4 ms·

Is that surprising given that you could fit over 200 Switzerlands into Canada and another 200 into the US? BC alone is over 20 times the size of Switzerland. Ca

by pnw 3y ago

Is that surprising given that you could fit over 200 Switzerlands into Canada and another 200 into the US? BC alone is over 20 times the size of Switzerland. Cars are the best possible option in that case surely?

sandworm101 3y ago
That is correct. Cars are certainly the best option in many circumstances, even from an environmental standpoint. The reason I couldn't get even a taxi was that the taxi company didn't want to drive 30miles just to pick me up, then drive maybe 60miles back after dropping me off. When a small population is spread over a large area, personal vehicles become the most efficient means. That is a large part of why Alaska has the highest rate of private aircraft ownership on the planet. BC rides the literally middle ground between Alaska and the densely populated southern states.
alamortsubite 3y ago
Comparing all of the U.S. or Canada is meaningless, but when you look at regions with similar population densities, then yes, it is surprising. Switzerland only has about half the density of the U.S. East Coast, for example.
- johannes1234321 3y ago
  And in addition Switzerland has challenging terrain with hills and mountains all over, making train service complicated and even busses non-trivial sometimes
  - ant6n 3y ago
    Pn the other hand, the geography forces people to live in valleys. so population is effectively distributed along corridors —- very conducive to being served by rail and bus lines.
panick21_ 3y ago
The size in itself of is a meaningless metric. I'm baffled that comment like this still get made even on HN. I guess this must be that American just have such a fundamentally distorted view of public transport. The area of Greater Toronto Area has far denser population then Switzerland with far worse public transport. So by any rational metric it should dominate Switzerland in public transport modal shares and convenience. But it doesn't. So when looking for explanations, we need to look deeper. Looking at BC, Vancouver is a city of 675,218 people. The Metro area is 2.463 million. Calgary metro is 1.4 million. Edmonton is another metro area of 1.3 million. And the distance between Edmonton and Calgary isn't even very far. Those are 3 cities that are bigger or comparable to Zürich. I'm not suggesting the population of 'Liard River' of 100 people in the north of BC should have a high speed train to Vancouver. Of course BC as a whole will never have Swiss like public Transit. But if you actually look at where people live, take into account the particular details of the location, you can design a public transport system that is useful for people. But the comment said '200km' from Vancouver. And he also said there was highway 5 miles from the parents house. So somehow they seemed to think it was reasonable to able to build a highway. Highways are expensive infrastructure, and usually you don't built them the middle of nowhere. So it seems from the comment we are not talking about some place that is at least between two places the somebody connected with a highway. If you have enough money for a highway, you can finance a bus route along it. Most people do live reasonable close together and not just a single house in the wilderness. If we look at the density map: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-550/vignettes/m1bc-eng.htm https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97... It seems to me that Vancouver is perfectly placed to have an amazing transport system connecting its city to its metro and its metro to the more outlining towns and villages. There is no reason the great Vancouver area couldn't have Swiss like public transport very every village Then you have a higher speed train connecting Vancouver to Calgary to Edmonton and all the larger towns in between. Then have regional trains or buses going out from that trunk connecting smaller towns and villages. I suspect these town were all originally built because there was railroad there. So yes, BC as a whole is big and densely populated. But that metric alone is meaningless when designing a public transport system that can meaningfully serve the population. Even if you think 'cars are the best option', that's no reason not have have decent public transport. Switzerland, has lots of people in cars and its a very viable option. But despite that, it also has other good types of transport. Sometimes its nice not to have only one option, specially for people who for many reasons can't simply drive. This reoccurring attitude of well its a big country so why even try is so damaging. As if Canada being big had anything to do with why Toronto street cars are a abomination of planning and operations. You have a bit more of a point in regards to BC but even then its wrong for the majority of people.
Mordisquitos 3y ago
Talking about the overall size of Canada is dodging the issue. The scale of the country does provide a justification for not being able to access any arbitrary spot across Canada (or the US) using public transport, but the previous commenter is talking about accessing a town a mere 200 km away from British Columbia's largest city and urban agglomeration — 3rd largest in Canada as a whole. How many Switzerlands can you fit within a 200 km drive from Vancouver [0]? My eyeball guess is that the area is half the area of Switzerland, maybe less than a third if we exclude US territory covered in the map. And what's the population density of that area? Again, ignoring the US, just counting Vancouver's [1] and Victoria's [2] metropolitan areas alone adds up to 3,000,000 inhabitants (more than a third of the population of the whole of Switzerland), so this area's population density is very likely to be similar or even greater than that of Switzerland as a whole. [0] https://www.smappen.com/app/map/802yt https://www.smappen.com/app/map/802yt [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria,_British_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria,_British_Columbia

by pnw 3y ago

sandworm101 3y ago

That is correct. Cars are certainly the best option in many circumstances, even from an environmental standpoint. The reason I couldn't get even a taxi was that the taxi company didn't want to drive 30miles just to pick me up, then drive maybe 60miles back after dropping me off. When a small population is spread over a large area, personal vehicles become the most efficient means. That is a large part of why Alaska has the highest rate of private aircraft ownership on the planet. BC rides the literally middle ground between Alaska and the densely populated southern states.

alamortsubite 3y ago

Comparing all of the U.S. or Canada is meaningless, but when you look at regions with similar population densities, then yes, it is surprising. Switzerland only has about half the density of the U.S. East Coast, for example.

johannes1234321 3y ago
And in addition Switzerland has challenging terrain with hills and mountains all over, making train service complicated and even busses non-trivial sometimes
- ant6n 3y ago
  Pn the other hand, the geography forces people to live in valleys. so population is effectively distributed along corridors —- very conducive to being served by rail and bus lines.

panick21_ 3y ago

The size in itself of is a meaningless metric. I'm baffled that comment like this still get made even on HN. I guess this must be that American just have such a fundamentally distorted view of public transport. The area of Greater Toronto Area has far denser population then Switzerland with far worse public transport. So by any rational metric it should dominate Switzerland in public transport modal shares and convenience. But it doesn't. So when looking for explanations, we need to look deeper. Looking at BC, Vancouver is a city of 675,218 people. The Metro area is 2.463 million. Calgary metro is 1.4 million. Edmonton is another metro area of 1.3 million. And the distance between Edmonton and Calgary isn't even very far. Those are 3 cities that are bigger or comparable to Zürich. I'm not suggesting the population of 'Liard River' of 100 people in the north of BC should have a high speed train to Vancouver. Of course BC as a whole will never have Swiss like public Transit. But if you actually look at where people live, take into account the particular details of the location, you can design a public transport system that is useful for people. But the comment said '200km' from Vancouver. And he also said there was highway 5 miles from the parents house. So somehow they seemed to think it was reasonable to able to build a highway. Highways are expensive infrastructure, and usually you don't built them the middle of nowhere. So it seems from the comment we are not talking about some place that is at least between two places the somebody connected with a highway. If you have enough money for a highway, you can finance a bus route along it. Most people do live reasonable close together and not just a single house in the wilderness. If we look at the density map: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-550/vignettes/m1bc-eng.htm https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97... It seems to me that Vancouver is perfectly placed to have an amazing transport system connecting its city to its metro and its metro to the more outlining towns and villages. There is no reason the great Vancouver area couldn't have Swiss like public transport very every village Then you have a higher speed train connecting Vancouver to Calgary to Edmonton and all the larger towns in between. Then have regional trains or buses going out from that trunk connecting smaller towns and villages. I suspect these town were all originally built because there was railroad there. So yes, BC as a whole is big and densely populated. But that metric alone is meaningless when designing a public transport system that can meaningfully serve the population. Even if you think 'cars are the best option', that's no reason not have have decent public transport. Switzerland, has lots of people in cars and its a very viable option. But despite that, it also has other good types of transport. Sometimes its nice not to have only one option, specially for people who for many reasons can't simply drive. This reoccurring attitude of well its a big country so why even try is so damaging. As if Canada being big had anything to do with why Toronto street cars are a abomination of planning and operations. You have a bit more of a point in regards to BC but even then its wrong for the majority of people.

Mordisquitos 3y ago

Talking about the overall size of Canada is dodging the issue. The scale of the country does provide a justification for not being able to access any arbitrary spot across Canada (or the US) using public transport, but the previous commenter is talking about accessing a town a mere 200 km away from British Columbia's largest city and urban agglomeration — 3rd largest in Canada as a whole. How many Switzerlands can you fit within a 200 km drive from Vancouver [0]? My eyeball guess is that the area is half the area of Switzerland, maybe less than a third if we exclude US territory covered in the map. And what's the population density of that area? Again, ignoring the US, just counting Vancouver's [1] and Victoria's [2] metropolitan areas alone adds up to 3,000,000 inhabitants (more than a third of the population of the whole of Switzerland), so this area's population density is very likely to be similar or even greater than that of Switzerland as a whole. [0] https://www.smappen.com/app/map/802yt https://www.smappen.com/app/map/802yt [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria,_British_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria,_British_Columbia