or East Asian country that become westernized didn’t need a large military to defend long trade lanes and a army to claim and hold regions with needed natural resources they could compete in the free market system guaranteed by NATO & other US allies. Some countries were able to take advantage of this opportunity like China and some weren’t like Romania & some did for a while with moderate success like Yugoslavia.

The 1980’s saw a transition in the economic model of the US where the financial industry saw deregulation that had negative impacts on US industries which were still majority based in cities. The opportunity to make more money off the stock price of the company than the actual product led to a massive series of hostile takeovers asset stripping and outsourcing. While moving production to friendly countries especially ones that were moving from military rule to democracy follow international based trade standards and are markets for American products is a good outcome unless it’s your region was outsourced. I don’t mind seeing western democracies prosper.

The outcome of the deindustrialization of the 80’s saw the growth of suburbia as the main driver of new money into the US economy, post war suburbs with a strong industrial connection decline while newer suburbs are built further out rinse and repeat. While at the 80’s saw a beginning of the resurgence of US cities. However it was an uneven recovery & severe social problems were ravaging the neighborhoods & cities left out. The financial industry saw some longstanding regulations put in place in the wake of the Great Depression rolled back & a rise in risky lending made some a lot of money and also saw the bubble burst in the latter half of the 80’s. While the white collar core of US industry began to see a resurgence as stock prices rose and so did profits. While the R&D that was begun in the mid 70’s to comply with clean air acts for higher end manufacturing began to pay dividends is a story that isn’t often told. Many manufacturers saw the 80’s as a chance to outsource to countries some of which would become friendly democratic success stories like Indonesia where corruption & lax environmental laws allowed for huge profits.

In Canada meanwhile with its economy so closely tied to the US certainly some deindustrialization happened especially with older firms. Some Canadian companies took the chance to outsource but Canadian industry didn’t see the same crash in the 80’s that the US did. Perhaps there is a more responsiveness to the needs and demands of its people as a smaller country. Perhaps as a smaller country on the border of the US it needs to compete harder for residents and businesses. Canada may see by investing more in “average human capital” that it gains an advantage that while the US can exceed in numbers the average quantity of city life, education & ease of movement provides it a way to compete with the US.

People are people and while certain governments and countries have advantages especially when a recourse rich country with a good government, large population & strong human capital all find a home success is much easier. Yet not every country fits that mold and many countries that have struggled in the past have been quite successful recently.

I recommend reading Princes of the Yen by Richard Werner or watching the documentary to get a glimpse into the lost generation and how it figures into post war Japan finding its way to an economic powerhouse. Japan being a country with high quality human capital yet lacking in resources how Japan navigated its economic competition with the rest of the world while having significant disadvantages compared to other western countries and greater challenges in a way is interesting, especially so as it breaks from the traditional narrative.

The US has been sloppy with its use of its resources and human capital it’s been able to make lots of money and grow at a rate that makes Europe jealous. It’s not something that can continue and be successful, how long who knows. But Canada is a great country to look at as a model for more sustainable development. While Canada is more liberal than the US it’s not in a way that I think most Americans imagine. While Canadian ownership of firearms is from what I understand for hunting and protection from said wildlife official statistics say 26% ownership, though a hunting rifle is much different that AR-15’s & doomsday bunkers.

The CBC should secretly start broadcasting hunting, fishing & outdoors shows into the US once the ratings go through the roof, they should bust out a rolling banner like a news ticker saying “suprise B**ch this is Canada”.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I'm skeptical of the racism explanation precisely because American cities that are whiter than average don't have better transit than the ones that are more mixed. The best transit in the U.S. exists in cities with higher percentages of Black than the national average (NYC, Chicago, DC, Philadelphia).

Eh, NYC is hugely anomalous. And I don't doubt, even in the NYC area, a very large number of people avoid transit due to typical U.S. negative associations. I've heard it, many times.

DC has a system designed in conjunction with federal employment centers, with strong top-down usage incentivization. Again, quite anomalous. And still not great ridership, compared to Canada or Western Europe.

And I'd argue Chicago and especially Philly are very much underperformers, in part due to race. Chicago and Philly with Vancouver or Toronto or London (UK) demographics would have much higher ridership.

[isaidso]

Canada has always been more communal than the United States. Canadians developed a 'leave no man behind' mindset borne out of necessity. When the country was colonized, banding together for the common good was a matter of survival (climate and isolation) while looking out for your neighbour made for better social cohesion.

So Canada is culturally more invested in doing things that benefit society as a whole but a second factor heavily comes into play. Urban planning is a national strength. Canadian municipalities understood quite awhile ago that our auto-centric way of life was unsustainable over the long term, inefficient, and bad for the environment.

Intensification over more sprawl became central to planning 20+ years ago. Densification of our cities is coupled with massive PT investment to stitch it all together and encourage people out of their cars. We still love our cars but we'll hit a tipping point where PT is convenient enough, extensive enough, fast enough, and comfortable enough that PT becomes the more appealing option.

Some cities, quite predictably, are far further along this path than others.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by isaidso

So Canada is culturally more invested in doing things that benefit society as a whole but a second factor heavily comes into play. Urban planning is a national strength. Canadian municipalities understood quite awhile ago that our auto-centric way of life was unsustainable over the long term, inefficient, and bad for the environment.

I'd say this is pretty debatable. Most of the GTA is pretty sprawly, autocentric and unattractive (last descriptor obviously subjective). That's 20% of Canada.

I'm also familiar with Windsor, London, Hamilton, St. Catherines and Kitchener, and I don't see planning utopias. There are a lot of hollowed-out smaller Ontario cities. Many look marginally better than across the border. Yes, Canada has generally planned better than U.S., but that isn't saying much. The crappy Canadian sprawl has bus riders, though, and the crappy U.S. sprawl doesn't.