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.
People don't want to drive in and around Manhattan (and lots of other parts of NYC) because it's much more convenient to travel on foot and via subway. It's quicker, and gets you from point A to point B without hassle. Even if parking was free, people would still use it.
I was there just a few days ago, and stayed at a hotel in FiDi. I had a rental car, and a parking pass. The car stayed parked in the garage for the entire duration of our stay. Why on Earth would I want to be driving up and down those streets when the train zooms right past underneath us?
And once again, it's not about "having a car." People "have cars." It's about transit options being FAR more convenient and efficient in some cities vs driving. You really believe that those people on those trains don't have cars... Unbelievable.
Yes, there are more cars in the US than Canada, by ~14%
I am saying on the margins cars and gasoline being relatively more expensive for Canadians makes them less likely to both have and use them. That’s a pretty self evident statement.
Most people don’t have inherent preferences. They do a combination of fastest, easiest and cheapest. Adjust any of those factors and the equilibrium with shift. That’s the whole point of congestion pricing.
Yes, there are more cars in the US than Canada, by ~14%
I am saying on the margins cars and gasoline being relatively more expensive for Canadians makes them less likely to both have and use them. That’s a pretty self evident statement.
Most people don’t have inherent preferences. They do a combination of fastest, easiest and cheapest. Adjust any of those factors and the equilibrium with shift. That’s the whole point of congestion pricing.
More cars in the US... Because US cities are auto-centric, and people NEED cars. Even the poor have cars in the US.
In non auto-centric cities (NYC, Montreal, Toronto) people have less cars, because there is less of a need for them. Why have three cars if you're only going to use one for grocery runs and large purchases, or the occasional trip to the countryside?
Once again, they can afford cars just as much as Americans. No intelligent being living in a city with robust and convenient transit options is going to be driving around, sitting in traffic, if there is a reliable transit option that gets you to and from the same places in less time.
And once again, people not driving in Manhattan has nothing to do with affordability/not having cars. It's about convenience. Those with cars STILL don't want to drive there.
More cars in the US... Because US cities are auto-centric, and people NEED cars. Even the poor have cars in the US.
In non auto-centric cities (NYC, Montreal, Toronto) people have less cars, because there is less of a need for them. Why have three cars if you're only going to use one for grocery runs and large purchases, or the occasional trip to the countryside?
Once again, they can afford cars just as much as Americans. No intelligent being living in a city with robust and convenient transit options is going to be driving around, sitting in traffic, if there is a reliable transit option that gets you to and from the same places in less time.
And once again, people not driving in Manhattan has nothing to do with affordability/not having cars. It's about convenience. Those with cars STILL don't want to drive there.
You know like 63% of Toronto CMA residents commute to work via cars alone right? While in Chicago is like 70%? Do you believe most Canadians are stupid cause they drive?
We are talking about lifestyle differences *on the margins*. Transit commute share is 20% vs 12% (and if MSA’s were are restrictive as CMA’s it’d be like a 6.5-7% gap). So a marginal difference in affordability of private vehicles pushes a marginal group of people towards transit. Accounting for some of the difference in ridership.
Do you believe is a ride on the TTC was $24.50 not $2.40 USD that it’s have bo impact on ridership?
Or do you think people are price sensitive?
Service levels, affordability and environment all impact ridership. High gas prices and lower incomes pressure people towards transit in Canada marginally compared to the United States.
You know like 63% of Toronto CMA residents commute to work via cars alone right? While in Chicago is like 70%? Do you believe most Canadians are stupid cause they drive?
We are talking about lifestyle differences *on the margins*. Transit commute share is 20% vs 12% (and if MSA’s were are restrictive as CMA’s it’d be like a 6.5-7% gap). So a marginal difference in affordability of private vehicles pushes a marginal group of people towards transit. Accounting for some of the difference in ridership.
Do you believe is a ride on the TTC was $24.50 not $2.40 USD that it’s have bo impact on ridership?
Or do you think people are price sensitive?
Service levels, affordability and environment all impact ridership. High gas prices and lower incomes pressure people towards transit in Canada marginally compared to the United States.
……… it has nothing to do with “lower incomes.” Nothing at all.
Then why does congestion prices matter is people are not price sensitive?
Have you been to NYC? Have you tried to drive there? Have you used the subway? Are New Yorkers also poor people? Are you aware that millionaire celebrities and pro athletes also use public transit in cities like that?
Have you been to NYC? Have you tried to drive there? Have you used the subway? Are New Yorkers also poor people? Are you aware that millionaire celebrities and pro athletes also use public transit in cities like that?
It’s a balance between costs, service and environment. The MTA has great service, NY has an urban environment. Those increase the tendency to take Public transit.
However if a garage space in Midtown Manhattan was $45 instead of $4,500 a year more people would opt to have a car. Then people might choose to use their car on the trips it’s inconvenient to take transit (like somewhere in Brooklyn that’s 3 trains and a bus away). But they decide an having a car that’s marginally more convenient for a couple trips a week is not worth $4,500. That’s why Taxis exist. For people who for that trip it’s better to drive but don’t want to pay for a car.
Similar if the City of Chicago charged $4,000 for annual car registratio there would be far fewer cars in Streeterville or the West Loop. People wouldn’t have cars “just in case”. Cause they’d just do a taxi, rent a car or take transit.
Just cause you don’t want to spend the money doesn’t mean you can’t afford it. I could by Season tickets to the Bruins in the Lower bowl. But I’d rather spend $7,000 differently
It’s a balance between costs, service and environment. The MTA has great service, NY has an urban environment. Those increase the tendency to take Public transit.
However if a garage space in Midtown Manhattan was $45 instead of $4,500 a year more people would opt to have a car. Then people might choose to use their car on the trips it’s inconvenient to take transit (like somewhere in Brooklyn that’s 3 trains and a bus away). But they decide an having a car that’s marginally more convenient for a couple trips a week is not worth $4,500. That’s why Taxis exist. For people who for that trip it’s better to drive but don’t want to pay for a car.
Similar if the City of Chicago charged $4,000 for annual car registratio there would be far fewer cars in Streeterville or the West Loop. People wouldn’t have cars “just in case”. Cause they’d just do a taxi, rent a car or take transit.
THEY HAVE A CAR.
Car ownership per household is roughly the same in Toronto as it is in Chicago. ~28%
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4
Just cause you don’t want to spend the money doesn’t mean you can’t afford it. I could by Season tickets to the Bruins in the Lower bowl. But I’d rather spend $7,000 differently
Alot. Way more than Chicago. There's plethora articles out there of Toronto's bonkers construction boom. There were probably more construction permits permitted in a single month in Toronto than Chicago had all year. There's 100+ cranes all over the city. Their population is skyrocketing. Toronto is a great lakes city that is experiencing sunbelt/Texas level growth. Meanwhile Chicago's population has been stagnant for decades
Again, this all gets old in thread after thread. Most boast for a city and you do the opposite. Toronto is in another country with its own laws and how its government including the Federal Government works. It was create in a day as I said once to be a much larger city by merging a few smaller cities and again another truly forced amalgamation in the mid-90s making it a bigger than Chicago city proper though close.
Add again there is no sunbelt in Canada migrations out of real winter cities occur. You have Toronto the largest and 3 other large cities plus let's add Calgary even further north.
Too many American see just these real northern winters a scourge to move from. Always some place cheaper in large nation especially one not all in a region that has real winter.
You keep this doom-loop going for one city in every thread and forum. You move Chicago to the sunbelt.... let's say Texas coast more by Corpus Christi. It would be booming no doubt also and even with its cost as guess what? Texas has no income tax but its taxes for real estate and newer homes are very high and insurance is rising. Their infrastructure will also age and need constant renewing and then rebuilding.
- Please realize that Toronto is in another Nation with stats gathered differently even for metros and regions.
Immigration policies highly favor educated getting immigrant status and far less a migrant issue to Canada illegally and far less racial/segregation history, white-flight of its cities left to fall into decay and blight. Still Toronto has its bad areas too and seems issues are growing. It had growth like a sunbelt city in the US that boomed into the 1970s onward while NYC was at its lowest and Chicago also had severe issues despite it getting its first supertalls.
I added the cost of a single-home now in Toronto is near or even at $1-mil. There is no city stealing Toronto's corporations. Luring them with huge incentives that pay for their relocations. Toronto has no choice but to go upward for new housing.
Chicago surely had a rip n roaring history with always a culture of vibrancy with crime and corruption was in every era especially the 20th century as nothing new. There were Union riots and racial riots. Martin Luther king and Bobby Kennedy assassinations neighborhoods burned and them scars left into the 1990s. De-Industrialisation, White-Flight creating the donut effect of the middle of the city. Let's not forget the Al Capone era and the rise of the Italian/Irish Mafias out of their Ghettos in the city. OMG the neighborhood burnings of 1968 after Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated a couple months apart. Then the Dem Convention of '68 and the labelled as a police riot when mayor Daley Sr ordered the police to go in and take out all the hippies, anti-Vietnam protesters camped out in Grant Park we saw on the news with their clubs. It all changed the political vote of that year too and Nixon became president. All believe Bobby Kennedy would surely have won.
If Toronto was part of the US? Do you think it would be booming lake Dallas/Ft Worth DFW as our fastest growing region way up north?
Keep it real in how these cities are in different nations totally different governments and Ontario Toronto is in is the key Province and region that is furthest south too. No other sunbelt but for the US.
You move Chicago to the sunbelt. Let's say Texas coast by say Corpus Christi. It would be booming as the rest of Texas cities. They are blue too and not cheap in real estate cost for sure today.
Also if Chicago was on the East Coast. It would also be seen as part of the Coastal Elite for sure. Even if you could take Lake Michigan too and plop it in the interior South or Texas? Again, Chicago as it is would be booming too even with its issues as all that can be gentrified etc. In the Midwest that time as I noted before just might be into the 2030s and beyond.
Read this city's history of uprisings turmoil all thru the 20th century. Yet it always bounced back and did not die with each recession, lost HQ, crime that would rise than back down in cycles as the rise and fall of Lake Michigan.
Someone posted a video of downtown Toronto a few segments of 10 back. So I will for Chicago also. I like this virtual skyline aerial one.
Great Lake views from being on the lake and drone above it. I say first minutes then scroll and view skyline changes. My favorite segment is like the few minutes between the - 2:13 hour mark and 2:18 hour mark.
I think the video deserves a lot more views and likes than it got....
Not a battle of skylines, but still all this has-been city and doom loop is also unnecessary in the degree you go. This city is not sinking into Lake Michigan nor San Francisco into the Pacific. Mayors change and issues, crime rises and drops just never ending till we solve our issues. Moving further from our cities and hating certain ones serves nothing. Besides are we not going to get a president to force a fix? We have 11 months to find out.
Chicago has 110 miles of subway (and a few quad tracked sections) Toronto has about half that. Chicago just runs bad frequencies compared to Toronto. In terms of Commuter Rail Chicago has 577 miles of commuter rail and two electrified lines. Toronto has 327 miles of track and no electric services. Again. Chicago wins on *infrastructure* but has worse service.
Looking at lines on a map, Chicago looks much much better. But it just isn’t. Unfortunately a lot of people here judge rust belt cities on what could be what is so they give Chicago credit for what it could be/was not what it is.
"A few"?
I've ridden most of the CTA network, and the only four-track route I saw was the North Side Main Line shared by the Red, Brown and (at peak hours) Purple lines.
AFAIK, Chicago and Philadelphia are the only two cities in North America outside New York to have four-track rapid transit lines. (Philadelphia's is the Broad Street Subway from Walnut-Locust north to its original terminus at Olney Avenue.)
But since we've been discussing quality vs. quantity: The Chicago Transit Authority has rebounded smartly from the mess it was in the 1990s, but the Toronto Transit Commission has provided what I would say is the highest quality of service in all of North America (yes, better even than the New York MTA) for many years, maybe even ever since Canada's first subway line opened under Yonge Street in 1954.
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.
