Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because Norway is a sparsely populated country that doesn't require much physical infrastructure - with 25,000 km of coastline and a thinly populated space stretching for almost 3000 km from south to north. Norway is 385,000 square km, 3.8 times bigger than South Korea's 100,000 square km, and Norway only has 5 million total in population vs. South Korea's 50 million. For those reasons, South Korea obviously warrants a better infrastructure than many of the Northern European countries.
You are making absolutely no sense here.
You are essentially saying the survey deals with infrastructure for the entire country, whether a region is inhabited or not. If that's case, do you honestly think Canada, a massive country 30 times the size of Norway, has excellent infrastructure all over the country to be ranked that high, including places where few people live? You are kidding yourself. Even the Bruce Peninsular isn't well connected with the GTA.
Canada's infrastructure is OK but not excellent. The fact it takes 5.5-6 hours to get from downtown to Montreal, its two largest cities, proves that. And if you look at Toronto's public transit, it is utterly embarrassing and outdated. Your think our fare boxes and tokens represent advanced infrastructure? For Christ's sake, Pearson doesn't even have a rail link with downtown Toronto until 2015. The Gardiner expressway is literally falling apart, and we all know Montreal is in even worse condition. In BC, to get from Vancouver to Victoria, the capital city, involves a time consuming ferry.
Last edited by botticelli; 12-18-2014 at 08:36 AM..
SF has high rent because people can afford it and because it is a high demand area, simple as that.
Sasktoon has lower rent than Vancouver, and people there are laughing at paying $1600 a month for a condo in Vancouver too.
If you have a tech job, sure you can afford San Francisco. But if you're like most people? No way. That city is only for the rich, unless you family owned property there 30+ years ago and you still own it or you live in the hood. For the average person believe it or not Vancouver is far more affordable than the City by the Bay.
I agree with you Canada's infrastructure is wanting, but hey look at the US and its 1960s highway system with collapsing bridges, many of its metros having nothing more than infrequent buses for transit over skeletal lines, and a rail system that's stuck in the 19th century.
If you have a tech job, sure you can afford San Francisco. But if you're like most people? No way. That city is only for the rich, unless you family owned property there 30+ years ago and you still own it or you live in the hood. For the average person believe it or not Vancouver is far more affordable than the City by the Bay.
I agree with you Canada's infrastructure is wanting, but hey look at the US and its 1960s highway system with collapsing bridges, many of its metros having nothing more than infrequent buses for transit over skeletal lines, and a rail system that's stuck in the 19th century.
I have my own ideas on this but I'm curious as to what you find wanting in Canada's infrastructure.
You are essentially saying the survey deals with infrastructure for the entire country, whether a region is inhabited or not. If that's case, do you honestly think Canada, a massive country 30 times the size of Norway, has excellent infrastructure all over the country to be ranked that high, including places where few people live? You are kidding yourself. Even the Bruce Peninsular isn't well connected with the GTA.
Canada's infrastructure is OK but not excellent. The fact it takes 5.5-6 hours to get from downtown to Montreal, its two largest cities, proves that. And if you look at Toronto's public transit, it is utterly embarrassing and outdated. Your think our fare boxes and tokens represent advanced infrastructure? For Christ's sake, Pearson doesn't even have a rail link with downtown Toronto until 2015. The Gardiner expressway is literally falling apart, and we all know Montreal is in even worse condition. In BC, to get from Vancouver to Victoria, the capital city, involves a time consuming ferry.
Ummm, so how would would you suggest people in BC do to get to Victoria, besides a ferry that crosses a 44 km channel (which has hourly sailings between the two cities from 7 am to 9 pm daily)? ... Perhaps a channel tunnel like the one between London and Paris that would cost $22 billion CAD in current day dollars?
If you have a tech job, sure you can afford San Francisco. But if you're like most people? No way. That city is only for the rich, unless you family owned property there 30+ years ago and you still own it or you live in the hood. For the average person believe it or not Vancouver is far more affordable than the City by the Bay.
I already said that San Fran's rent being higher than Vancouver's is just like Vancouver's rent higher than Sasktoon's. There is nothing to complain about. They are simply cities of totally different leagues. If people can't afford San Fran, there are plenty of much cheaper cities in the rest of California.
But the funny thing is that despite having much lower rent, Vancouver's housing price is almost as high as San Fran's, and that's freaky. Rents usually is a good gauge of how attractive a city is and its income level. Cities with high rents usually have high paying jobs to support that, and housing price should more or less reflect that.
Ummm, so how would would you suggest people in BC do to get to Victoria, besides a ferry that crosses a 44 km channel (which has hourly sailings between the two cities from 7 am to 9 pm daily)? ... Perhaps a channel tunnel like the one between London and Paris that would cost $22 billion CAD in current day dollars?
it is what it is. The truth is Canada's infrastructure is not that great. Munich has half of Toronto's population, and its rapid transit looks like NYC's. When it is bad, it is just bad.
I already said that San Fran's rent being higher than Vancouver's is just like Vancouver's rent higher than Sasktoon's. There is nothing to complain about. They are simply cities of totally different leagues. If people can't afford San Fran, there are plenty of much cheaper cities in the rest of California.
But the funny thing is that despite having much lower rent, Vancouver's housing price is almost as high as San Fran's, and that's freaky. Rents usually is a good gauge of how attractive a city is and its income level. Cities with high rents usually have high paying jobs to support that, and housing price should more or less reflect that.
Really wish you'd start supporting your sweeping conclusions and "factual" statements with actual facts, numbers, and citations. Not saying you are wrong, as I do agree with you that cities with high rents are probably more attractive to highly paid professionals. Just saying.
it is what it is. The truth is Canada's infrastructure is not that great. Munich has half of Toronto's population, and its rapid transit looks like NYC's. When it is bad, it is just bad.
You still haven't answered my original question... Since you brought up the topic of the outdated and "time-consuming Vancouver-Victoria ferry" - how would would you suggest people in BC do to get to Victoria, besides a ferry that crosses a 44 km channel (which has hourly sailings between the two cities from 7 am to 9 pm daily)?
I already said that San Fran's rent being higher than Vancouver's is just like Vancouver's rent higher than Sasktoon's. There is nothing to complain about. They are simply cities of totally different leagues.If people can't afford San Fran, there are plenty of much cheaper cities in the rest of California.
But the funny thing is that despite having much lower rent, Vancouver's housing price is almost as high as San Fran's, and that's freaky. Rents usually is a good gauge of how attractive a city is and its income level. Cities with high rents usually have high paying jobs to support that, and housing price should more or less reflect that.
But that's not the point. SFO still needs (and has) people working low wage jobs. Unless Silicon Valley can find a way to build robots that serve coffee and food at restaurants ...... one still needs minimum wage workers in cities like SFO. How do you think that they survive?
The divide between the rich and the poor in SFO is a hot issue.
You still haven't answered my original question... Since you brought up the topic of the outdated and "time-consuming Vancouver-Victoria ferry" - how would would you suggest people in BC do to get to Victoria, besides a ferry that crosses a 44 km channel (which has hourly sailings between the two cities from 7 am to 9 pm daily)?
There are flights...sometimes quite cheap and a Helijet service as well.
There was talk of a bridge, but the cost and destruction of some beautiful islands makes it a no go.
Years ago there was a Hydrofoil service that was downtown to downtown in just under an hour I believe. It failed...but today I think it might work, especially in the summer tourist months.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but I'm curious as to what you find wanting in Canada's infrastructure.
