A tale of three cities

[W. K. Lis]

From The New York Times, Paul Krugman writes:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/a-tale-of-three-cities/

A tale of three cities

In case you’re wondering, I didn’t write about public transit for tomorrow. But I did some homework on the thought that I might, and might as well put it here.

So here’s Exhibit A for the proposition that even in a nation with low overall population density, where the antelope roam and the skies are not cloudy all day, cities don’t have to be quite as auto-centric as they are in America.

Compare three metropolitan areas with roughly the same population: Atlanta, Boston, and Toronto.

Atlanta is the poster child for sprawl, and as a result it has hardly any alternatives to cars: 89 percent of workers drive; less than 4 percent take public transit.

Boston is an older city, with an extensive transit system from the days when most people didn’t have cars. Even so, 79 percent of the labor force drives to work, but 11 percent do take public transit.

And then there’s Toronto. It’s still more auto-centered than not — but 22 percent of workers take public transit.

Canadian gasoline is somewhat more expensive than in the US — but not European-level expensive. Otherwise, Canada looks a lot like America, and Toronto almost speaks the same language, eh? Yet a high-quality transit system and different land-use planning make a big difference.

What’s more, as far as I can make out from the data, a lot more Canadians than Americans (as a percentage of the population) have switched to public transit over the past year; because the system is there, they have more flexibility.

All in all, this comparison is a reason not to believe apocalyptic warnings about the long-run effects of energy scarcity: there’s a lot of substitution possible. America’s main problem is that we have a capital stock — cars, public infrastructure, and housing — designed for dirt-cheap oil. And the transition may be nasty.

 

[Observer Walt]

Interesting comments. The last paragraph pretty well nails it: the capital investment has to be made. We've done some of that over the years in Toronto, resulting in us being better than many other cities. But if we rest on past laurels and don't continue to invest (which has been mainly the case over the past 20 years), what is to stop us from slipping backward?

We need "Transit City", the Mississauga busway, GO improvements, and eventually the Downtown Relief Line. Hope the political will is there!

 

[ShonTron]

Imagine if the federal government put money into transit and intercity rail infrastructure improvements instead of those $300 "stimulus" cheques (how much stimulus is questionable if the money isn't spent, but saved, or if buying imported crap at Wal-Mart). It would stimulate the economy through construction and production of rolling stock and make a small dent into the oil dependancy.

The comments were more interesting than the blog post itself.

And I don't think we need the Mississauga Busway, not at least as much as regional rail and an immediate start on work on a DRL.

 

[doady]

We don't need any transit at all. Just widen the roads and demolish existing buildings for parking and there you go.

 

[W. K. Lis]

We don't need any transit at all. Just widen the roads and demolish existing buildings for parking and there you go.

And create the lovely asphalt deserts with their neon cactus we all love the walk across.

 

[Panzerfaust]

We should convert all the subways to underground highways while we're at it. Think about it: you could drive from Finch to Queen Street in under twenty minutes, then park in one of the huge parking lots where the local businesses used to be and visit the new Wal-Mart!

This plan can not fail.

 

[waterloowarrior]

Imagine if the federal government put money into transit and intercity rail infrastructure improvements instead of those $300 "stimulus" cheques (how much stimulus is questionable if the money isn't spent, but saved, or if buying imported crap at Wal-Mart). It would stimulate the economy through construction and production of rolling stock and make a small dent into the oil dependancy.

I was thinking the same thing... if you took that $168 billion stimulus package and spent it on light or regional rail, you could build several thousand KM of lines across the US....

 

[Lone Primate]

Imagine if the federal government put money into transit and intercity rail infrastructure improvements instead of those $300 "stimulus" cheques (how much stimulus is questionable if the money isn't spent, but saved, or if buying imported crap at Wal-Mart). It would stimulate the economy through construction and production of rolling stock and make a small dent into the oil dependancy.

Hear hear.

 

[Archivist]

I love Boston but spending time on the "T" makes you realize just what underfunding of a subway system looks like. It hasn't changed in just about forever, though some stops have been cleaned up, others are a mess, and the fact that they cancelled the "Silver" line to the Airport (deliciously close by) and replaced it with buses is so incredibly stupid.

 

[TrickyRicky]

Toronto's transit system is Ok but seriously how much do you think we would need to invest in 2008 dollar to have a truly comprehensive and user friendly system? Could you do it with 50 billion? Maybe.

 

[ShonTron]

I love Boston but spending time on the "T" makes you realize just what underfunding of a subway system looks like. It hasn't changed in just about forever, though some stops have been cleaned up, others are a mess, and the fact that they cancelled the "Silver" line to the Airport (deliciously close by) and replaced it with buses is so incredibly stupid.

Instead of building new lines or adding new stations, Boston moves stations around!

Consider:
In the 1980s, the Orange Line was moved off Washington Street Elevated and moved into a railway corridor to the west.

Later, the Red Line was moved near South Station for a link to the Silver Line East segments, and the Green Line Elevated was moved underground between Haymarket and Science Park.

And the Green Line runs modern LRVs in a subway built for electrified horsecars from 1897. While I like the Green Line in theory, in practise, it's crowded and decrepit in the subway sections.

Poor Charlie. Not only is he stuck, he has to deal with all these new stations and new names (try finding Scollary Square Station these days!).

 

[Dan416]

Instead of building new lines or adding new stations, Boston moves stations around!

Consider:
In the 1980s, the Orange Line was moved off Washington Street Elevated and moved into a railway corridor to the west.

Later, the Red Line was moved near South Station for a link to the Silver Line East segments, and the Green Line Elevated was moved underground between Haymarket and Science Park.

And the Green Line runs modern LRVs in a subway built for electrified horsecars from 1897. While I like the Green Line in theory, in practise, it's crowded and decrepit in the subway sections.

Poor Charlie. Not only is he stuck, he has to deal with all these new stations and new names (try finding Scollary Square Station these days!).

Electrified horescars?

 

[indense]

"Anyway, about my washtub. I just used it that morning to wash my turkey, which in those days was known as a walking bird. We'd always have walking bird on Thanksgiving with all the trimmings: cranberries, injun eyes, and yams stuffed with gunpowder. Then we'd all watch football, which in those days was called baseball."

 

[ShonTron]

Electrified horescars?

The first streetcars were merely horsecar bodies (think 20-seater cars) in the 1890s. Think tiny cars compared to later PCCs and modern LRVs. I'm sorry you didn't get it, and that indense felt like he had to make a silly post like that above.

 

[Hipster Duck]

What Krugman fails to address - and this is understandable because few people outside of Toronto really understand the fiscal straitjacket that this city finds itself in - is that certain American cities have a transit budget that enables them to grow dramatically in the future. Compare the TTC's $1.2B budget (which includes a $200M shortfall) to WMATA's (Washington) allocated budget of $1.9B. WMATA has a comparable ridership to the TTC. LACMTA (LA Metro) also has a nearly $2B budget - 1.2B for bus service and expansion and $750M for its rail systems. Los Angeles, incidentally, is paradoxically doing far more to address ridership needs in an auto-centric city than Toronto is doing in a supposedly "transit friendly" urban environment. Hell, even Phoenix's Valley Metro gets a $30M check from the Feds every year that the TTC would salivate over.