GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

[innsertnamehere]

If the government is trying to produce the most amount of economic growth and have their infrastructure projects created the largest possible benefit for society, then yes, they will be focusing on projects with the greatest GDP impact. helping people save 2 minutes on the walk to grab groceries isn't as important as getting john smith to work or to an interview where he will be producing gdp.

 

[mdrejhon]

If the government is trying to produce the most amount of economic growth and have their infrastructure projects created the largest possible benefit for society, then yes, they will be focusing on projects with the greatest GDP impact. helping people save 2 minutes on the walk to grab groceries isn't as important as getting john smith to work or to an interview where he will be producing gdp.

This be true these are contradictory goals, but there are symbiotic side-effects of each other. More frequent bidirectional commuter services (e.g. benefiting more people like me) blends into a rapid transit alternative (e.g. appointments and mall shoppers) and they may choose other purposes (that are economically beneficial) on their next trip. But those appointment goers and shoppers, who now find it good enough, will also now more likely consider higher-paying employement opportunities. Much like if you now live near a TTC subway station and go to a mall along the line, you will now consider job opportunities near other TTC subway stations down the line. The same is already happening along Lakeshore. Yesterday, GO wasn't a pratical rapid transit option, but it's now a chooseable choice for many Lakeshoreans. Not as attractive as TTC subway, but way more attractive transit (except fare cost) than a Sunday 30-minute bus, if you chose to live near a GO station. You'd now consider more job opportunities and accept different working hours along the GO route, if there was more frequent/offpeak service.

It's essentially bycatch, but it does lift society upwards on average (adds more transit options); the gain in commuters should be sufficient to be worthwhile, while at the same time, the quality of life improvements for the non-work-commuters may translates into a better taxpayer base. Such high-order effects are probably extremely hard to measure accurately (as in very "diffuse" - like building new schools doesn't improve taxpayer base for years until students graduate and enter workforce).

I am interested in seeing data for the pre/post 30-minute-service effects measurable on the Lakeshore line. Surveys on Lakeshore lines are probably very limited in scope (e.g. % increase in commuters, e.g. ~30%). What would be interesting is trends over time; e.g. regular polling of lakeshore users at all times of day, to measure salary "trends" if it diverges above national trends, etc. The average salary of a Lakeshore GO user split into different times of day (to separate peak from offpeak), and measured over time for each, etc. Or even number of commuters per time of day, split into different salary categories, to see if the bell curve is shifting around, etc (e.g. as Lakeshore line gains more and more low-salary users, that a number are eventually shifting to higher salary categories over time more rapidly than trends in other parts of the city, etc). That would be interesting statistical analysis, for taxpayer-trend analysis. This kind of deep analysis used to be done frequently by Statistics Canada in other sectors in the past before their cuts; but I wonder if Metrolinx is actively doing any of these kinds of surveys... But enough basic data has been collected that the governments already see a strong signal of good GDP benefit for GO improvements.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

TL;DR: GO produces good taxpayer return. I pay more income/property/sales taxes because of GO.

I get what you're saying, but it's not really true. If GO received zero subsidy (including capital costs) and charged higher fares as a result, you would then be forced to make a decision - continue to pay the higher fare because you are still better off living in Hamilton and working in Toronto, or find a new job closer to home or a new place to live closer to work. Either way, someone will still be working that job and living in that house, it just might not be you.

In the long run it's not a matter of getting John Smith to work, it's a matter of allowing John Smith to live in nicer housing than he could afford in Toronto because his train rides are subsidized. If I choose to live in the city, should my mortgage payments be subsidized? I am doing the government a favour by not moving out to Hamilton and expecting a subsidy to get back downtown.

I'm not arguing against GO service expansion... I'm arguing against politicians spending billions on projects as a way to gain political favour from people living in affected ridings.

 

[wopchop]

Also, that's not really true. Owners of single family or semi-detached dwellings pay less in % property tax than renters of multi-residential buildings. Even condominium owners pay less than renters, unless things have changed recently. One only need look at the property tax rates for any GTA municipality to see that. I know that this is supposed to start slowly changing, but I'm not sure if it has even started yet. Anyone know?

 

[mdrejhon]

I get what you're saying, but it's not really true. If GO received zero subsidy (including capital costs) and charged higher fares as a result, you would then be forced to make a decision - continue to pay the higher fare because you are still better off living in Hamilton and working in Toronto, or find a new job closer to home or a new place to live closer to work. Either way, someone will still be working that job and living in that house, it just might not be you.

To an extent some elements of what you say is true, but you're financially wrong -- it doesn't work to taxpayer favor "at the end of the day". Even the conservatives agree (they are even now pro-GO unlike back during the days of the GO cuts in the early 90s; just have very different ideas of how to expand GO, such as avoiding electricification; but even Harper has warmed up to SmartTrack!). With zero transit subsidy, GTHA would be smaller, less dense, and we'd still be forced to add more freeways. Cities can't successfully grow as much on zero transit subsidy. As a result, less money for government.

Also, on this topic, there is a statistic the Lakeshore GO line now captures 26% of peak Lakeshore-to-downtown commuters (other stats say 19%, but that was pre 30-min-frequency improvement). e.g. people who would otherwise take the car to get to downtown Toronto. That's a whole lane (or two) removed from QEW/Gardiner and billions saved in extra capital/construction/maintenance. Do we subsidize freeways or subsidize GO? Tough political decision forced upon us over the last two decades, on the subsidy ratio between QEW/Gardiner versus Lakeshore GO, but the signal is so strong that is clearly an obvious GDP win. This doesn't account for other economically/GDP beneficial effects, but Toronto has long been stuck with European-style-sparse freeways with American-style-sparse commuter transit, and expanding freeways so difficult to do in modern city planning that expanding GO is a far politically easier GDP win in transit-starved GTHA.

Also, that's not really true. Owners of single family or semi-detached dwellings pay less in % property tax than renters of multi-residential buildings. Even condominium owners pay less than renters, unless things have changed recently. One only need look at the property tax rates for any GTA municipality to see that. I know that this is supposed to start slowly changing, but I'm not sure if it has even started yet. Anyone know?

Regardless of taxpayer status, as a city grows in population, new units is new taxpayer revenue. As a person moves from a house to a brand new house or condo in the same city, I take over the old house. Hamilton still gains more property tax from this chain reaction. Several downtown condo towers are under construction or about to start construction (approximately 10 condos, last I read) as the condo developers finally 'discovered' Hamilton. More cranes are going up this year and in 2016 according to the currently approved construction schedules. All this not even accounting for the rising property assessments, where the property gains reassesses to higher tax. True, some do move out of the city, but there is currently a net positive gain in Hamilton population at this time (currently approx 3% per year). There's churn, but overall, there's growth on average (Which GO is one factor that helps along). Whether it's renters/landlords or direct owners, that's still a lifting taxpayer base.

 

[aquateam]

GO made it possible for me to become a property taxpayer, for the first time, with better house prices down a commuter line. I would not have become a property taxpayer (more tax) with a higher salary (more income tax), with more shopping done (more sales taxes).

How does your residence result in a higher salary? Does this mean I get a raise if I work at the same job at the same location but move?

You could also be a property owner closer to downtown. You wouldn't be able to put a football field in the backyard, but if you can buy a house in the exurbs you could buy a smaller unit in the city.

If you are commuting a longer distance then you have less spare time to shop.

In some cases, a city is so structurally constrained (e.g. existing freeways, urban sprawl, high house prices) that a longer commute produces a real GDP gain for population who would otherwise not be able to succeed well living near work (Toronto is unfortunately one of these cases, imagine being presented a choice between poverty+convenience versus middle class+commute).

In this case you are trading off housing prices for time spent in a commute, subsidized by highway construction and parking minimums in zoning bylaws. You get more space, but a longer commute and fewer amenities. How does this increase GDP over being in a townhome closer to downtown?

Salaries where I live is 30-50% lower than salaries downtown Toronto, where I can commute by GO. While cost of living where I am is lower. If I lived in the same place as work (whether it be Toronto or Hamilton) the government would benefit less from me. The case is the same for many thousands of commuters. So, thusly, Metrolinx's subsidy becomes minor compared to the GDP gain of GO commuters.

Cost of living is lower: so the government is benefiting from you spending more, but you're spending less?
Salaries are higher downtown: Again, if you lived closer to downtown you would have the same salary

An argument could be made that the government could instead work my area (Hamilton) to make it far more attractive for me to work locally; raise salaries instead of improving GO, which would be a fine thing to do over the long term (years or decades), but expanding the GO network is a good first step that is a faster solution that actually still brings some economic change locally (Hamilton gains a new property taxpayer and weekend shopper). More infrastructure, more condos, more businesses, more things get built locally, more revenues for government -- and perhaps it can improve to the point where I end up eventually work locally or my employer relocates me to another head office, or whatnot -- but salary parity and city improvement can take years or decades (e.g. Hamilton steel downturn versus Toronto high-tech boom) and sometimes better commuter services is an easy-GDP-win that still helps the city tax base lift itself and eventually improves the business base (e.g. bigger population that eventually attracts business).

There's no doubt that this arrangement benefits Hamilton, they get to become a bedroom community for Toronto and have this sprawl subsidized by the province. But how does displacing homeownership from the GTA to Hamilton benefit the province?

TL;DR: GO produces good taxpayer return. I pay more income/property/sales taxes because of GO.

In all these cases, all that is being subsidized is sprawl and the displacement of economic activity from Toronto to the suburbs.

Not that I'm against GO service. I'd rather have transport-dependant sprawl than auto-dependant sprawl. And allowing more people access to the core means that there's a bigger supply of labour for businesses in Toronto (otherwise growth would be choked off). But, given an alternative between a denser urban form or province-subsidized sprawl, it's definitely more efficient from a provincial standpoint to have a denser city.

 

[mdrejhon]

You could also be a property owner closer to downtown. You wouldn't be able to put a football field in the backyard, but if you can buy a house in the exurbs you could buy a smaller unit in the city.

Correct.
But I don't choose to.

If you are commuting a longer distance then you have less spare time to shop.

To an extent true, but:
Counterargument: I am able to work on GO train. It's also extra nap time. I also catch up on my emails and smartphone app/blogging/gaming time which I would otherwise waste at home (less time spent with others). 1 hour on GOtrain is far more productive than even 30 minutes behind a steering wheel (and it would actually take far longer than that to drive). One arrives at home less frazzled by rush hour auto rage, which mentally benefits the whole household, raising quality of life. Be noted, that it now finally is much easier to find a seat on Lakeshore trains ever since they made the trains 30day. And nowadays, Lakeshore really spikes the frequency of trains during peak:

There now a whopping 6 Lakeshore West trains in one 45-minute period during 5pm-6pm (the 5:00, 5:10, 5:18, 5:25, 5:37, 5:43) if one train is standing room only and I don't feel like standing, the next train definitely has a seat for me because I'm early for the next train coming in a few minutes. Lakeshore GO peak is way more comfortable than TTC peak (same can't be said for other GO lines when you crush into an overcrowded Milton or Kingston train). And if the train is express, my commute can often be faster than a High Park resident trying to commute downtown during peak.

In this case you are trading off housing prices for time spent in a commute, subsidized by highway construction and parking minimums in zoning bylaws. You get more space, but a longer commute and fewer amenities. How does this increase GDP over being in a townhome closer to downtown?

The property cost ratio is huge -- very huge. It actually costs twice as much to buy a 2-bedroom downtown Toronto condo (at third to quarter square footage), than to own my 4-bedroom detached in Hamilton. Do I want to be condo-poor or have an actual house and more disposable income in Hamilton? Three-figure (under $999/month) mortgages are still possible in Hamilton (yes, true: we looked at a $199K tiny bungalow in 2014 that looked far nicer than a slum Toronto apartment and only 20 minutes walk away from a gentrified area, 15 minute walk of the new Hamilton GO station, and 30 minute walk from downtown Hamilton. That's still within reach of lots of amenities. Alas, it was too small for us; even if more spacious than a 2-bedroom condo), but it goes to show there has been large differences in pricing along the Lakeshore GO corridor! This causes me to never decide to get property locally, and I may have even moved back to Ottawa (my hometown) or out of the province, as an example, had GO not existed. The differentials are still massive still to this day, even if Hamilton's rising house prices are closing the affordability gap quickly.

I would dispute the amenity part. I am only 30 minute walk of Hamilton downtown (e.g. My 4 bedroom detached is much closer to Hamilton downtown than Toronto Danforth Greektown is to Toronto downtown). That's a 4 minute drive or a 10 minute bike ride. Several restaurants within five block radius, including high-rated-urbanspoon diners that have sitdown meals cheaper than a McDonalds takeout. Two supermarkets within 1km walking distance, a new Tim Horton's Museum, etc. I actually gain a few amenities, such as nature (City of Waterfalls), and great views from the top of escarpment within walking distance, and a large Gage Park, very close to three airports (Hamilton International only 10 minute drive, Buffalo Airport only an hour to hour-half drive, Pearson only 35 minute drive mostly on 407) with more vacation opportunities newly opened to me. There are certainly the ugly industrial parts if I walk 20 minutes north towards the waterfront, but only a 5 minute walk south to a beautiful forested escarpment wilderness bike path on the Escarpment Trail whereupon I can reach a few pretty spots by bike. (The beauty contrast is startling, google "city of waterfalls" -- Hamilton is in all results on the entire first page). It's like walking from something uglier than yesterday's Regent Park or rundown Dundas Street, to something prettier than the best parts of Don Valley (the views are better than the lookout on Broadview in Riverdale area in that big park) -- plus a pretty Rosedale-style housing district in between -- I can even just about barely see the CN tower from up there when the air is sufficiently clear -- there's lots of contrast between various parts of Hamilton, so you cannot judge Hamilton amenity by standing in a random location that ends up ugly. Surprisingly, within 15 minute drive is a Playdium Lite game arcade (a smaller version of the one in Oakville) at a very popular up-to-date bowling alley, to little gems such as the popular waterfront restaurant on the "pretty" western waterfront, so I don't feel amenity-poor.

For the amount of time spent trying to commute during peak from Liberty village to a downtown or Bloor office tower, I'm already home from downtown Toronto to my swimming pool in Hamilton! (If selectively catching one of the express GO trains that takes 55 minutes to Aldershot just minutes drive from home, or just barely over an hour to Hamilton downtown, since I work within a short walk of Union). Over time, the Lakeshore upgrades added several more express GOtrain that zooms all the way to Oakville before stopping... There are many TTC commutes longer than my GOtrain commute. Sure, an argument can be made that we need to build more subways downtown Toronto (I agree), though upgrading the whole GO network into a bonafide surface subway (GO RER) is pretty cost effective compared to that. It's arguably a far easier GDP win (okay "cost effective GDP bandaid to the current Toronto sprawl situation") to upgrade GO than to try to build another subway.

Cost of living is lower: so the government is benefiting from you spending more, but you're spending less? Salaries are higher downtown: Again, if you lived closer to downtown you would have the same salary

But I did. I rented in Riverdale area and spent less than I do now. Hamilton mortgages are lower than Toronto rents, even when accounting for utilities. Perhaps the higher rent benefitted a landlord that paid more taxes, but that's not money spent on home renovations and upgrades (where I benefit a lot more businesses and employees in Hamilton, improving GDP). I have spent far more on shopping ever becoming a homeowner, full stop.

There's no doubt that this arrangement benefits Hamilton, they get to become a bedroom community for Toronto and have this sprawl subsidized by the province. But how does displacing homeownership from the GTA to Hamilton benefit the province?

I'm not. I would probably never have become a homeowner in GTA in this current era, as the cheapest 2-bedroom houses (minimum size we needed) were almost double what I could afford. If the city focussed on keeping costs lower in Toronto, this would not have happened, but the economics are so distorted.

Look at the numbers. Toronto is one of the most expensive cities in the world to live in.

In all these cases, all that is being subsidized is sprawl and the displacement of economic activity from Toronto to the suburbs.

This is true, but the GTHA is structurally stuck with this; it's something created by the circumstances. The distortions of Toronto sprawl makes having GO service a very good GDP win today (or "good GDP bandaid" if you prefer).

The planners don't have the luxury in starting from scratch, and it's hard to densify faster (imagine trying to develop 10x faster than the current condo boom) than the timeline of a major GO upgrade. Because of the structural sprawl, we need GO to help speed up denisification (Hamilton is now finally starting to densify again, one condo tower builder in Hamilton put a picture of GO train on their condo advertisement at their building site -- an obvious nod to condo existence justified by the GO train; their condo application seemed to make that abundantly clear too) Also, unlike Oakville and other parking-lot-powered GO stations, the new JamesNorth GO station is being designed as a more pedestrian-friendly walkable major transit hub for Hamilton.

Not that I'm against GO service. I'd rather have transport-dependant sprawl than auto-dependant sprawl. And allowing more people access to the core means that there's a bigger supply of labour for businesses in Toronto (otherwise growth would be choked off). But, given an alternative between a denser urban form or province-subsidized sprawl, it's definitely more efficient from a provincial standpoint to have a denser city.

No disagreement there.

 

[nfitz]

Look at the numbers. Toronto is one of the most expensive cities in the world to live in.

What numbers? Just off the top of my head, 3 cities I've spent a lot of time in are more expensive. London, Vancouver, and New York. And I've never even visited most cities, let alone spent a lot of time there.

One of the most expensive cities in Canada perhaps ...

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

Mdrejhon, I would suggest you read this book:

http://www.amazon.ca/Filthy-Lucre-Joseph-Heath/dp/1554683742

Despite the name, it's actually a good intro to economic analysis. I'm not going to go line by line but there are a lot of logical fallacies in your arguments.

By definition, at an aggregate level savings = investment, supply = demand, and in the end if you want improved GO service it's only fair that you pay for it.

 

[wopchop]

Regardless of taxpayer status, as a city grows in population, new units is new taxpayer revenue. As a person moves from a house to a brand new house or condo in the same city, I take over the old house. Hamilton still gains more property tax from this chain reaction. Several downtown condo towers are under construction or about to start construction (approximately 10 condos, last I read) as the condo developers finally 'discovered' Hamilton. More cranes are going up this year and in 2016 according to the currently approved construction schedules. All this not even accounting for the rising property assessments, where the property gains reassesses to higher tax. True, some do move out of the city, but there is currently a net positive gain in Hamilton population at this time (currently approx 3% per year). There's churn, but overall, there's growth on average (Which GO is one factor that helps along). Whether it's renters/landlords or direct owners, that's still a lifting taxpayer base.

This is what you said;

GO made it possible for me to become a property taxpayer, for the first time, with better house prices down a commuter line. I would not have become a property taxpayer (more tax) with a higher salary (more income tax), with more shopping done (more sales taxes).

It is not true. If you rented, you were a property taxpayer, and you likely paid a higher % of property tax than you do now. You might pay more gross tax overall (depending on the value of your home compared to the apartment) but the property tax rate is likely lower.

You didn't become a property taxpayer for the first time by buying your house, is what I'm saying. You are saying that GO enables people to purchase more affordable housing and pay property tax for the first time, and classifying this as a benefit. Sure, enabling people to buy affordable housing is a benefit to the people. I can't argue with that. But you are implying that they were not paying property tax at all before. Which is wrong.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

And somebody sold him that house and stopped paying taxes on it, etc. Every transaction has a buyer and seller!

I could see the argument making more sense if housing in Hamilton (or anywhere) was being abandoned en masse, but it's quite the opposite - the GTA is growing everywhere, and a lot of that is suburban sprawl enabled by GO extensions at the periphery.

Cities were much more dense before everyone decided it was a good idea to subsidize highway and transit expansion, because it's more efficient (i.e., a better use of resources) to have higher density.

 

[mdrejhon]

What numbers? Just off the top of my head, 3 cities I've spent a lot of time in are more expensive. London, Vancouver, and New York.

Key emphasis of what I said about "one of the"; I understand different metrics make a city more expensive. Housing (apartments/rent) versus food (where London UK is more expensive than Toronto). And whether we're measuring by purchasing power or measuring by dollar amount. Etc. Toronto's electricity, is still far cheaper than those found in many parts. Even if the house market numbers are eye opening. However, it is meant to at least call out that Toronto, plainly, is a very expensive place to live in Canada, and additionally, to highlight that the cost differences are pretty large along a GO corridor.

It is not true. If you rented, you were a property taxpayer, and you likely paid a higher % of property tax than you do now. You might pay more gross tax overall (depending on the value of your home compared to the apartment) but the property tax rate is likely lower.

Good point, I'll accept your correction -- rentpayers do pay property taxes (Albiet more indirectly), even if I am for the first time a more direct property tax payer. So I'll accept that. Even if I pay gross tax (as including all sources of taxes) as I would certainly at least be paying far more HST due to my increased shopping, and I'm paying more income tax than I would if I accepted a lower paying job nearer me.

I'm not saying everything I am saying is perfectly right, the same can be said for many of the other counter-arguments too.

Mdrejhon, I would suggest you read this book:
http://www.amazon.ca/Filthy-Lucre-Joseph-Heath/dp/1554683742

Good recommendation. I like reading about all sides.

and in the end if you want improved GO service it's only fair that you pay for it.

And I agree.
Just not necessarily all of it directly (fares versus taxes) because of the status quo (e.g. subsidized road networks of modern civilization, freeways, arterials, residential, etc.) In fact, transit, streetcars, and railroads used to be profitable back in the era before our road networks began to be heavily subsidized. But that doesn't fly today, so there necessarily will be other ways to pay for GO, in additon to the farebox (which is very good percentage-wise, compared to other North American commuter trains -- and an indirect indicator of how transit-hungry the GTHA region is).

About cities being more dense before transit -- this may be true in the era of the Freeway boom of the "build and they will come" thought or the "build a new freeway lane and it immediately fills up" line of thought -- but this isn't necessarily an accurate statement for all transit in general. Better transit (whether it be by paths being built and maintained, better horse carriageways, to modern GO train networks, etc) helped cities grow, even back to the antiquity era, cities grew because of transportation of goods and people. Also look at densified Europe which is already denser yet has more accessible commuter train service than a lot of North American cities, and the fact that America doesn't generally use commuter trains of subway-style convenience (except for already very dense places like New York city) like more dense Europe does. GO is eventually slowly converting to a more European style model with GO RER. Look at all the very dense cities with frequent urban commuter service.

Perhaps you are referring to the cause-and-effect (building freeways/transit in response to expansion, versus building freeways/transit after expansion/densification already happened) in the form of freeways-begets-sprawl and arguing that GO begets sprawl. Can't disagree it probably did for many years now (look at those car-happy GO stations) though the GO RER upgrades will provide many densification opportunities. We do need to densify, I agree, whether it with or without GO.

But that's not what I was trying to say -- one can argue to spend the same dollars eliminating poverty, saving children, or improving crop yield. Which, all of them, we need to. But I was talking about transit options. Since GO is here, I'd prefer governments spend the money improving GO than improving the freeway, I think that's more efficient on a GDP going forward basis for the current sprawl circumstances. One could argue to spend the dollars elsewhere, of course. More science labs? More schools? More services? Cut taxes? Lower cost of business? Etc. Nobody agrees, of course (especially at election time).

If we limit scope to where to spend dollars for transit, then improving GO really is one of the easier transit-related GDP win out of the limited slate of transit opportunities. Of the available options to add dedicated-right-of-way transit, expanding GO is one of them. Existing rail corridors are easier to upgrade than creating a new subway tunnel. Tantamount to upgrading a commuter route to a subway-convenience route. Widening, getting corridor ownership, signal upgrades, adding pedestrian friendly infill stations, densifying near stations, improving service frequency, etc, as in all the European style GO RER initiatives. As all the GO RER upgrades are completed, this increases GO passenger traffic by 2.5x, and that scale has a measurable impact on Toronto's GDP. It is far cheaper than the cost necessary to add TTC subways to carry 2.5x passengers in the subway system than today (imagine enlarging Toronto's subway map by 2.5x -- this would be bigger than the cost of GO RER upgrades). I meant to say, of all the options to improve taxpayer base specifically via transit spending -- improving GO is one of the easier GDP wins, as I say. Doesn't mean we shouldn't spend on other transit solutions such as LRTs and buses.

 

[nfitz]

Key emphasis of what I said about "one of the";

Based on my experience in city's of similar or bigger size, it's one of the cheapest. Okay, I suppose Bangkok and Jakarta are cheaper ...

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

What numbers? Just off the top of my head, 3 cities I've spent a lot of time in are more expensive. London, Vancouver, and New York. And I've never even visited most cities, let alone spent a lot of time there.

One of the most expensive cities in Canada perhaps ...

I liked that you picked the 3 most expensive in the world. Hong Kong and San Francisco are 4 and 5.


You should be asking why living in Canadian cities has become out of reach.

 

[nfitz]

I liked that you picked the 3 most expensive in the world. Hong Kong and San Francisco are 4 and 5.

I've never been to either of those, let alone spent much time there.

I'm surprised though that Geneva is lower than San Francisco.

You should be asking why living in Canadian cities has become out of reach.

I don't think they have.