# Infrastructure: Canada or Australia



## DrJoe

Back in the City vs. City days the Aussies did the same thing. Incapable of making actual compairisons they always brought up beaches and weather. For a person like me who likes winter sports such as hockey and skiing the weather in Australia is actually a draw back. 

The fact that they are trying to change the topic should answer the question orginally asked.


----------



## Nick

All five major Australian capital cities have a rail system bigger than Toronto or Montrael.

Sydney alone has just under 20 underground stations on its 190 station network.

Toronto only has a small subway system and a limited diesel commuter network


----------



## Taller Better

Nick said:


> All five major Australian capital cities have a rail system bigger than Toronto or Montrael.
> 
> Sydney alone has just under 20 underground stations on its 190 station network.
> 
> Toronto only has a small subway system and a limited diesel commuter network


Oh God, we are not going to go through all this again. What a joke. :weirdo:
Lock it or it will become a TrollFest(tm) with all the usual victims.


----------



## circle33

Australia's cricket grounds put ours to shame.


----------



## DrJoe

Nick said:


> All five major Australian capital cities have a rail system bigger than Toronto or Montrael.
> 
> Sydney alone has just under 20 underground stations on its 190 station network.
> 
> Toronto only has a small subway system and a limited diesel commuter network


The ridership numbers speak for themselves. The TTC only runs in Toronto city proper (2.5 million) and has annual ridership of 430 million. Melbourne and Sydney have systems that cover a much larger population and the ridership numbers are way behind.


----------



## rt_0891

What often surprises me is the cost of transit in Australia, which often costs way more than the subsidized fares of North American PT systems. Also, private operations play a pivotal role in Australian PT, whereas almost all Canadian & US public transit agencies are government owned and operated.


----------



## Taller Better

DrJoe said:


> The ridership numbers speak for themselves. The TTC only runs in Toronto city proper (2.5 million) and has annual ridership of 430 million. Melbourne and Sydney have systems that cover a much larger population and the ridership numbers are way behind.


And don't forget to add the figures from Toronto's Go-Train service. This
was generally conveniently forgotten by so many of our Aussie cousins
during the good old rock-em-sock-em days of CvsC!! :tongue3: 
What the hell. I'm voting Canada!!!


----------



## DonQui

I am sorry, but trying to equate cities like Melbourne with only commuter rail with cities like Toronto that have subway AND commuter rail seems foolish.

You need to have both to have a good infrastructure. One to get surbanites in and one to get you around once you get in. Putting your commuter rail underground, while good, does not make up for the HUGE gaping lack of subway.

And like the Canadians have been saying, even if your highways are comparable (which they most likely are), public transport will be an important defining feature. You could have 300000 km of metro in your city, but if you have ridership figures as low as they are in Australia, Canada wins on the public transport front.


----------



## Bertez

circle33 said:


> Australia's cricket grounds put ours to shame.


I don't even call our's a ground.....more like an open space


----------



## Batman Can

Nick said:


> All five major Australian capital cities have a rail system bigger than Toronto or Montrael.
> 
> Sydney alone has just under 20 underground stations on its 190 station network.
> 
> Toronto only has a small subway system and a limited diesel commuter network


Who do you think you are kidding?

Australian cities do have nice commuter systems but it is a joke to compare them to subway. Subway is as good as it gets. Montreal and Toronto have HUGE ridership on there subway systems compared to the Aussie commuter rail. 

Underground loops at the end of commuter lines is hardly the type of mass transit large international cities such as Sydney and Melbourne should have. Melbourne does have a nice tram system also but they shouldn't be used for anything more than local short distance travel.


----------



## invincible

Australian suburban rail networks are extremely different to commuter rail networks in Canada anyway.

Let's just say that if we ran them like commuter trains, the whole network would fall over and die.


----------



## Taller Better

What about airports? How does Sydney's airport compare to the new Pearson 
International that is partly completed? And, for the millionth time, Toronto has
commuter trains as well as the subway system. Called GoTrains.


----------



## Nick

invincible said:


> Australian suburban rail networks are extremely different to commuter rail networks in Canada anyway.
> 
> Let's just say that if we ran them like commuter trains, the whole network would fall over and die.


Thats a point I forgot to make.

Our commuter rail systems are electrified,run extensively underground like a Metro and have frequencys on par with most metro systems,especially in Sydney.

Dr Joe.I will check the ridership of Sydney's rail system and compare it to the total number of passengers who ride Toronto's subway and all its commuter lines.


----------



## DonQui

invincible said:


> Australian suburban rail networks are extremely different to commuter rail networks in Canada anyway.
> 
> Let's just say that if we ran them like commuter trains, the whole network would fall over and die.


They still have the fequency and usability of COMMUTER trains.


----------



## DonQui

Nick said:


> Thats a point I forgot to make.
> 
> Our commuter rail systems are electrified,run extensively underground like a Metro and have frequencys on par with most metro systems,especially in Sydney.
> 
> Dr Joe.I will check the ridership of Sydney's rail system and compare it to the total number of passengers who ride Toronto's subway and all its commuter lines.


Frequencies where, in the inner loop? In the end, Toronto's subway + commuter network is more capable of meeting high end demand and density than Sydney's commuter rail. Commuter rail on steroids is still commuter rail.


----------



## Macca-GC

DrJoe said:


> Back in the City vs. City days the Aussies did the same thing. Incapable of making actual compairisons they always brought up beaches and weather. For a person like me who likes winter sports such as hockey and skiing the weather in Australia is actually a draw back.
> 
> The fact that they are trying to change the topic should answer the question orginally asked.


Ok, you do realise that it was Jue whose location is Houston/Shanghai who changed the subject don't bring up that bullshit.

And yes Canada, WE GET THE BLOODY IDEA THAT YOU HAVE A COMMUTER RAIL SYSTEM AND A SUBWAY, CALLED GOTRAINS, THAT YOU HAVE TOLD US A MILLION BLOODY TIMES!!!!!!


Now, back on topic, this thread should be closed because it is a City Vs. City type thread.


----------



## MirageBistro

Russia


----------



## ChicagoSkyline

DonQui said:


> Frequencies where, in the inner loop? In the end, Toronto's subway + commuter network is more capable of meeting high end demand and density than Sydney's commuter rail. Commuter rail on steroids is still commuter rail.


*LOL*
Please, DonQui no more commuter creampie talk again, you obviously don't know anything about rail!

BTW, I would say that Canada's overall infrastructures are better than Australia.


----------



## invincible

DonQui said:


> They still have the fequency and usability of COMMUTER trains.


Trains to the city at my station (Springvale), about 20km from the city.


Code:


04. 57
05. 17 36 56
06. 16 32 47
07. 01 05 11 21 25 31 38 43 54 59
08. 04 07 15 22 27 32 45
09. 00 15 30 45
ditto until 3pm
15. 00 15 30 43 54
16. 07 20 28 43 55
17. 07 15 24 39 48 57
18. 09 17 30 42 52
19. 04 21 51
20. 21 51
21. 21 51
22. 21 51
23. 21

Link
Approximate distances from city of places where lines branch or terminate: Caulfield 10km, Dandenong 30km.


It's not up there with true metro systems but it's nothing like commuter rail, unless someone wants to show me otherwise.


----------



## DrJoe

The TTC subway runs every 2 minutes peak time. 4-5 minutes off peak, on all lines.


----------



## DonQui

ChicagoSkyline said:


> *LOL*
> Please, DonQui no more commuter creampie talk again, you obviously don't know anything about rail!
> 
> BTW, I would say that Canada's overall infrastructures are better than Australia.


I think I got myself a secret admirer.

One more example of this and to the mods I go.


----------



## Batman Can

invincible said:


> Trains to the city at my station (Springvale), about 20km from the city.
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 04. 57
> 05. 17 36 56
> 06. 16 32 47
> 07. 01 05 11 21 25 31 38 43 54 59
> 08. 04 07 15 22 27 32 45
> 09. 00 15 30 45
> ditto until 3pm
> 15. 00 15 30 43 54
> 16. 07 20 28 43 55
> 17. 07 15 24 39 48 57
> 18. 09 17 30 42 52
> 19. 04 21 51
> 20. 21 51
> 21. 21 51
> 22. 21 51
> 23. 21
> 
> Link
> Approximate distances from city of places where lines branch or terminate: Caulfield 10km, Dandenong 30km.
> 
> 
> *It's not up there with true metro systems * but it's nothing like commuter rail, unless someone wants to show me otherwise.



Not even on the radar screen of a true metro system actually. Lets compare

TTC subway, peak time: All lines also, not just in some little loop
00, 02, 04, 06, 08, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58

Off peak:
00, 04, 09, 13, 18, 22, 27, 31, 36, 40, 45, 49, 54, 58


Anyway the big difference here is that with a subway system you use it for everyday living, its just part of living in the big city. The commuter lines are for going to work every day. You can claim that Sydney and Melbourne run them like a metro system but if that were the case then ridership wouldn't be so low. I think it sais something when Sydney has 2000 km of track and carries 900,000 daily and Toronto has 70 km of subway and carries 900,000 daily. The TTC carries a further 1.2 million by bus and 300,000 by streetcar, daily. Again this is a system which only operates Toronto city proper.


----------



## invincible

DrJoe said:


> The TTC subway runs every 2 minutes peak time. 4-5 minutes off peak, on all lines.


But that's obviously not a commuter rail system, and I've already said that the Melbourne suburban network (and its cousins in Sydney, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide) isn't a metro/subway (subway in Australia means underpass) system.

Likewise, our suburban rail systems in Australia aren't commuter rail either, because with frequency aside, the stops are closer, the trains are built with hard seats for short journeys and are often built to accomodate large numbers of standing passengers.


----------



## Batman Can

^ Where is the ridership then? You keep telling us how it isn't like a commuter system but the ridership numbers are exactly that of a commuter system.


TTC subway
70 km track, daily ridership 900,000. Riders per km, 12,857

Toronto GO Train:
360 km of track, daily ridership 160,000. Riders per km, 444

Sydney Cityrail 
2060 km of track, ridership 900,000. Riders per km, 436


----------



## Taller Better

Toadman said:


> And yes Canada, WE GET THE BLOODY IDEA THAT YOU HAVE A COMMUTER RAIL SYSTEM AND A SUBWAY, CALLED GOTRAINS, THAT YOU HAVE TOLD US A MILLION BLOODY TIMES!!!!!!
> QUOTE]
> 
> Then focus, and stop acting like 11 year old children. Compare apples to
> apples. So, anyone got any ideas about other infrastructure, like airports?


----------



## Bertez

IMHO, Australia wins when it comes to Airports.....although I think Canadian airports are catching up fast


----------



## Filip

^^YVR and YYZ are seriously incredible airports... Modern, efficient... BLOODY EXPENSIVE HAHAHAH!!!!


----------



## ToRoNto g-town

i think Canada wins.. enough reasons have been given


----------



## Tintin27

Does Sydney commuter trains still uses Magnetic strip tickets unlike other cities in the world who have either changed or changing to contact-less smart cards? It was still that old system when I last went (2003). Canadian cities are investing a lot on public transport compared to Aus.. Talking bout VIVA , Brampton BRT, expanding Vancouver skytrain, Canada is spending a lot. 
I remember, there wasnt a proper intercity bus terminus in Sydney (there was just one small building and buses were parked on a side street). Compared to that , Toronto's Greyhound terminal is Huge.. Roads in Canada are much better because of more freeways. Airports , well similar but Pearson is an exception.. No Aus airports are constructing something similar to Pearson even though Syd and toronto's passenger movement are quite similar.
For clean, environment with great weather , Aus is the place...Infrastructure wise, Canada is still years ahead...


----------



## invincible

Batman Can said:


> ^ Where is the ridership then? You keep telling us how it isn't like a commuter system but the ridership numbers are exactly that of a commuter system.
> 
> 
> TTC subway
> 70 km track, daily ridership 900,000. Riders per km, 12,857
> 
> Toronto GO Train:
> 360 km of track, daily ridership 160,000. Riders per km, 444
> 
> Sydney Cityrail
> 2060 km of track, ridership 900,000. Riders per km, 436


Using track km flaws the argument because most Australian cities share rail tracks with freight and regional traffic. And in Melbourne's case where you have anything between single track and twelve tracks, it inflates the numbers a lot.

Either way, it's the purpose of the network that matters. Patronage doesn't really classify networks. I'm not saying that our networks are a suitable replacement for a genuine subway, because it's not, and it's nowhere close except for the central stations. But commuter systems are vastly different to our suburban systems too. We've got commuter trains that bring people in from nearby towns and cities that would have more similar characteristics to a true commuter train, but ridership is a lot lower. But people do use them to commute to Melbourne every day. Likewise, our suburban trains (and its counterparts in Europe) would fit into a bit of a middle ground because they're also used for a lot of local travel. I wouldn't mind signalling like the RER too.


----------



## ♣628.finst

Accura said:


> Doesnt Edmonton also have a subway?


Almost... but not really a subway--- that's a LRT system.


----------



## ♣628.finst

If you say the whole Canada... then Australia is better than ours. (BC and Quebec is the worst around North America)

Note: Compare South Australia with Saskatchewan... obviously Saskatchewan is better.


----------



## Eric Cartman

Adelaide has more km of Freeway than Vancouver :lol:


----------



## rt_0891

Xäntårx said:


> If you say the whole Canada... then Australia is better than ours. (BC and Quebec is the worst around North America)


Huh? BC and Quebec has some of nation's best infrastructure. Sask, Manitoba, the territories and the maritimes on the other hand has subpar infrastructure, mostly due to its small and sparse population.


----------



## Eric Cartman

Vancouver has 2.1 million people and just 1 freeway.


----------



## KIWIKAAS

^^
I count 3


----------



## Justme

Eric Cartman said:


> Vancouver has 2.1 million people and just 1 freeway.


Sorry, I don't know Vancouver very well, maybe you can help me. Which is that single freeway, no 99, no 91, no 10 or the Tranz Canada no.1?











And Adelaide


----------



## goschio

The Asutralian highway network is pretty bad IMO. Four lane freeways are only found near metropolitan areas. Between metros you have to use normal roads with only one lane per direction. That makes traveling pretty tiredsome, especially if you have alot of trucks and carvans in front of you. But well, most people fly anyway. 

Cant say much about public transport since I dont use it.


----------



## DrJoe

The Vancouver metro has more than one freeway, it's the city (which is only pop 600,000) itself that has one.


----------



## rt_0891

goschio said:


> The Asutralian highway network is pretty bad IMO. Four lane freeways are only found near metropolitan areas. Between metros you have to use normal roads with only one lane per direction. That makes traveling pretty tiredsome, especially if you have alot of trucks and carvans in front of you. But well, most people fly anyway.


The Transcanada highway (Hwy. #1) outside of urban areas is also one lane per direction. There's not enough inter-provincial trade to warrant an upgrade.


----------



## Taller Better

rt_0891 said:


> The Transcanada highway (Hwy. #1) outside of urban areas is also one lane per direction. There's not enough inter-provincial trade to warrant an upgrade.


I think in some areas they would be happy to expand it to two lanes each way, but the cost would be prohibitive because of the rock on the side of the roads. That is certainly true in a lot of places in Ontario and Quebec. On the prairies it would be easier to expand the Trans Canada.


----------



## rt_0891

Taller said:


> I think in some areas they would be happy to expand it to two lanes each way, but the cost would be prohibitive because of the rock on the side of the roads. That is certainly true in a lot of places in Ontario and Quebec. On the prairies it would be easier to expand the Trans Canada.


I remember the Chretien government promising money for the upgrade of TransCanada as part of their National Unity scheme, but most of the provinces would rather use the money to fix up routes leading to the US.


----------



## Taller Better

rt_0891 said:


> I remember the Chretien government promising money for the upgrade of TransCanada as part of their National Unity scheme, but most of the provinces would rather use the money to fix up routes leading to the US.


Precisely! Chrétien proposed expanding the Trans Canada from sea to shining
sea as his "legacy". Ironically, his "legacy" turned out to be something quite
different!!


----------



## Randwicked

2000 km of track in Sydney
WTF? Tha tdemands correction.


----------



## Randwicked

Canada has the best transport infrastructure, in its cities at least. Rural areas are probably even. The suburban belts of Ontario are no doubt worse. GO is NOT in the same class as suburban rail and just isn't up to standard for a powerhouse like th GTA.


----------



## Justme

Randwicked said:


> 2000 km of track in Sydney
> WTF? Tha tdemands correction.


I think it's correct from memory, or close to the real figure. But by "Sydney" they are referring to the entire "City Rail" network which goes beyond the metropolitan area and includes all the track from Kiami to the Hunter Valley. As you know, this is a vast area. This is not comparable to the figure for Toronto for a couple of reasons, one, it includes three seperate metropolitan areas.

However, and here is the big difference, the figure of 360km for Toronto posted by Batman Can is that of "Route km", not "track length" as he posted for Sydney.
http://www.gotransit.com/PUBLIC/publications/gotransityearinreview2003-04.pdf

This is a very different figure, as I'm sure you know. For those who don't "Route km" defines the actual length of lines in a network - this is the most common figure used, as it represents a "real" figure that commuters use. Track length on the other hand adds all the individual tracks together, so a 40km route line with double track becomes 80km track length, then add all the sidings etc and the figure becomes quite large.

From memory, I remember the Sydney metropolitan area having about 350km of route lines, considering this is a 12,000km~ area compared to the Go Transit network which covers the 8000km²~ area of the Toronto metro, they are pretty much even, with Toronto having the lead (not to mention the addition of a full metro as well)

City Rail does not offer the Route km statistic, which is odd, as almost all other rail networks do and prefer this to the bloated track km figure. In fact, their website tries to claim it is amongst the largest and most complicated rail networks in the world ??? So, I can only assume they only post the track length to bloat their figures for marketing purposes.


----------



## Taller Better

Randwicked said:


> The suburban belts of Ontario are no doubt worse. GO is NOT in the same class as suburban rail and just isn't up to standard for a powerhouse like th GTA.


Why do you say that???


----------



## Paddington

All the hosers out there would hate to admit it, but Canada is structured physically a lot like America. Whereas Australia - despite the new, big American style houses - is otherwise a lot like England. I would give the edge to Canada.


----------



## Randwicked

Justme said:


> I think it's correct from memory, or close to the real figure. But by "Sydney" they are referring to the entire "City Rail" network which goes beyond the metropolitan area and includes all the track from Kiami to the Hunter Valley. As you know, this is a vast area. This is not comparable to the figure for Toronto for a couple of reasons, one, it includes three seperate metropolitan areas.
> 
> However, and here is the big difference, the figure of 360km for Toronto posted by Batman Can is that of "Route km", not "track length" as he posted for Sydney.
> http://www.gotransit.com/PUBLIC/publications/gotransityearinreview2003-04.pdf
> 
> This is a very different figure, as I'm sure you know. For those who don't "Route km" defines the actual length of lines in a network - this is the most common figure used, as it represents a "real" figure that commuters use. Track length on the other hand adds all the individual tracks together, so a 40km route line with double track becomes 80km track length, then add all the sidings etc and the figure becomes quite large.
> 
> From memory, I remember the Sydney metropolitan area having about 350km of route lines, considering this is a 12,000km~ area compared to the Go Transit network which covers the 8000km²~ area of the Toronto metro, they are pretty much even, with Toronto having the lead (not to mention the addition of a full metro as well)
> 
> City Rail does not offer the Route km statistic, which is odd, as almost all other rail networks do and prefer this to the bloated track km figure. In fact, their website tries to claim it is amongst the largest and most complicated rail networks in the world ??? So, I can only assume they only post the track length to bloat their figures for marketing purposes.



Thanks Justme. Let's review Batman Can's figures then.

TTC subway
70 km track, daily ridership 900,000. Riders per km, 12,857

Toronto GO Train:
360 km of track, daily ridership 160,000. Riders per km, 444

Sydney Cityrail
*350* km of track, ridership 900,000. Riders per km, *2571*

And that's an avarage over a whole intercity region. The passenger density would be a lot higher in the Sydney urban area.


----------



## Taller Better

LOL! These city vs city things are much like a beauty contest. Some people won't give up til they win the mofo tiara!!! :tyty:


----------



## Batman Can

Justme said:


> However, and here is the big difference, the figure of 360km for Toronto posted by Batman Can is that of "Route km", not "track length" as he posted for Sydney.
> http://www.gotransit.com/PUBLIC/publications/gotransityearinreview2003-04.pdf
> 
> This is a very different figure, as I'm sure you know. For those who don't "Route km" defines the actual length of lines in a network - this is the most common figure used, as it represents a "real" figure that commuters use. Track length on the other hand adds all the individual tracks together, so a 40km route line with double track becomes 80km track length, then add all the sidings etc and the figure becomes quite large.



Well you are wrong in this case or should I say GO is wrong. The number they quote as "route length" is actually the track length. 

This is the estimated *track* length from start to end of line.









So yeah, the route length would be 720 km, track length is 360 km. If you don't believe me go measure them yourself using google earth.


----------



## Yardmaster

Batman Can said:


> Well you are wrong in this case or should I say GO is wrong. The number they quote as "route length" is actually the track length.
> 
> This is the estimated *track* length from start to end of line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So yeah, the route length would be 720 km, track length is 360 km. If you don't believe me go measure them yourself using google earth.


perhaps I'm restating the obvious here ... do I need to restate it?

Not a bad network, all the same.


----------



## Justme

Batman Can said:


> Well you are wrong in this case or should I say GO is wrong. The number they quote as "route length" is actually the track length.
> 
> This is the estimated *track* length from start to end of line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So yeah, the route length would be 720 km, track length is 360 km. If you don't believe me go measure them yourself using google earth.


No, you are wrong. Your own post proved it. Those lengths are the *"Route Length"* not track length. Unless you imagine they are all single track!

Add it up.


----------



## Taller Better

The most boring thing about this is it was hashed to the nth degree, ad nauseum,
in the infamous Australia vs Canada thread (which everyone left with a bloody
nose). No one listened to anyone else in that 76 year extravaganza, so why
would anyone start listening now?
Face it, this is just a city vs city thread, and they were outlawed a while back.


----------



## Justme

Randwicked said:


> Thanks Justme. Let's review Batman Can's figures then.
> 
> TTC subway
> 70 km track, daily ridership 900,000. Riders per km, 12,857
> 
> Toronto GO Train:
> 360 km of track, daily ridership 160,000. Riders per km, 444
> 
> Sydney Cityrail
> *350* km of track, ridership 900,000. Riders per km, *2571*
> 
> And that's an avarage over a whole intercity region. The passenger density would be a lot higher in the Sydney urban area.


No worries mate, but please keep in mind, the 350km for Sydney's route length is just from "memory". It's a really hard statistic to find as City Rail and NSW Railcorp only post track lengths for the entire tri-metro region.

I found the actual route length from a website quite some time ago, which listed the route length of all separate lines and between their stations. However, it wasn't a simple task of just adding up the lines, as there were many "bundled" lines as you know. So, I had to subtract the bundled lines out. I used the area bounded by the Sydney Statistical Division which is generally perceived to be the metropolitan area rather than the whole City Rail network.

Here is the site: http://www.urbanrail.net/au/sydney-distances.htm
If you have the time, have a go yourself, but don't forget to subtract the bundled lines - it's a real hard job to get right, and you'll need a map. It would be interesting to see how accurate my memory is  Probably not too good as I do enjoy destructing a few brain cells every now and again.


----------



## Godot

Randwicked said:


> Thanks Justme. Let's review Batman Can's figures then.
> 
> TTC subway
> 70 km track, daily ridership 900,000. Riders per km, 12,857
> 
> Toronto GO Train:
> 360 km of track, daily ridership 160,000. Riders per km, 444
> 
> Sydney Cityrail
> *350* km of track, ridership 900,000. Riders per km, *2571*
> 
> And that's an avarage over a whole intercity region. The passenger density would be a lot higher in the Sydney urban area.


anyone with half a mind can see that a city that has a heavily used
subway system and a suburban train system and a street car system and a bus system has a superior transportation infrastructure to a city with a 
bus system and a suburban train system. all the "riders/km" statistics and civic pride in the world won't alter that fact one iota. obviously the answer is canada.


----------



## neilio

Taller said:


> The most boring thing about this is it was hashed to the nth degree, ad nauseum,
> in the infamous Australia vs Canada thread (which everyone left with a bloody
> nose). No one listened to anyone else in that 76 year extravaganza, so why
> would anyone start listening now?
> Face it, this is just a city vs city thread, and they were outlawed a while back.


hehe, i like the way you use the word "OUTLAWED", as if this thread is some big crime in itself lol.
But ya I agree, this is just another Canada vs Australia thread, comparing anything between the 2 countries is just asking for a bitch fest.


----------



## Randwicked

Taller said:


> LOL! These city vs city things are much like a beauty contest. Some people won't give up til they win the mofo tiara!!! :tyty:


I only seek truth, Taller Better!


----------



## Randwicked

Godot said:


> anyone with half a mind can see that a city that has a heavily used
> subway system and a suburban train system and a street car system and a bus system has a superior transportation infrastructure to a city with a
> bus system and a suburban train system. all the "riders/km" statistics and civic pride in the world won't alter that fact one iota. obviously the answer is canada.


You are obviously correct (however there are no cities in Canada with proper suburban train systems). But there are 4 million people in Sydney with better public transport than 4 milion people in the suburbs of Toronto who don't have access to the city's metro.


----------



## algonquin

What an incredibly uninteresting thread... I expect more from dirty Can/Aus threads.

Whats interesting for both countries is their ability to have transportation without infrastructure... like Australias 'truck-trains' blasting across the desert, and Canada's ice highways in the far north. Who needs pavement?


----------



## Cariad

I would have to say that Canada's PT and Roads are superior that of Australia.
It baffles me as to why people even try to compare Canada and Australia, I hear they are the "same" but I don't see how. 
For one Canada has about 12 million more people than Australia and Canada's immediate neighbour is the USA with something like 270 million people. Canada's PT and Roads are geared up for that extra population and also the visitors they must get from the USA would be massive. So of course it is superior.
PT and Roads in Australia are good and serve us well, the PT in Sydney leaves alot to be desired and is quite unacceptable given the size of Sydney.
As for Sydney being suburban, yes I totally agree, they say Sydney can be compared to the size of London and is something like 7 times larger than Paris. The size of "Sydney" is riduculous and the population of the city itself is only approx 46,000. The other 4 million people living in greater Sydney, however the sprawl is trying to be maintained given that Sydney is growing at a fairly high rate.
Also the investment in Australia is not as high as Canada, again because they have the USA as neighbours and investment is easier and maybe cheaper to have offices in near by Canadian cities than the American border cities (would that be correct?).
If Canada was completely on it's own with no neighbours and a 20 hour flight from America, then yes lets compare. The closest neighbours we have are New Zealand with a 4 million population and still a 3-4 hour flight!


----------



## Chilenofuturista

Definitely Canada!


----------



## Dr. Phalange

Toadman said:


> Melbourne's PT system could kick Montreal's Ass. Melbourne has Trains, Trams and Buses.


Based on what, your unsubstantiated claims? Montreal has one of the best PT systems in NA (very comparable to Toronto's). It has an extensive subway system, something Melbourne can only dream of. The metro has 4 lines covering 66 km, 65 stations and 759 metro cars. There are 186 bus lines and 1530 buses. The STM provides 1.3 million trips on its system every day.

STCUM 



Toadman said:


> Brisbane's PT system is probably better than Vancouver's and the improvements keep coming.


LOL! Probably? Too lazy to look it up, so now you're guesssing. 

I doubt it. Vancouver's PT system is being expanded rapidly, in part due to increased investment for the upcoming Olympics.


----------



## Bertez

Cariad said:


> ............they say Sydney can be compared to the size of London and is something like 7 times larger than Paris. The size of "Sydney" is riduculous and the population of the city itself is only approx 46,000. The other 4 million people living in greater Sydney, however the sprawl is trying to be maintained given that Sydney is growing at a fairly high rate


What is the size (like in square kilometers) of the Greater Sydney Area??


----------



## Cariad

Question: Do you think that Canada has subways based on their climate? If Australia was as cold I am sure would have had the same, No?
Sydney has a tiny subway in the city circle and I suppose the track to Bondi Junction can also be a subway most of it is underground plus all the stations.
Anyone interested in Sydney rails network can be seen at www.cityrail.info and look up network maps.


----------



## Cariad

Bertez said:


> What is the size (like in square kilometers) of the Greater Sydney Area??


According to Wikipedia the size of Sydney is 1687km or 651 miles, which is similar to London, New York I think is about 780km and Paris is 105km and the same site mentions the Population as of 2003 being 4,198,543, but I think that is approaching 4.4 million in 2006.


----------



## rt_0891

Cariad said:


> Question: Do you think that Canada has subways based on their climate? If Australia was as cold I am sure would have had the same, No?
> Sydney has a tiny subway in the city circle and I suppose the track to Bondi Junction can also be a subway most of it is underground plus all the stations.
> Anyone interested in Sydney rails network can be seen at www.cityrail.info and look up network maps.


Not really. First of all, a large number of sub-tropical cities (especially in Asia, e.g. Singapore) have subways. Also, when Montreal and Toronto's subway system was first built, many cities around the world were also developing their own subway networks. Cities as diverse as Hong Kong and Boston were expanding their subway coverage, so I doubt it has anything to do with weather. By the 80-90s, when other Canadian cities expanded their PT routes, subways became somewhat cost prohibitive, and other technologies were utilized instead (e.g., Vancouver's Skytrain/Calgary's C-Train).

Even in the blistering winter cold, Toronto still maintains a large streetcar ROW network, so weather isn't the first priority that comes to mind when selecting public transit options.


----------



## Justme

Cariad said:


> According to Wikipedia the size of Sydney is 1687km or 651 miles, which is similar to London, New York I think is about 780km and Paris is 105km and the same site mentions the Population as of 2003 being 4,198,543, but I think that is approaching 4.4 million in 2006.


Keep in mind that is the size of Urban Sydney which includes multiple cities, and the size for London and NY is just the city proper. Both London and New York extend further when talking about the full urban area (though London gets a bit complicated there as there is a green belt)


----------



## Taller Better

Bertez said:


> ^^lmao....The Giant Beavers of Sri Lanka..........do they even have beavers there??


Not the four legged type... :naughty:


----------



## Cariad

Justme said:


> Keep in mind that is the size of Urban Sydney which includes multiple cities, and the size for London and NY is just the city proper. Both London and New York extend further when talking about the full urban area (though London gets a bit complicated there as there is a green belt)


I think even though they are called Cities I don't think they are in the true sense, maybe only Parramatta but they are more dense hubs, no different to any other suburb in Sydney or London or New York for that matter.
But yes the size of Sydney is ridiculous.
Does New York have any other Cities within itself like London and Westminster?


----------



## Randwicked

Taller said:


> Oh no, I was there with boxing gloves on, swinging away at the heathens
> from Down Under!! I knew that would get your goat, Rand, and just threw
> it in for fun, as one would throw a steak to a lion!! If I remember correctly, the
> suburban issue was a sensitive one for Sydneysiders....  so, I was just
> joshin' ya.
> Frankly I am surprised this thread has flown under the radar of the moderators
> for as long as it has, as it is unabashedly a city vs city thread. If ever there
> was a horse that was flogged well beyond death and into seven or eight
> past lifetimes, it is the wearisome Australia vs Canada battles. But you
> were certainly one of the stellar warriors! :cheers:


Fair enough then Berks . Let the record show that I never explicitly denied Toronto's awesomeness in my frothings (I'd never admit to it either), however we can all agree that pushing people's buttons is FUN. :cheers:


----------



## sbarn

Taller said:


> At least one ofthe creators of South Park is Canadian and they like to joke about home.We don't take it seriously here as people don't mind having a laugh at themselves.


The creators of SouthPark are from Colorado... in the U.S. 

Anyway, I think these two countries have relatively similar infrastructure systems, although Canada might have a slight edge. Not entirely sure about that though.


----------



## Taller Better

Randwicked said:


> Fair enough then Berks . Let the record show that I never explicitly denied Toronto's awesomeness in my frothings (I'd never admit to it either), however we can all agree that pushing people's buttons is FUN. :cheers:


Too true, my friend. Too true! As senseless as those great battles were,
the cut and thrust was meat and drink to the masses.... now all we
get is some bitter sniping now and then over the most petty of issues...
How fondly I recall the Perthian mating call:" DOG BOXES!!" "COMMIE BLOCKS!"
...sigh... ah, the good old days when one knew one's enemies! ld:


----------



## rt_0891

sbarn said:


> Anyway, I think these two countries have relatively similar infrastructure systems, although Canada might have a slight edge. Not entirely sure about that though.


Actually, there's quite a bit of variation. Due to the large volume of US-Canada trade, Canada's highway and rail infrastructure has to be better equipped to handle the continuous flow of goods/services. 

Australia on the other hand relies mainly on port traffic and freight to trade, therefore the country's logistical operations does not require such a complex rail/road transportation network. That's the key reason why their ports are more developed. 

Moreover, while most Australian cities are within 100 km from the ocean, many cities/towns in Canada are inland without direct ocean access (Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, etc.). Again, Canada needs a much larger road network than Australia to service all of the country's towns and cities.


----------



## Bertez

Taller said:


> Not the four legged type... :naughty:


lmao!!


----------



## algonquin

Yardmaster said:


> Australia and Canada are similar? Who's ever shovelled snow from their door in mainstream Australia? And who in Canada has ever fought to protect their town going up in smoke?


That actually happens in Canada... forest fires, that is.


----------



## sirhc8

These threads are always amusing. I'm not sure why people take their cities attributes so personally. In a dicsussion amongst Sydneysiders, we'd be discussing how our transportation system doesn't meet the needs of our population but in this type of thread, it's defended to the death. Exactly the same applies for the people of Melbourne, Toronto, etc.
They are what they are, everyone's coping but they could be better. 

Also, since when does the term 'infrastructure' refer only to transportation? That's all that I've seen 'discussed' in this thread however it only makes up a small part of the overall infrastructure picture.


----------



## Taller Better

sirhc8 said:


> These threads are always amusing. I'm not sure why people take their cities attributes so personally. In a dicsussion amongst Sydneysiders, we'd be discussing how our transportation system doesn't meet the needs of our population but in this type of thread, it's defended to the death. Exactly the same applies for the people of Melbourne, Toronto, etc.
> They are what they are, everyone's coping but they could be better.
> 
> Also, since when does the term 'infrastructure' refer only to transportation? That's all that I've seen 'discussed' in this thread however it only makes up a small part of the overall infrastructure picture.


Everything on here becomes a pissing contest. You can have a skybar 
thread asking if skyscrapers are a good or bad thing for a city, and the
majority of people will self righteously give the politically correct answer
of maybe not, or NO. Then they go right back to fist fights about their
city having taller buildings than the next city. And no one seems to clock
a thing about the absurdity of it all!


----------



## Paddington

Cariad said:


> I think even though they are called Cities I don't think they are in the true sense, maybe only Parramatta but they are more dense hubs, no different to any other suburb in Sydney or London or New York for that matter.
> But yes the size of Sydney is ridiculous.
> Does New York have any other Cities within itself like London and Westminster?


New York's organization is similar to London's with different boroughs. Although New York only has 5 boroughs, where London has 20 or 40 or whatever.


----------



## Justme

^^^year, and we are talking Sydney's metropolitan or total urban area with either London or New Yorks city proper. Outside of both cities are large and small seperate cities that surround the main one.


----------



## TB

Wow this was not locked yet??!! ... Crazy!! LOL. 

Funny how a comparison between Canadian infrastructure and Australian infrastructure became a Toronto p/t vs. Sydney p/t 

There is a hellofalot more to infrastructure than trains!!!!

What about the newly opened twined Trans-Canada highway in New Brunswick?.... newly paved, separated, bridged brand new! New as u can get!! The Confederation Bridge? All the bridges and highways in both countries for that matter?! 

airports
train stations
ferry systems
power generation (dams, wind farms, etc, etc.)

There is a lot more we can be discussing here for us all to _at least_ learn a bit about both countries’ infrastructure. *BESIDES TRAINS*


----------



## tayser

oooooooooook then. Let's just point out something which differentiates Canadian and Australian publc transport systems.

The TTC only covers about the same size as Zone 1 in Melbourne, with the majority of the vast suburban sprawl that is suburban Toronto left to fend for itself with sub-TTC-standard PT services via the local council (Missasomething, Brampton, whatever) or the Province-based GO network. 

Flip to Australia and the PT networks are run beyond piddly little city council boundaries and done by the regional level of government. 

What makes Canadian PT better than Australian at the moment is the amount of investment Canadian PT gets as opposed to Australian. But don't forget that Australian cities _fundamentally_ are far better equiped to cope with demand in future as each and every city has the basic rail infraustructure in place which would whip every Canadian city to China and back. Also infrastructure is state-owned and not privately-owned like the lines in Canada, for instance Ontario must negotiate with a private company (CN) for access so it can run it's poor-compared-to-Australian-equivalent GO services. That's just unheard of in Australia.

Compare the amount of track in the Melbourne network to Toronto or Montreal and it's not hard to see that IF the state government were to significantly increase funding for PT investment, it could utilise & upgrade the infrastructure that exists to a far greater potential by linking all the radial rail lines with proper tram/bus feeders, proper cross-town routes that would cater for ALL of Melbourne and not just the small parts of the metro areas that the Canadian PT agencies cater for.

apples and oranges.


----------



## Bertez

Missasomething......it's Mississauaga


----------



## sl64

tayser said:


> What makes Canadian PT better than Australian at the moment is the amount of investment Canadian PT gets as opposed to Australian. But don't forget that Australian cities _fundamentally_ are far better equiped to cope with demand in future as each and every city has the basic rail infraustructure in place which would whip every Canadian city to China and back. Also infrastructure is state-owned and not privately-owned like the lines in Canada, for instance Ontario must negotiate with a private company (CN) for access so it can run it's poor-compared-to-Australian-equivalent GO services. That's just unheard of in Australia.


First of all, Canadian PT (or at least the TTC) is EXTREMELY poorly funded. Less than 20% of their revenues are from government subsidies. I'm sure cities in Australia receive much more.

Second of all, having tons of existing rail infrastructure is fine and dandy, but meaningless when it comes to building subways, which should be the ultimate goal of any PT system. I don't think anyone would trade Toronto's subway, stunted as it is, for any amount of surface rail.


----------



## reginaguy

rt_0891 said:


> Huh? BC and Quebec has some of nation's best infrastructure. Sask, Manitoba, the territories and the maritimes on the other hand has subpar infrastructure, mostly due to its small and sparse population.


Actually, apparently Saskatchewan has more roads per person than anywhere in the world




anyways, I'd say Canada, because I don't know much about Australia's public transportation system, but Canada obviously has a lot MORE infrastructure due to population and geographical size


----------



## Taller Better

TB said:


> Wow this was not locked yet??!! ... Crazy!! LOL.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> I know... this deserves some sort of award as being possibly the
> dullest thread of the month. Everyone knows the answer.. the
> poll is ultra clear. Who knows what the final haggling is about.


----------



## diz

:lock: :lock: :lock:

City vs City


----------



## algonquin

Hey, instead of argueing about things that no one cares about, lets post pics of cool stuff.

Confederation Bridge, PEI/New Brunswick, Built in 1995-1997
Longest bridge in the world traversing frozen water (12.9km)


----------



## DrJoe

The building of cross country railway is probably Canada's top engineering feat. Especially considering that it was built in the late 1800's.


----------



## Bertez

Sweet pics


----------



## CKID

algonquin said:


> Hey, instead of argueing about things that no one cares about, lets post pics of cool stuff.
> 
> Confederation Bridge, PEI/New Brunswick, Built in 1995-1997
> Longest bridge in the world traversing frozen water (12.9km)


Hey I Live 30 Mins from this Bridge in Charlottetown!!!! PEI


----------



## CKID

algonquin said:


> Hey, instead of argueing about things that no one cares about, lets post pics of cool stuff.
> 
> Confederation Bridge, PEI/New Brunswick, Built in 1995-1997
> Longest bridge in the world traversing frozen water (12.9km)


Hey I Live 30 Mins from this Bridge in Charlottetown!!!! PEI  :cheers:


----------



## invincible

DrJoe said:


> The building of cross country railway is probably Canada's top engineering feat. Especially considering that it was built in the late 1800's.


You guys had it a lot harder than the Australians, who just had to lay several thousand km of rails over desert. We didn't even need to use curves. 

We also don't have any large bodies of water to traverse. Heck, the largest lake in Australia is usually dry.


----------



## muchbetter

CKID said:


> Hey I Live 30 Mins from this Bridge in Charlottetown!!!! PEI  :cheers:


I took many pictures of this bridge before. It is amazing.


----------



## Randwicked

I like the chutes over the railway for rockslides!


----------



## itsme

:hm: :dance: 

If i have to pick one 

for some reason i'd say canada has the upper edge against australia

Canada is by far better then Australia


----------



## Poryaa

Anglosaxon countries rankings

1.USA
2.UK
3.Canada
4.Australia
5.New Zealand


----------



## Jaye101

Oh my, Australia wipe the blood from your nose, you've just been bitch slapped with a subway train, and a 20 lane highway--ouch. 

Jkz...


----------



## samsonyuen

Highways: Canada
Urban Mass Transit: Canada
Suburba Mass Transit: Australia
Quality over Quantity.


----------



## Facial

I thought these threads were banned.


----------



## Cristovão471

These types of threads always lead to bitching about what country is better.


----------



## Max Power

i agree, dude, these are by far the stupidest threads ever. it just screams partisanship. why can't we just accept we live in two great nations with infrastructure much of the world would beg for?

look, canada has a bigger population so it needs a bigger infrastructure and it's transportation systems evolved side by side with the americans. that is why canada's seems better and i agree. but the reason why i think that is so faulty and cracked. there is more infrastructure because there are more people, and that just happens to depend on the population. australia is smaller, and thus, it needs smaller infrastructure. 

you have to look at the needs of the population and the country. their geographics also influences their infrastructure. that being said, i wouldn't trade toronto's infrastructure for the world. the city has everything in terms of transportation and roadways. i love 14-lane highways 


BOTH CANADA AND AUSTRALIA ARE EQUALLY F'N DEVELOPED. just take a glance at the HDI. this topic should've been locked by now. we're comparing apples and apples.


----------



## invincible

What the hell, that was more than 6 months old. There was absolutely no need to bring it back if you're complaining that this thread shouldn't be here.

Of course now it means that now it's a longer wait before this thread drops to the bottom again and gets pruned from the forum.


----------



## SYDNEYAHOLIC

I voted Canada. 

In Australia, you can't even drive between Melbourne and Sydney and Sydney and Brisbane on a proper dual highway. 

Also, the train takes DAYS!!!

Australia is behind other developed country's in every respect except backwardness and multiculturalism.


----------



## gladisimo

Perhaps a third party should come up with an attempt to objectively judge it, or a side by side comparison. And healthy discussion, not excessive bitching.


----------



## invincible

SYDNEYAHOLIC said:


> I voted Canada.
> 
> In Australia, you can't even drive between Melbourne and Sydney and Sydney and Brisbane on a proper dual highway.
> 
> Also, the train takes DAYS!!!
> 
> Australia is behind other developed country's in every respect except backwardness and multiculturalism.


There are very few places where you can cover 4300km (Sydney-Adelaide-Perth) or 3000km (Adelaide-Darwin) without taking days. AFAIK, these are the only routes which do take more than a day.

Interstate railways are not for commuters because there is no competition with the airlines - a Sydney-Melbourne flight departs every 15 minutes.


----------



## Valeroso

To be fair, this thread is really subjective and the votes are based completely on partisan grounds, so the poll shouldn't be taken too seriously. Actually, no Australia Vs Canada thread should be taken too seriously. :lol:

But to be fair also, since the Toronto TTC subway map was posted, I'd like to post an image of the _very_ extensive Sydney Cityrail map:


----------



## ricu__

I've been in West Australia and the train service was very bed there! For more than 300 Km one rail only with a train 2 times a day!...from Perth to Bunbary! There is no metro in Sydney or in any other city of Australia...only a monorail and a small tram line! The Sydney city rail is dirty and the train was very old!! But there's a great trasport service in Perth and Melbourne I suppose. I'm sorry but I think that Canada is better. However the population of Australia is only 30 million and the 90% lives in the city....is OK!


----------



## aussiescraperman

^^ what do u supposes canada's population is if australia's is 30million.

we are acutally 21 million and canada is 33 million.


----------



## ricu__

I'm sorry However 21 million is a small population for a big country like Australia...if you considerate than in europe we are 581 million people! (60 in Italy only)


----------



## Justme

ricu__ said:


> I'm sorry However 21 million is a small population for a big country like Australia...if you considerate than in europe we are 581 million people! (60 in Italy only)


Europe has 710 million, with the European Union just under 500million.


----------



## Valeroso

^^ And to correct the Australian figures, the population of Australia is about 20.5 million, not 21, but I guess it doesn't make such a dramatic difference.


----------



## Valeroso

ricu__ said:


> There is no metro in Sydney or in any other city of Australia...only a monorail and a small tram line!


Australia has a suburban/commuter rail network that operates in the exact same form as a metro. The only difference is basically aesthetics; one is underground, one is not. Personally, as I'm used to the suburban/commuter network, I've grown to prefer it over a metro. I like being able to look out the window and see the city, parks, people for instance. 

But for underground metro systems, the city circle in Sydney (albeit, not extremely large) is a good example of a metro, as well as the stations leading up to Bondi Junction (but even then on that line, there are still times when you can still look outside and see parts of the city).


----------



## Justme

Valeroso said:


> Australia has a suburban/commuter rail network that operates in the exact same form as a metro. The only difference is basically aesthetics; one is underground, one is not. Personally, as I'm used to the suburban/commuter network, I've grown to prefer it over a metro. I like being able to look out the window and see the city, parks, people for instance.
> 
> But for underground metro systems, the city circle in Sydney (albeit, not extremely large) is a good example of a metro, as well as the stations leading up to Bondi Junction (but even then on that line, there are still times when you can still look outside and see parts of the city).


Sorry, but that definition doesn't define a metro or suburban/commuter networks.


----------



## Valeroso

Justme said:


> Sorry, but that definition doesn't define a metro or suburban/commuter networks.


Oh I understand that there are differences (some probably greater than others), but I think completely eliminating a city simply because its trains do not happen to be underground (but work almost as efficiently, with some probable exceptions) is a little unfair. 

But I do trust that you're more educated (and probably a little less simplistic) on this matter than me.


----------



## Riise

Valeroso said:


> Australia has a suburban/commuter rail network that operates in the exact same form as a metro. The only difference is basically aesthetics; one is underground, one is not. Personally, as I'm used to the suburban/commuter network, I've grown to prefer it over a metro. I like being able to look out the window and see the city, parks, people for instance.


Not to join in the debate as I see it as nothing more than a pissing contest but Calgary, Edmonton, and Vancouver are Canadian cities which have an above-ground LRT or Metro. And btw, if you want to compare Australia and Canada know that they are more than just Sydney and Toronto...


----------



## ricu__

I've been in Sydney...but I remenber an underground station only in front to the commowelth bank and the rest was in surface like the horbour station (where the ferries port is) or the sydney central station. However the transport system was excellent with no metro too...and the monorail was nice (but for tourist only)


----------



## Volonski

Correct me if I am wrong but the thread’s title was ‘Infrastructure: Canada or Australia’.. not just freeways or highways


----------



## ricu__

yes....but highways and freeways are Infrastructure I think...


----------



## PerthCity

What a boring read this thread was. Basically the same poster repeating over and over that this thread is 'Australia v Canada'...:bash: hno: 

Obviously Canada is the clear choice here. Australia has only 2/3 of the population Canada has, Canada has also developed their infrastructure in the same fashion as the Americans (super freeways and subway networks), and I think their major cities are grouped closer together across Canada than Australias 5 major cities are across the continent.


----------



## invincible

Don't forget Canada has this huge country to its south, with goods and markets.

Australia... well there's a lot of ocean.


----------



## spongeg

i think Sydneys ferry boat - innercity one - beats Canada's

Vancouver has the one and only seabus

Vancouver really needs to start using its water ways as a means of transit like Sydney does










:master: :master:


----------



## spongeg

earlier in the thread people wondered about Vancouver's Freeways - its two lanes at best and crap

this is typical everyday



















there are plans to make it a 3 lane each way - but not sure when

hardly a freeway


----------



## algonquin

BeachRes44 said:


> What a boring read this thread was. Basically the same poster repeating over and over that this thread is 'Australia v Canada'...:bash: hno:
> 
> Obviously Canada is the clear choice here. Australia has only 2/3 of the population Canada has, Canada has also developed their infrastructure in the same fashion as the Americans (super freeways and subway networks), and I think their major cities are grouped closer together across Canada than Australias 5 major cities are across the continent.


Well, if we count cities well over a million, there's 4,500km between Vancouver and Toronto. Hardly grouped close together.

Otherwise a fair assesment.


----------



## b13

Calgary just reached over 1 million a few months back


----------



## algonquin

b13 said:


> Calgary just reached over 1 million a few months back


I'm aware of that. Thats why I said _well_ over a million. And that's not the point.

Thanks anyway.


----------



## TheCat

What about electricity generation/distribution?
I guess it isn't as important as both countries have enough to meet their needs.
However, I think the system in parts of North America needs to be upgraded;
for example, the Niagara-Mohawk grid. On the other hand, while I have little
knowledge of it, apparently Quebec has a very good power transmission network.


----------



## aussiescraperman

yeah, enough about roads and wat not...maybe compare, electricity, schools, sanitation, interent and so on.


----------



## Roch5220

In regards to sporting infrastructure, Canada takes the cake for hockey arenas and curling rinks. Auzzies take it for footy and rugby infrastructure.

On a semi related/unrelated note, I'd fly Quantas over Air Canada, I would have to be dead to take a flight on AirCan over Quantas. Even though I am flying aircan tommorrow, its just a 1 hour flight.


----------



## Dissenter

aussiescraperman said:


> yeah, enough about roads and wat not...maybe compare, electricity, schools, sanitation, interent and so on.


I'd say we lose on those too.


----------



## gappa

Australia.

Where else can you ride to work in a kangaroo's pouch? 

I remember fondly catching the 8:05 Joey to school every morning. Only took ten minutes or 600 hops.

Now there's talk of an inter-city boomer express.....:rofl:


----------



## Max Power

^^ lol


----------



## JAKJ

Gherkin said:


> If you say the whole Canada... then Australia is better than ours. (BC and Quebec is the worst around North America)
> 
> Note: Compare South Australia with Saskatchewan... obviously Saskatchewan is better.


Ummm no it isn't. How does a province where the largest "city" has 200 000, and a total provincial population of less than a million with South Australia which is a) At the juncture of Australian west/east, north/south national rail and highway, and b) has a population of 1.6 million with the capital city Adelaide having 1.2 million??? I would be bloody suprised if the infrastructure was better in Saskatchewan.


----------



## Yardmaster

I'm sure someone can help me out here. What's the median (not mean) distance Canadians live from the US border ?


----------



## Taller Better

BeachRes44 said:


> _What a boring read this thread was. Basically the same poster repeating over and over that this thread is 'Australia v Canada'...:bash: hno:_ .


and the same posters haggling over who has the biggest pee-pee! LOL!

This quote from Invincible had me in a fit of giggles:


_"Australia... well there's a lot of ocean"_ :lol:


----------



## Yardmaster

SYDNEYAHOLIC said:


> I voted Canada.
> 
> In Australia, you can't even drive between Melbourne and Sydney and Sydney and Brisbane on a proper dual highway.
> 
> Also, the train takes DAYS!!!


Bullshit, the train does a return trip within 24 hours. and another one the next day!


----------



## Taller Better

^^ How far apart are Sydney and Melbourne? How long is a one way train trip?
Do many people use the service, and is it a scenic route?


----------



## Yardmaster

Taller said:


> ^^ How far apart are Sydney and Melbourne? How long is a one way train trip?
> Do many people use the service, and is it a scenic route?


Sydney- Melbourne is 870 km by the most direct Highway ... 961 km by rail. fastest trip: 10 hrs 55 minutes.

2 trains run through daily, each of about 8 cars. Apart from that, there are 3 trains daily from Melbourne to the NSW border, and something like that on the NSW side.

It's hard to guess how many passengers use this service. I've used it about a dozen times ... they don't run two trains a day when they could just run one. When I was a kid, they used to run three trains each way, each day, two overnight ("Southern Aurora", "Spirit of Progress'), one by daylight ("The Intercapital Daylight").

They took longer then, and only did one trip per day, but all up, amounted to about 45 carriages each way, more at holiday periods. Often they'd run several extra trains.

It's not all that scenic ... the best part is near Cootamundra, with the spiral tunnels. I could suggest much more scenic routes.


----------



## Taller Better

I love taking the train. If I had all the time in the world when I visited a country, I would get one of those rail passes to allow you to get on and off at will.

Distance between Toronto and Montreal, as the crow flies, is 509 km. The train trip is more pleasurable
and quicker than taking the coach.


----------



## Yardmaster

Taller said:


> I love taking the train. If I had all the time in the world when I visited a country, I would get one of those rail passes to allow you to get on and off at will.
> 
> Distance between Toronto and Montreal, as the crow flies, is 509 km. The train trip is more pleasurable
> and quicker than taking the coach.


Some notable trips I've taken ... 

Melbourne- Cairns and back (3629 km each way). Does take several days, but very scenic. actually went further than that ... to Kuranda. Very scenic!










Melbourne- Alice Springs (and back ... about 2300 km each way ... you can now go another 1500 km to Darwin)

By that time, my daughter had got the bug, and went on the Melbourne-Perth adventure (about 3,500 km each way) without a bunk but with her friends, without her Dad.

Now, I know this is a Canada vs. Australia thread ... and crossing the Rockies would be fantastic- and very scenic- but the rail experience is still very much alive here.


----------



## urbanfan89

algonquin said:


> I don't know about commuter networks, but overall Canada would likely beat most countries for it's extensive inclusive ferry network. Many coastal towns are only reachable by ferry (ie: northern BC coast, Newfoundland, Labrador). British Columbia has an awesome ferry network, Ontario has a few, there are many that cross the St.Lawrence in Quebec, and Atlantic Canada has a few as well.


BC Ferries is very important for all of the BC coast, with three 90-minute routes from Vancouver being the main entry point into Vancouver Island. It's also one of the most used ferry networks in the world.



> The entire province of Newfoundland is only accessible by ferry.


 Duh...it's an island!!! Actually, there was a Newfie premier who suggested building a bridge-tunnel to the mainland a few years ago, and it became a butt of jokes.


----------



## algonquin

urbanfan89 said:


> Duh...it's an island!!!


Duh, so is PEI. That wasn't my point.

Since we're on the subject of Islands, Canada is obviously blessed with alot of them, which require ferry service. Newfoundland, Vancouver Island, the Queen Charlotte Islands, PEI, Manitoulin, etc.


----------



## isaidso

Justme said:


> ^^^ I'd also say that Sydney has a larger commuter ferry network than any in Canada. Though Canada possibly has the larger intercity network with the Vancouver - Seattle link.


You're probably right. Do alot of people get about by ferry in Sydney or is it marginal? I was abit shocked to find out that there were no subways, but you've got an extensive suburban rail network. So people transfer on to streetcars and buses once they travel in by rail? One thing I wish Toronto had were 4 or 5 nice big rail stations like you have in Melbourne. Is it similar in Sydney? We have just one large one downtown called Union Station. Rail just isn't as popular here as in other countries. Things will probably change over the next 20 years though as Toronto densifies.

There are major ferry routes all over the BC Coast. Vancouver-Victoria, and to all the cities and towns up and down the coast. In the east, there are ferries from Port-Aux-Basque, Newfoundland to the mainland, from Prince Edward Island to the mainland, and from Nova Scotia to Bar Harbor, Maine, USA and Portland, Maine, USA. There was briefly a ferry from Toronto to Rochester, New York, but the company went bancrupt.

There are other small ferry operations scattered around the country. The most ambitious sea-route proposal is one put forward by Russian leader Vladimir Putin. With the Arctic melting, he is pushing for a northern route over the North Pole connecting Churchill, Manitoba with a city on Siberia's Arctic Ocean. Would be fantastic if it ever happened.


----------



## gappa

^^ Australian urban rail networks are like a cross between a metro and commuter rail. Therefore they perform the functions of both, but excel at neither. They have fairly high frequencies but share track with freight and intercity commuter rail, as well as having different lines/routes sharing the same track. 

Try this thread of mine for a better understanding of Melbourne's rail network: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=489480 
Other cities are different, but you'll get the gist of the way they're operated.


----------



## Justme

isaidso said:


> You're probably right. Do alot of people get about by ferry in Sydney or is it marginal? I was abit shocked to find out that there were no subways, but you've got an extensive suburban rail network. So people transfer on to streetcars and buses once they travel in by rail?


Natually, ferry transport is a lot smaller in passenger numbers than the other modes such as rail and bus. But it is still significant and used by commuters who live by the harbourfront. I used to live on Manly Beach, and commuted every day by ferry to the city. It was probably the nicest commute I ever had. I don't think Sydney has the largest commuter ferry network or passenger movements, but I would guess it would be somewhere in the top ten.



isaidso said:


> One thing I wish Toronto had were 4 or 5 nice big rail stations like you have in Melbourne. Is it similar in Sydney? We have just one large one downtown called Union Station. Rail just isn't as popular here as in other countries. Things will probably change over the next 20 years though as Toronto densifies.


As far as I know, Melbourne only has two "large" stations or terminus'. Flinders Street and Spencer Street. There are other large suburban stations, but then every city surely has these.
Sydney only has the one, Central Station, and I'm pretty sure the other main centers also have only one main station.



isaidso said:


> There are major ferry routes all over the BC Coast. Vancouver-Victoria, and to all the cities and towns up and down the coast. In the east, there are ferries from Port-Aux-Basque, Newfoundland to the mainland, from Prince Edward Island to the mainland, and from Nova Scotia to Bar Harbor, Maine, USA and Portland, Maine, USA. There was briefly a ferry from Toronto to Rochester, New York, but the company went bancrupt.
> 
> There are other small ferry operations scattered around the country. The most ambitious sea-route proposal is one put forward by Russian leader Vladimir Putin. With the Arctic melting, he is pushing for a northern route over the North Pole connecting Churchill, Manitoba with a city on Siberia's Arctic Ocean. Would be fantastic if it ever happened.


The inter-island and intercity ferry networks in Canada are certainly pretty impressive. I think I'll have to read up on them a bit more.


----------



## Justme

gappa said:


> ^^ Australian urban rail networks are like a cross between a metro and commuter rail. Therefore they perform the functions of both, but excel at neither. They have fairly high frequencies but share track with freight and intercity commuter rail, as well as having different lines/routes sharing the same track.


I guess the difference is that many other cities in the world also have such hybrid networks (e.g. RER, S-Bahn). But they also still have a fully dedicated metro network as well, this is extremely common in Europe. I don't think Canada has this so much though. Where there is a metro, from my understanding, the suburban network is purely that, not a hybrid network.


----------



## Yardmaster

I haven't read this thread entirely, but a lot of the "infrastructure" referred to above seems to be about railways.

There are two excellent sites here dedicated to (passenger) rail infrastructure. They are:

For Canada (& France)

For Australia (& NZ)  (includes ferries)

These might answer many questions above: frequency of service, travel time, etc. 

I try not to get into these *A* vs. *B* threads, and I actually have a Canadian brother-in-law, a Canadian Cousin-in-law, (from a separate branch of the family) and I have caught up with a few more of you guys and gals over the years.

But have a look at the links above ... explore those sites. Sure, we might not have any "metro" here, but it's a matter of definition: and, from what I can see, trying to catch a train out of Vancouver, Toronto, or Montreal at the weekend is very problematic ...

Compare Sydney or Melbourne at a weekend, for example. Or even during the week.


----------



## vid

The infrastructure of Canada's north blows the infrastructure of the Australian outback right out of the water.


----------



## KGB

> from what I can see, trying to catch a train out of Vancouver, Toronto, or Montreal at the weekend is very problematic ...
> 
> Compare Sydney or Melbourne at a weekend, for example. Or even during the week.



That's because you are confused as to what they are talking about. "Commuter trains" in Toronto is GO Transit....and it's almost exclusevely used for people coming from the outer suburbs to downtown Toronto to work. In fact, 96% of all GO Train trips begin or end at Union Station...that means it's people coming to downtown to work in the morning, and leaving to go home after work. The service reflects the need.

Meanwhile, people actually traveling around the City of Toronto, never use GO Transit to do so...we have an entire inner-city transit system to do this, with service levels so much better than commuter service it isn't even worth discussing...TTC ridership is 10 times that of GO Transit, despite covering an area much less than 1/10th the area GO Transit covers.

If we are traveling long distances, like Toronto ro Montreal, Ottawa, etc, then we take another train service called VIA Rail.

I always find Ozzies confused when comparing transit, because they live in giant sprawling suburban cities where the only transit choice is crappy suburban style transit....they have no concept of anything else.





KGB


----------



## Randwicked

vid said:


> The infrastructure of Canada's north blows the infrastructure of the Australian outback right out of the water.


Really? I would have thought they would be comparable, i.e. the standard is pretty bad except where mining money is involved.


----------



## Randwicked

KGB said:


> That's because you are confused as to what they are talking about. "Commuter trains" in Toronto is GO Transit....and it's almost exclusevely used for people coming from the outer suburbs to downtown Toronto to work. In fact, 96% of all GO Train trips begin or end at Union Station...that means it's people coming to downtown to work in the morning, and leaving to go home after work. The service reflects the need.


96% of trips are presumably to Union Station because the trains don't travel in the other direction in the morning. :lol: Sydney manages to run a few trains in the other direction each hour, even if the majority of the morning peak is travelling into the CBD. Is there only one set of tracks on each line or something?

Seriously, though, looks like Toronto's outer burbs are pretty much bedroom suburbs, without much local employment? 



> I always find Ozzies confused when comparing transit, because they live in giant sprawling suburban cities where the only transit choice is crappy suburban style transit....they have no concept of anything else.


Way to talk down to your Aussie cousins, KGB. A cursory glance at Google Maps seems to confirm Canada has a few sprawl problems of its own.


----------



## Taller Better

It is boggling my mind that this thread is still alive. Someone must enjoy punishment!


----------



## gappa

KGB said:


> I always find Ozzies confused when comparing transit, because they live in giant sprawling suburban cities where the only transit choice is crappy suburban style transit....they have no concept of anything else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KGB


:weirdo:


----------



## KGB

> 96% of trips are presumably to Union Station because the trains don't travel in the other direction in the morning.



The service is geared to the need...not the other way around.




> Seriously, though, looks like Toronto's outer burbs are pretty much bedroom suburbs, without much local employment?



Completely the opposite...Mississauga for instance, is a net IMPORTER of workers. Oh, I can just see your little brain trying to wrap itself around that little apparant contradiction.

Well, there is a very logical exlanation for it....... CARS he he

Also, commuter trains make up very little of transit trips...like I have already said, we have REAL mass transit that does most of the work....and does it much better than commuter transit.





> Way to talk down to your Aussie cousins, KGB.



Well, maybe I should take a lesson from you....being such a pleasant feller and all when it comes to anything Toronto. LOL YOU, of all people, should not be pointing fingers.






> A cursory glance at Google Maps seems to confirm Canada has a few sprawl problems of its own.



Oh...huge problems.

But therin lies the difference. We make major distinctions between "city" and "suburb"...because there is. Australian cities tend to be less "city" and more "suburb" (in fact, municipal structure is rare), which explains why your "transit" consists of suburban commuter service, rather than resembling anything even remotely like the TTC.

You keep babling on about GO Transit like it's what our transit consists of, when in fact, it's relatively insignificant.




KGB


----------



## vid

What is Sydney's subway system like?


----------



## Filip

vid said:


> What is Sydney's subway system like?


Imaginary.


----------



## KGB

> What is Sydney's subway system like?


Since there isn't one, there's nothing to tell.


To clarify, GO trains do travel in the opposite direction of commuters...both in the morning and afternoon/evening....just not on every line (cause too few people are interested) There's also VIA. Otherwise, there are trains leaving in every direction, at every time of the day or night, every 2 or 3 minutes...it's called the fucking subway.





KGB


----------



## vid

Filip said:


> Imaginary.


Oh.....

Toronto wins. 

How about Sydney's street cars? What are those like?


----------



## Filip

vid said:


> Oh.....
> 
> Toronto wins.
> 
> How about Sydney's street cars? What are those like?


Historical.. (ie: gone for the past 50 years)


----------



## vid

Oh... um... does it have buses at least? :sly:

What kind of large city is that? No subways? Streetcars? WTH? Do they have BRT??


----------



## MPJK

KGB said:


> Yea..but WE do (and it's a lot more than just subways). So when they talk about OUR transit system, why do they pretend it consists of GO Transit and nothing else? This seems bizarre to me.


And I don't understand why you, when talking about OUR transit system, seem to speak only about Cityrail (as if it's comparable to the inferior North American/Toronto commuter network; which it 100% is not (and is 205% better), thankfully), whilst ignoring the wonderful bus and ferry networks, as well as the occasional tram line. This just seems a bit ignorant and stupid but after seeing some of your posts, well...


----------



## Randwicked

An interesting density comparison:










I couldn't for the life of me find Brisbane. This is the population density calculated for the whole urban areas determined by each country's respective census (Canada 2006, Australia 2001). I find it most interesting that the population density across Sydney as a whole is higher than Montreal, that Hamilton is so high, and Melbourne is so low.


----------



## vid

Hamilton is divided by an escarpment which means they built near the lake, and Melbourne is sprawly.


----------



## Yardmaster

see below ...


----------



## Yardmaster

I'm not bashing Toronto (or any other Canadian city) here, but, I would like to set this "what? no Metro! how pathetic!" issue straight.

By my sources Toronto commuter & intercity rail amounts to:


Go Transit: 87 services per weekday (usually with no weekend service). Typical route length c. 1 hour.
Via Canada: 22 services per day. Route length 2- 4 hrs
Ontario Northland: 1

*Total per day: 110 services.* (I don't have data for your metro).

By contrast, in Melbourne, there are *185 departures between 4 pm & 5.59 pm in the afternoon alone*.

An overall summary:


Suburban electric services: 927 per day (c. 53,000 train-km/day)
Extended (non electric) suburban: 22 per day (c. 2000 train-km/day. 6 feed into an outer suburban terminal rather than the city)
Regional trains (75-160 km): 84 per day (c. 20,000 train-km/day)
Inter-city & interstate trains (> 160 km): 20 per day (c 14,000 train-km/day)
*Total per day: 1054 trains (out), 89,000 train-km (in & out)*

Don't have the overall dispatch figures, but Yarra Trams runs about *70,000 tram-km per day.*

So please, before throwing shit about there being no "metro here", recognize that our "commuter rail" fulfills an equivalent function to your Metro, and in fact provides, for example, *100 trains a day *to Ringwood, 25 km east of the city, and *74 trains a day to Frankston*, 47 km from the city. My station, 6.5 km west of the city, handles 175 trains during the 7-9 am & 4-6 pm peak periods.

Sydney - no metro there either- could provide a similar story. I'd provide the data, if I had the sort of detail I have here.

I'd be interested to see what Toronto or Montreal could say about daily services, vehicle-kms, etc. on your Metros.


----------



## Taller Better

Yardmaster said:


> I'm not bashing Toronto (or any other Canadian city) here, but, I would like to set this "what? no Metro! how pathetic!" issue straight.
> 
> By my sources Toronto commuter & intercity rail amounts to:
> 
> 
> Go Transit: 87 services per weekday (usually with no weekend service). Typical route length c. 1 hour.
> Via Canada: 22 services per day. Route length 2- 4 hrs
> Ontario Northland: 1
> 
> *Total per day: 110 services.* (I don't have data for your metro).
> 
> By contrast, in Melbourne, there are *185 departures between 4 pm & 5.59 pm in the afternoon alone*.
> 
> An overall summary:
> 
> 
> Suburban electric services: 927 per day (c. 53,000 train-km/day)
> Extended (non electric) suburban: 22 per day (c. 2000 train-km/day. 6 feed into an outer suburban terminal rather than the city)
> Regional trains (75-160 km): 84 per day (c. 20,000 train-km/day)
> Inter-city & interstate trains (> 160 km): 20 per day (c 14,000 train-km/day)
> *Total per day: 1054 trains (out), 89,000 train-km (in & out)*
> 
> Don't have the overall dispatch figures, but Yarra Trams runs about *70,000 tram-km per day.*
> 
> So please, before throwing shit about there being no "metro here", recognize that our "commuter rail" fulfills an equivalent function to your Metro, and in fact provides, for example, *100 trains a day *to Ringwood, 25 km east of the city, and *74 trains a day to Frankston*, 47 km from the city. My station, 6.5 km west of the city, handles 175 trains during the 7-9 am & 4-6 pm peak periods.
> 
> Sydney - no metro there either- could provide a similar story. I'd provide the data, if I had the sort of detail I have here.
> 
> I'd be interested to see what Toronto or Montreal could say about daily services, vehicle-kms, etc. on your Metros.




either you are joking or you have not been following this thread. All of this has been flogged well beyond death and into six or seven past lifetimes. To get your answers, start at the beginning of this ridiculously long and lopsided thread and read. It all has to do with how much more suburban Australian cities are than Canadian, thus suburban trains are more necessary there.


----------



## invincible

There aren't many differences between Canada and Australia anyway. I don't think Australian cities are particularly more suburban (using the North American definition) than those in Canada, especially if you compare with similarly sized cities in Europe and Asia. Canadian cities are deficient in suburban heavy rail, while Australian cities have no metro systems. That said, there are still ways to get around the suburbs in Canada just like how there are ways to get around densely populated inner areas in Australia.


----------



## gappa

Bah, no-one cared about the rabbit proof fence! I tried; sigh.


----------



## Yardmaster

gappa said:


> Bah, no-one cared about the rabbit proof fence! I tried; sigh.


How about a toad-proof fence? The one for the rabbits was a bit of a flop  

Yes, there is more to infrastructure than ... metros. The Overland telegraph was a notable achievement, although now sadly obselete. I understand that the facilities at Pine Gap are also a marvelous infrastructure development, but I haven't been able to see them yet.

_Actually, my old atlases show three subsequent attempts at building a rabbit proof fence in Western Australia ...

and there is no *"Dark Side of the Moon"*_


----------



## Taller Better

gappa said:


> Bah, no-one cared about the rabbit proof fence! I tried; sigh.


LOL! Not true! I found it interesting! Durn varmits!!


----------



## Yardmaster

Taller said:


> either you are joking or you have not been following this thread. All of this has been flogged well beyond death and into six or seven past lifetimes. To get your answers, start at the beginning of this ridiculously long and lopsided thread and read. It all has to do with how much more suburban Australian cities are than Canadian, thus suburban trains are more necessary there.


Sorry mate, but I believe in doing a bit of research.

The area of Great Toronto ("GTA") is 5,904 sq km: within which live 5.1 million people. Melbourne has 3.6 to 3.8 million people (depending on which boundaries you use) in an area of about 7,000 sq km (I calculated that from the street directory, being unable to easily obtain the required figure off the net).

Not a lot of difference. The difference is: if you live more than about 12 km out of town in Toronto (beyond the reach of your subways) the best you could hope for is 30 trains a day. An equivalent location here (Caufield): 160 trains per day.


----------



## Taller Better

Oh god, we have been through this about a kabillion times from the good old days of the Late Great Canada vs Australia dogfights, right through this thread.
If you want to start it all over again by juggling statistics then be my guest ("_depending on which boundaries you use_" is the key to getting whatever results you seek) The fact remains Australian cities do not have the concentration of population in the downtown and city proper that Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal have has been well established. 
Aren't statistics fun!!


----------



## PerthCity

Taller said:


> The fact remains Australian cities do not have the concentration of population in the downtown and city proper that Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal have has been well established.
> Aren't statistics fun!!


Yardmaster seems to be referring to services outside the "downtown and city proper" for Canadian and Australian cities.


----------



## Taller Better

BeachRes44 said:


> Yardmaster seems to be referring to services outside the "downtown and city proper" for Canadian and Australian cities.


I know! The reason there _are_ more suburban trains in Australian cities is because of all the suburban sprawl. If we had more sprawl we would need more suburban trains, too. Really, it is elementary. As it stands we need more concentration downtown and in the city proper with the subway, etc...

Just out of curiosity, why did they never build subways in Australia? Does it have to do with a high
water table? Has there been any talk of future lines?


----------



## Yardmaster

Taller said:


> I know! The reason there _are_ more suburban trains in Australian cities is because of all the suburban sprawl. If we had more sprawl we would need more suburban trains, too. Really, it is elementary. As it stands we need more concentration downtown and in the city proper with the subway, etc...
> 
> Just out of curiosity, why did they never build subways in Australia? Does it have to do with a high
> water table? Has there been any talk of future lines?


I was just going to say that this was total bullshit, but perhaps this is not the right approach. If anything, these global forums ought to be a means by which we learn more about each other's cities and environments. Not an excuse for flogging each other over the head.

Has anyone here learnt anything about Canadian infrastructure, or vice-versa? I would certainly hope so.

Why haven't we built metro lines here? There's a simple answer to that, that has nothing to do with water tables (where are you coming from?) . And it doesn't have a lot to do with urban density, which, as sundry people have pointed out, is not that much dramatically different in Canada as against Australia.

The answer is: as against Canada, in the 1920's, we had an almost entirely government-owned railway system. At that stage, they set about electrifying the Melbourne Railway System, which, by the time I was born thirty years later, extended out to 40 km from the city centre on at least four routes, and no doubt helped contribute to the urban sprawl you're so fond of mentioning. Note further that there were 19 different electrified routes, not including the route to the racecourse.

Also ... we had a vast tram-network, of some hundreds of kilometres, which has survived. Originaly the second-largest cable-tram network in the world (after Chicago), it has gone through various modifications, but still survives, and is proudly loved by most Melburnians today.

So why haven't we built a "Metro" ? Well, for a start, what is a "metro"? Do the cars need to run underground? Well, we have that, in the inner city, but there's not a lot of it. Personally, I think people here generally appreciate being able to look out the window.

Is it to do with frequency? Trains run through our underground stations during the afternoon peak at the rate of about 75 per hour. Do our trains need to be smaller or larger to qualify as "metros"? All these questions have been dealt with at great length on this site, perhaps to no good effect, since it really doesn't look like much understanding has come from the process.

"Water tables". Honestly ... maybe we have a problem with permafrost? Transport systems, urban and regional, arise from a number of factors, including physical geography, but the basic point you don't seem to have latched onto here is that our existing infrastructure is essentially doing what your Metro was built to do ... perhaps, some time in the future, there might be "metro" lines here, but people here are concerned with upgrading the capacity of the infrastructure they already have ... and extending it to areas of population increase on the fringe.

One further thought ... everyone else in mainland Australia shits on the weather here, but it's still far warmer than Toronto! Last time it snowed? 1969? What I mean is, people'd much rather travel in the street than underground.


----------



## PerthCity

Taller said:


> I know! The reason there _are_ more suburban trains in Australian cities is because of all the suburban sprawl. If we had more sprawl we would need more suburban trains, too. Really, it is elementary. As it stands we need more concentration downtown and in the city proper with the subway, etc...


I'm finding it difficult to find comparable figures for the sprawl of American and Australian cities. We have city areas, which does not provide much information :nuts:, we have metropolitan areas which isn't all that helpful either, but for urban areas, which I guess would be the best comparison; Sydney has an urban area of 1687km² and Toronto has 1748 km², Montreal is 1677km², so the size of sprawl in both countries is quite similar in some cities.

Canadian cities probably do have greater central city concentrations, so I guess its a decision to provide very good coverage for a smaller area, or an OK coverage for most of the urban area. In the case of public transport, I think it's important for it to be as accessible to as many people as possible, so the Australian approach of large suburban networks isn't that bad.


----------



## Taller Better

Yardmaster said:


> I was just going to say that this was total bullshit, but perhaps this is not the right approach. If anything, these global forums ought to be a means by which we learn more about each other's cities and environments. Not an excuse for flogging each other over the head.
> 
> Has anyone here learnt anything about Canadian infrastructure, or vice-versa? I would certainly hope so.
> 
> Why haven't we built metro lines here? There's a simple answer to that, that has nothing to do with water tables (where are you coming from?) . And it doesn't have a lot to do with urban density, which, as sundry people have pointed out, is not that much dramatically different in Canada as against Australia.
> 
> The answer is: as against Canada, in the 1920's, we had an almost entirely government-owned railway system. At that stage, they set about electrifying the Melbourne Railway System, which, by the time I was born thirty years later, extended out to 40 km from the city centre on at least four routes, and no doubt helped contribute to the urban sprawl you're so fond of mentioning. Note further that there were 19 different electrified routes, not including the route to the racecourse.
> 
> Also ... we had a vast tram-network, of some hundreds of kilometres, which has survived. Originaly the second-largest cable-tram network in the world (after Chicago), it has gone through various modifications, but still survives, and is proudly loved by most Melburnians today.
> 
> So why haven't we built a "Metro" ? Well, for a start, what is a "metro"? Do the cars need to run underground? Well, we have that, in the inner city, but there's not a lot of it. Personally, I think people here generally appreciate being able to look out the window.
> 
> Is it to do with frequency? Trains run through our underground stations during the afternoon peak at the rate of about 75 per hour. Do our trains need to be smaller or larger to qualify as "metros"? All these questions have been dealt with at great length on this site, perhaps to no good effect, since it really doesn't look like much understanding has come from the process.
> 
> "Water tables". Honestly ... maybe we have a problem with permafrost? Transport systems, urban and regional, arise from a number of factors, including physical geography, but the basic point you don't seem to have latched onto here is that our existing infrastructure is essentially doing what your Metro was built to do ... perhaps, some time in the future, there might be "metro" lines here, but people here are concerned with upgrading the capacity of the infrastructure they already have ... and extending it to areas of population increase on the fringe.
> 
> One further thought ... everyone else in mainland Australia shits on the weather here, but it's still far warmer than Toronto! Last time it snowed? 1969? What I mean is, people'd much rather travel in the street than underground.




Good grief, I hardly know where to start with this smorgasbord of rather frustrated information, so I will thank you at least for not having fallen back on your initial instinct to scream bullshit....You seem flummoxed by the very question of water tables affecting subways... Vancouver cannot have subways because the water table is close to the surface. I thought perhaps this was the situation with Sydney, also being on the ocean, but your explanation would indicate the concept is foreign to you, and even for some bizarre reason insulting. Rest assured, my question was bona fide, and it had nothing to do with who has nicer weather, or better beaches, etc....( I am sure Randwicked has many fond memories of Beach Battles.. The Australia vs Canada Version!!  ): Toronto also kept its tram system (which it has had for 145 years), as I am sure you know (because again I am going to assume that you have been following the thread). The fact that we built a subway system has helped to keep the city fairly compact. People are encouraged to live within a reasonable distance reachable by subway as opposed to living waay out in the sticks. We have suburbs, but just not to the overall extent as Sydney or Melbourne, and our suburbs tend to be more built up with highrise apartment buildings. During the good old days of City vs City, my friend "The Pill from Perth" used to squawk on and on about Commie Blocks and Dog Boxes in Toronto suburbs, as I am certain the poor lad had never seen anything higher than a bungalow in his own suburban setting. So, you see, the merits of a subway system go deeper than just providing a place for poor freezing Canadians to scurry out of the Ice Age cold!! 
If this thread had been comparing American infrastructure to Canadian, we would have got creamed long ago. I think the difference is that instead of carrying on a year long campaign of denial, we would have just quietly let such a lopsided thread die. I think Australia is a marvelous place, so please don't take umbrage at everything I say! It is just that I think perhaps this thread is flogging a dead horse (with the exception of the most excellent rabbit proof fences). :cheers:


----------



## Yardmaster

Taller said:


> Good grief, I hardly know where to start with this smorgasbord of rather frustrated information, so I will thank you at least for not having fallen back on your initial instinct to scream bullshit....


Sure, taller, better .... 



Taller said:


> You seem flummoxed by the very question of water tables affecting subways... Vancouver cannot have subways because the water table is close to the surface. I thought perhaps this was the situation with Sydney, also being on the ocean, but your explanation would indicate the concept is foreign to you, and even for some bizarre reason insulting.


I don't feel at all insulted ... I just wish we'd keep to the plot! OK, so if Vancouver had problems with ground water levels, that's news to me. Looking above, however, you infer that this might be due to being close to the ocean (so why wouldn't Toronto have the same problem being close to a large inland lake?) 

Foreign to me? well that notion is; water-tables aren't principally determined by your proximity to the ocean, and besides, as I hope you would have noticed from my previous postings anyway) I don't live in Sydney.



Taller said:


> Rest assured, my question was bona fide, and it had nothing to do with who has nicer weather, or better beaches, etc....( I am sure Randwicked has many fond memories of Beach Battles.. The Australia vs Canada Version!!  ): Toronto also kept its tram system (which it has had for 145 years), as I am sure you know (because again I am going to assume that you have been following the thread). The fact that we built a subway system has helped to keep the city fairly compact. People are encouraged to live within a reasonable distance reachable by subway as opposed to living waay out in the sticks. We have suburbs, but just not to the overall extent as Sydney or Melbourne. So, you see, the merits of a subway system go deeper than just providing a place for poor freezing Canadians to scurry out of the Ice Age cold!!
> If this thread had been comparing American infrastructure to Canadian, we would have got creamed long ago. I think the difference is that instead of carrying on a year long campaign of denial, we would have just quietly let such a lopsided thread die. I think Australia is a marvelous place, so please don't take umbrage at everything I say! It is just that I think perhaps this thread is flogging a dead horse (with the exception of the most excellent rabbit proof fences). :cheers:


I don't think you have actually apprehended what I tried to say ... and if you look back a bit further in this thread you'll see that I have a few Canadian relatives: in effect, my sister's family- so I would hardly be trying to generate a war here. What I am interested in talking about is public transport (and other infrastructure).

Personally I don't care if you think Australia really stinks ... probably the reasons you might give would ring true ... unless they were about, er, derr, why haven't you got a "Metro" ?

You've made one interesting statement there ... that your subway system determined the shape and size of your city. I guess I've made a similar statement as well, regarding our electrified railway system (if they're not the same, you still haven't thrown any light on this).

The last housemate I had here was from Toronto ... and had bought property there. What would recommend as a good source regarding the development of your city?


----------



## vid

Yardmaster said:


> The area of Great Toronto ("GTA") is 5,904 sq km: within which live 5.1 million people. Melbourne has 3.6 to 3.8 million people (depending on which boundaries you use) in an area of about 7,000 sq km (I calculated that from the street directory, being unable to easily obtain the required figure off the net).


By your math: 
Toronto has 864people/sqkm
Melbourne has 529people/sqkm

Being more spread out like that means that train travel, as opposed to local and regional express buses, is more idea, because Melbourne sprawls (A LOT. Holy ****. Does it ever.) and rails get people to where they're going faster. Additionally, Toronto has lots of suburban offices so not everyone is commuting to Toronto, there are probably people tens of thousands of people who live in Markham but commute to Mississauga, or live in Ajax an commute to Richmond Hill. 

Train travel really isn't as popular in Canada as it is in Australia. Indeed in all of North America, train travel doesn't compare to that or Australia, Asia, or Europe. The only trains I've ever been on were stationary museums of trains that once were.

@Yardmaster: Vancouver is located in a river delta. It is essentially a swamp. They don't have subway for the same reason my city doesn't have underpasses - they will flood too often.


----------



## Taller Better

Yardmaster said:


> Foreign to me? well that notion is; water-tables aren't principally determined by your proximity to the ocean, and besides, as I hope you would have noticed from my previous postings anyway) I don't live in Sydney.


sorry if it confused you, but I wasn't asking the question of you.... just anyone who might know the answer. The water table was just a guess as I could not think of another reason why subways never caught on down under. Really, high water tables are probably more common at sea level than you 
may realize.


_"Personally I don't care if you think Australia really stinks ... probably the reasons you might give would ring true ... unless they were about, er, derr, why haven't you got a "Metro" ?"_

At this point I will just let it go. Who said anything about hating Australia? It is a beautiful country, but you are taking this personally.


----------



## DrJoe

Yardmaster said:


> Sorry mate, but I believe in doing a bit of research.
> 
> The area of Great Toronto ("GTA") is 5,904 sq km: within which live 5.1 million people. Melbourne has 3.6 to 3.8 million people (depending on which boundaries you use) in an area of about 7,000 sq km (I calculated that from the street directory, being unable to easily obtain the required figure off the net).
> 
> Not a lot of difference. The difference is: if you live more than about 12 km out of town in Toronto (beyond the reach of your subways) the best you could hope for is 30 trains a day. An equivalent location here (Caufield): 160 trains per day.


What a ridiculous statement this is. An extra 1.5 million people in an area 1100 sq km smaller is certainly a significant difference.


----------



## KGB

> so if Vancouver had problems with ground water levels, that's news to me. Looking above, however, you infer that this might be due to being close to the ocean (so why wouldn't Toronto have the same problem being close to a large inland lake?)



Toronto's subways don't have this problem, as contrary to popular belief, Toronto is not flat, but sits on a giant hill that runs down to the lake. Oddly enough, the underground streetcar tunnel that runs from Union Station to Queen's Quay leaks like a sieve and is under permanent pumping, because it actually sits in reclaimed land from the lake.

Chicago doesn't have subways, but ELs for this very reason...and it's a very flat city, so the problem is basically everywhere.




KGB


----------



## gappa

Melbourne is basically built on an old swamp, at least parts of it - I think the term is Coode Island brown for Melbourne's swampy soil. This is why most carparking in the city is built above ground as part of the podium instead of underground. 
Most of the city loop tunnels are within an area that, like Toronto slopes up away from the river, and so don't have much of a ground water problem. The citylink road tunnels have had major and ongoing leakage problems as they go under the actual river.


----------



## Yardmaster

Chicago has EL's because they're cheaper ... just like NYC started out.


----------



## isaidso

KGB said:


> It isn't a case of civic pride or Toronto boosting...and it is not a put-down, sublte or otherwise...it's a legitamate observation. So take your self-righteousness somewhere else.
> 
> KGB



Many of your legitimate observations don't encourage worthwhile insights whether you think so or not. You do make a good contribution, but please don't be blind to the fact that often you simply point out what is bad about the other. Such negativity is not constructive. Put yourself in the shoes of those your comments are directed at. You do attract alot of backlash. 

And I won't shut up. So stop being so rude.


----------



## spongeg

maybe freeways and highways are better in ontario but they basically stop at barrie

anyoe who has taken the trans canada can relate

some parts of it - are one lane in each way!


----------



## Randwicked

Sydney's CBD is built on sandstone, which is a very good rock to tunnel through, hence Sydney's tunnels were built a lot earlier than Melbourne's (I assume theirs needed new technology that wasn't available in the 1920s).


----------



## Yardmaster

^^ Sydney's tunnels were built earlier because Sydney's terminal was initially at Redfern, well outside of town & subsequently at Central, still on the edge of the CBD. I'm not sure how far it is from Central Quay, but it's a long walk.

Melbourne, by contrast, had its original station right on the river-front at Flinder's Street, and its second terminal about a km away. These were connected by overhead rail prior to 1900.

It's true that some areas of Melbourne are built on a swamp/ flood plain, but that has little or nothing to do with if or when undergound lines were built. Much of western & northern Melbourne lies on basalt, an uncompromisingly hard and impervious volcanic rock. The underground lines currently constructed do not run through a swamp or flood-plain.

The principle reasons for building the underground loop were:


to relieve traffic congestion at Flinders St. (which for many years had been called "the busiest station in the world"). Only 4 tracks joined the 2 stations.
to distribute traffic to & from the CBD more evenly: since at that stage, the only city stations were on the southern & western fringes.

One proposal considered was an alternate set of tracks from North Melbourne to Richmond via Lonsdale Street.
This was rejected in favour of the plan adopted, which had the rather unique feature of enabling each set of lines (Northern, North eastern, Eastern, South-Eastern) to operate independently of each other, while servicing all (5) CBD stations, each using only a single track. From 4 to 6 pm, 52 trains are dispatched for the eastern group of lines (not all of which run through the loop), so the capacity limits of this mode of operation have more or less been reached.

An additional pair of through tracks was added during the 1970's (I watched this construction from my 15th floor office!) ... and there are now 4 platforms (2 with tracks) at Southern Cross to feed these lines. Amongst other things, they provide for Sandringham/Williamstown through traffic, which by-passes the loop. Reconstruction of North Melbourne (and subsequently Richmond) stations to provide escalators and quicker interchange between platforms suggest that we will be seeing more cross-city trains in the future.


----------



## Taller Better

spongeg said:


> maybe freeways and highways are better in ontario but they basically stop at barrie
> 
> anyoe who has taken the trans canada can relate
> 
> some parts of it - are one lane in each way!




There are stretches of two lanes only on the Trans Canada highway, but they are a very small proportion of the entire country-wide highway and are in remote or rural places. I think you will find cross country highways in Australia scale down in a similar fashion through remote areas. That is fairly common in large countries with low populations, such as both Canada and Australia.


----------



## DrJoe

spongeg said:


> maybe freeways and highways are better in ontario but they basically stop at barrie


The 400 is currently being twinned from Barrie to Sudbury, that is roughly a 280 km distance. As it stands already about 120 km is twinned passed Barrie.


----------



## KIWIKAAS

Taller said:


> There are stretches of two lanes only on the Trans Canada highway, but they are a very small proportion of the entire country-wide highway and are in remote or rural places. I think you will find cross country highways in Australia scale down in a similar fashion through remote areas. That is fairly common in large countries with low populations, such as both Canada and Australia.


Certainly in terms of road infrastructure, Canada wins this race hands down. Even the main route between Melbourne and Sydney is still 1/4 2-lane road. The main route between Sydney and Brisbane is only about 40% multi-laned and Melbourne - Adelaide is only 1/4 multi-laned. Australia has about 2000-2400 km of multi-lane freeway/motorway/expressway where as Canada has about 12000-15000km I believe (although I would love someone to confirm this if possible).

Seems the main competition is that of urban mass-transit where it seems to be very contentious indeed.

I would imagine that airport infrastructure would be about the same for both countries (although Canada does have more parallel runway sets than Australia).


----------



## Taller Better

I guess what I have been trying to say is that this whole comparison is sort of unfair. Canada has a bigger population and we have been very influenced by American advances in infrastructure from World War II onward. Competition/exposure like that between two neighbouring countries does lead to better infrastructure, and perhaps Canada went through a lucrative industrial boom in the 50's/60's that allowed for large public projects to be paid for. So, to me this comparison with Australia seems a bit unfair and only leads to a lot of hard feelings. We are, after all, supposed to be "cousins"! 

maybe we should just agree that both countries have a huge *****, and let it go!


----------



## Yardmaster

^^ you can call it unfair if you like, but the simple thing is, we "cousins" inhabit very different lands. I'll repeat: I have a Canadian brother-in-law, a cousin-in-law (thank Gawd they came frome Alberta!) and someone I knew quite dearly at least passed a few years in Toronto. To say nothing of Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, Procul Harem, & Leonard Cohen.

It seems to me that the "Canada vs. Australia" theme was designed to invite trouble. It seems to have developed into a Melbourne vs. Toronto thread. I probably bought into this quite late, and got flamed for it.

Australia and Canada have interesting similarities ... and disimilarties. Consider east-west rail, for instance. We both have transcontinental railways, which were essential factors in tying the Federations together in the first place: had there been no such railways, there would have been an independent nation of Western Australia, and, perhaps, of British Columbia.

The difference is: between Kalgoorlie (Western Australia) and Port Augusta (Southern Australian) there is the 'Nullabor" ... (Null Arbour ... No Tree) Plain, whereas between Winnipeg and Vancouver there was ... a grain belt. However, I hasten to point out, our grain belts were much closer to a port.

"Fair" comparison or unfair? Well just non-equivalent. Take the busiest ports in the world, for example, by volume or by TEU's ..


----------



## KGB

> Sorry mate, but I believe in doing a bit of research.
> 
> The area of Great Toronto ("GTA") is 5,904 sq km: within which live 5.1 million people. Melbourne has 3.6 to 3.8 million people (depending on which boundaries you use) in an area of about 7,000 sq km (I calculated that from the street directory, being unable to easily obtain the required figure off the net).
> 
> Not a lot of difference.



There's a huge difference...and not just the ones you have just pointed out.

You don't honestly believe you can glean anything from simply taking the total population of a "metro" and divide it by it's total land area...do you?

Residential density has to do with land use and population settlement on a much smaller scale than that.

First of all, the GTA is actually 7000 sqkms. But, half of it is straight out farmland....so we can forget about discussing any kind of public transit there.

As I've mentioned before, the vast majority of the population of the GTA resides on a much smaller portion of it, comprised of 8 contigeous municipalities (Toronto, Mississauga, Brampton, Markham, Vaughan, Richmond Hill, Oakville and Burlington), which has a population of approx 4.7 million in approx 2000 sqkms.

Now, obviously 4.7 million in an area of 2000 sqkms is considerably more densly populated than 3.8 million in 7000 sqkms.

But...even that is too vague to mean much....and 2350 people/sqkm isn't what I'd call "dense" anyway.

So we need to start looking at it more closely.

The City of Toronto may seem "reasonably" dense, by simply taking the population of the city ( 2.5 million) and dividing it by the total land area (630 sqkms). That gives us about 4000 people/sqkm. 

But even that isn't really going to tell us much, because it doesn't address land use, which is a much better way to determine how dense it is where we actually live, let alone the nature of the built form where we actually live (highrise, low rise, single detached, mixed-use, etc)

Now, only 35% of the land area of the City of Toronto is actually used for residential, which means all 2.5 million residents live on a total of 220 sqkms. That makes the density of where people actually live about 11,400 people/sqkm. Now we are talking about it getting a bit dense.

But even then, it REALLY doesn't tell you specifically what sort of denst=ity breakdown there is. The city is comprised of post-war single family dwelling areas and very dense highrise clusters. If you were to look at the population settlement along the subways for instance, you start to see a big difference.


To really get a true picture of density, you have to look much smaller scale...and it's best to start looking at census tracts and their residential and working populations measured by people/hectare.

For instance, our densest residential census tract is 71,475 people per sqkm, and our densest working census tract has 220,000 per sqkms. Now we are talking dense. 

Of course, those are the extremes...the rest is varying degrees of density below that.

Our central core (downtown-midtown) is an area of 40 sqkms, and has a residential population of nearly 300,000, and a working population of 475,000, giving it a live/work density of 19,375 people/sqkm. This does not include other factors, like 100,000 students on two major campuses downtown, or all the shoppers/tourists etc, but you get an idea of mixed-use density.

You can do the same with the rest of the GTA...you could do it with Melbourne as well, but now you can see the difference between one and the other when you break it down.

You really don't need so many suburban commuter trains running everywhere when you have many more people living in a much more compact area...you use urban transit instead. That's why out of aprox 600 million trips taken on transit in the GTA, less than 50 million trips are taken on GO Transit.







> The difference is: if you live more than about 12 km out of town in Toronto (beyond the reach of your subways) the best you could hope for is 30 trains a day. An equivalent location here (Caufield): 160 trains per day.



That is not the difference at all...you have not been listening.

The 905 municipalites do not rely on GO Trains for their transit....they have their own transit system, which connects with Toronto and other 905 cities....these cities border on Toronto and each other. 

If someone in Mississauga wants to go somewhere else in Mississauga, they take Mississauga Transit...not a GO train. If someone in Mississauga wants to go to Toronto, they either take a Mississauga Transit bus, or a TTC bus (which run into these cities) into Toronto.. to the closest subway station, which are located close to the borders of these 905 cities (soon to run right into them).....they don't take a GO train.

GO trains are a specific service for SOME 905 residents who live in the 905 and work in downtown Toronto, and find it more convenient to travel to a GO station, rather than take regular transit.





KGB


----------



## vid

Thunder Bay has been compared to Adelaide, had Manitoba gotten Northern Ontario it is likely most people would have located in the Lakehead because of the port, and Winnipeg would have been a French city of a hundred thousand called St Boniface. 

Had British Columbia not joined Canada, it would have been an American state, or started a nation with Oregon Country. (see '54 40 or bust')


----------



## PerthCity

Taller said:


> I guess what I have been trying to say is that this whole comparison is sort of unfair. Canada has a bigger population and we have been very influenced by American advances in infrastructure from World War II onward. Competition/exposure like that between two neighbouring countries does lead to better infrastructure, and perhaps Canada went through a lucrative industrial boom in the 50's/60's that allowed for large public projects to be paid for. So, to me this comparison with Australia seems a bit unfair and only leads to a lot of hard feelings. We are, after all, supposed to be "cousins"!
> 
> maybe we should just agree that both countries have a huge *****, and let it go!


Yeah most of what you've said is true. The comparison between the two countries does have some merit, but Australia does not have the world's superpower next door. Being in such an isolated position, I think Australian cities have done extremely well. :cheers:


----------



## Taller Better

Yardmaster said:


> ^^ you can call it unfair if you like, but the simple thing is, we "cousins" inhabit very different lands. I'll repeat: I have a Canadian brother-in-law, a cousin-in-law *(thank Gawd they came frome Alberta!*)
> 
> ..



Is this Alberta thing a joke, or do you believe they are somehow superior Canadians! LOL! 
They dress a bit funny, but otherwise pass amongst us undetected (as long as they don't say
anything.........)

_"It seems to me that the "Canada vs. Australia" theme was designed to invite trouble. It seems to have developed into a Melbourne vs. Toronto thread. I probably bought into this quite late, and got flamed for it."_

Too true. 




BeachRes44 said:


> Yeah most of what you've said is true. The comparison between the two countries does have some merit, but Australia does not have the world's superpower next door. Being in such an isolated position, I think Australian cities have done extremely well. :cheers:


I completely agree, BeachRes.. having America next door does influence things. Cross border traffic here in the 50's/60's hugely increased our need for infrastructure upgrades. They were, and still our our largest trading partners. Australia did extremely well for evolving on its own on an island! In my opinion, social comparisons of our two countries are probably more interesting than infrastructure, because of our shared historical background. :cheers2:


----------



## Plumber73

vid said:


> Vancouver is located in a river delta. It is essentially a swamp. They don't have subway for the same reason my city doesn't have underpasses - they will flood too often.


A swamp?! That's a bit of a stretch. The only place I can think of where water would be a problem is in the area of Lulu Island (Richmond and YVR airport). That's why the Canada Line is above ground there. The Vancouver city portion is below ground, your subway. 

:cheers:


----------



## Randwicked

Actually the best way to compare densities isn't metro area OR municipalities, it's urban area density, like in my lovely graph everyone ignored.


----------



## Taller Better

Plumber73 said:


> A swamp?! That's a bit of a stretch. The only place I can think of where water would be a problem is in the area of Lulu Island (Richmond and YVR airport). That's why the Canada Line is above ground there. The Vancouver city portion is below ground, your subway.
> 
> :cheers:


Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't many houses in Vancouver without a basement, or only a partial basement because of the watertable? Exactly how much of the system is below grade (ie subway)?



Randwicked said:


> Actually the best way to compare densities isn't metro area OR municipalities, it's urban area density, like in my lovely graph everyone ignored.


The graph was indeed lovely, but it simply shows _"the population density calculated for the whole urban areas determined by each country's respective census "_. "Urban Areas" is a pretty huge catch-all. I refer you to post # 314 above by KGB where he explains the breakdown area by area. One big blanket figure tells us very little for the purposes of explaining infrastructure, and Yardmaster did ask for a bit of research.....


----------



## TooFar

vid said:


> Thunder Bay has been compared to Adelaide, had Manitoba gotten Northern Ontario it is likely most people would have located in the Lakehead because of the port, and Winnipeg would have been a French city of a hundred thousand called St Boniface.
> 
> Had British Columbia not joined Canada, it would have been an American state, or started a nation with Oregon Country. (see '54 40 or bust')


Funny, I went to primary/elementary school back in Adelaide. When I was in grade 5 or 6 I had an exchange teacher from Thunder Bay. He got me interested in Canada back then, and throughout my school life most of my projects were on Canada in some way, shape or form. I was always determined to make it to Thunder Bay. It is interesting that I now live in Canada, unfortunately I have yet to make it up there. The teachers name was Willard Allen.


----------



## Zaki

Brisbaner21 said:


> But in the same sense Canada is over 2.2 million km larger than Australia. Population wise Canada is not that much larger than Australia. In terms of growth Australia is growing slightly faster. But when it comes to infrastructure, Canada gets my vote.


Actually you got it the wrong way around. Canada's landmass isn't that much larger than Australia while its population is alot larger than Australia's. Percentage wise Canada has 30% more landmass while 13 million or 64% more people.


----------



## Brisbaner21

> Originally Posted by *Zaki *Actually you got it the wrong way around. Canada's landmass isn't that much larger than Australia while its population is alot larger than Australia's. Percentage wise Canada has 30% more landmass while 13 million or 64% more people.


I am not arguing here, but Australia has about 12 million less than Canada. Australia just passed the 21 million mark, and Canada is about to reach 33 million. One million makes a big differance when it is the differance between 13 and 12 million. And as far as landmass goes, Canada is about 870,000 sq. miles larger than Australia. That is about the size of Venezuela. Thats pretty large. In terms of growth not only percentage, but raw numbers Australia is growing faster than Canada. Of course it will take some time before Australia passes up Canada, not even saying that it will. Sorry not trying to argue here, and not trying to turn this into a country vs country thread.


----------



## Zaki

Brisbaner21 said:


> I am not arguing here, but Australia has about 12 million less than Canada. Australia just passed the 21 million mark, and Canada is about to reach 33 million. One million makes a big differance when it is the differance between 13 and 12 million. And as far as landmass goes, Canada is about 870,000 sq. miles larger than Australia. That is about the size of Venezuela. Thats pretty large. In terms of growth not only percentage, but raw numbers Australia is growing faster than Canada. Of course it will take some time before Australia passes up Canada, not even saying that it will. Sorry not trying to argue here, and not trying to turn this into a country vs country thread.


Not arguing here, just fixing some misconceptions that people have about Canada's population. And also Canada passed the 33 million mark a few years ago and Australia didn't just pass 21 million, it just passed the 20 million mark. And for the growth rates Australia is growing at 0.824% while Canada is growing at 0.869% so Australia is neither growing faster by percentage and definitely not raw numbers.

Anyways the point is both countries are growing at similar rates relative to their size and the growth rates are quite good for the developing world. Hopefully both countries will continue improving their infrastructure to match that growth.


----------



## Brisbaner21

^^ Agreed..... both countries are growing greatly considering we are in the western world. Im just going by each countries population clock which is very accurate. Canada according to (Canada's population clock) is very close to reaching the 33 million mark, and Australia, according to (Australia's population clock) just surpassed 21 million not to long ago, and we have about 21,021,100 right now. Canada has about 32,972,000 right now. And according to Canada's population clock, Canada gains on average a new person every 2 minutes and 24 seconds. According to Australia's population clock, Australia gains on average a new person every 1 minute 45 seconds.

Australia:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]?OpenDocument

Canada:
http://www.statcan.ca/english/edu/clock/population.htm

I am very glad to see both countries growing at really great rates, with good immigration, and booming economies, not to mention bustling cities. Either way you look at it, both countries are doing pretty well.


----------



## aussiescraperman

@Zaki...where u getting ur info from?

@Brisbaner..u misread canada's net gain of immigrant, comapred to it's growth by 1. canada grows 1 unit every minute and 36 seconds, compared to australia's 1minute 45secs.

we are definately higher on popopulation growth in %, and alsmo the same in raw numbers.


----------



## Zaki

aussiescraperman said:


> @Zaki...where u getting ur info from?
> 
> @Brisbaner..u misread canada's net gain of immigrant, comapred to it's growth by 1. canada grows 1 unit every minute and 36 seconds, compared to australia's 1minute 45secs.
> 
> we are definately higher on popopulation growth in %, and alsmo the same in raw numbers.


CIA world factbook.


----------



## Taller Better

My friend from Britain became addicted to Icy Cappucinos at Tim Hortons! LOL!
Kept getting that horrible pounding headache from drinking them too fast! hehe!

Australia and Canada have *so* much in common... I am surprised they have always been such arch rivals here on SSC, especially during the wild and crazy City vs City days... you would think our countries had been sworn enemies the way everyone went on! :lol:


----------



## Brisbaner21

> Originally Posted by *aussiescraperman*
> 
> @Zaki...where u getting ur info from?
> 
> @Brisbaner..u misread canada's net gain of immigrant, comapred to it's growth by 1. canada grows 1 unit every minute and 36 seconds, compared to australia's 1minute 45secs.
> 
> we are definately higher on popopulation growth in %, and alsmo the same in raw numbers


Thanks for the correction. I see where i made my mistake.


----------



## Max Power

Well said, TB. In between us, we have five world class cities...
Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Sydney, Melbourne which I would defend being world-class.

Btw...if you're looking for some eye candy, check out Alibaba's thread of Melbourne photos, it blew me away. 

I hope Aussies and Canucks can be friends on SSC, I really do.


----------



## Quall

A little off topic, but I was reading on the residential topic a few pages back. Are there any new Georgian Revival style homes in Australia?

Typical new Georgian Revival home:


----------



## aussiescraperman

^^ it can be found, but not extrememly common. i love it alot though also.
we seem to have a crapload of weatherboard homes still, waiting to be knocked down.

what has canada done with all of its homes built in the 30's - 70's?


----------



## Quall

..


----------



## KGB

> what has canada done with all of its homes built in the 30's - 70's?



Well, I can't speak for the whole country, so I'll just talk about Toronto.

The 30's wasn't a big time for house building (depression).

The post-war houses, generally in Toronto fall into two catagories...

Modest 40's & 50's houses that are awaiting the inevitable tear-down, replaced by the "monster home" of your choice. How fast this is happening depends on how fast the neighbourhood's real estate values and desirabilty is changing.

The ranch bungalows, backsplits and sidesplits of the 60's & 70's, in what are now very desireable areas...especially Etobicoke & North York areas. Basically your "Brady Bunch" house. Now that those areas are matured, they look very nice and have moved from just average middle-class housing to very expensive. This is the area of the city with the golf courses and other amenities people find appealing, without actually having to move out of the "city".




KGB


----------



## Cristovão471

Zaki said:


> CIA world factbook.


I would trust the actual countries website than a website controlled by the American government that rarely gets updated.

By the was you stated that Australia just passed 20 million, thats a bit stupid, that was back in 2003. Canada ranks as the 2nd largest country by mass, Australia ranks and the 6th.

Question: How long is a rail trip between Toronto and Vancouver?


----------



## vid

Lol. Rail trip between Toronto and Vancouver??  

Go back to 1991! :lol:


----------



## Cristovão471

^^ So what? It doesn't exist?


----------



## Brisbaner21

Chris, I believe we had about 20 million in 2005. Correct me if im wrong? 2003 we were right around the range of 19 million?


----------



## vid

chris_underscore47 said:


> ^^ So what? It doesn't exist?


It might? If it does, you have to go north of Lake Nipigon to get there. The VIA trip from Toronto to Vancouver would be like a train ride from Melbourne to Perth that stopped in Alice Springs on the way.

It used to be a great system. But the fact that you have to take such an unusual detour, and that it takes so long, people just take planes or drive. I don't think many people go from Toronto to Vancouver anyway.


----------



## Brisbaner21

^^ Do you have to make a stop around Yellowknife or something? Is that the comparative of Alice Springs?


----------



## Cristovão471

Brisbaner21 said:


> Chris, I believe we had about 20 million in 2005. Correct me if im wrong? 2003 we were right around the range of 19 million?


Ok I will correct you, from the ABS website:

"On 4 December 2003, the ABS calculated that Australia's population had reached 20 million. The population has doubled since 1959 when the population hit 10 million."

KTHXBYE


----------



## Brisbaner21

^^ Ok thank you. Wasn't very sure.


----------



## Cristovão471

Well I would never take a train trip to Sydney to MElbourne, let alone a trip by rail to Perth, that would be death. For big countries like ours, I believe Air is the way to go, I only used rail in Europe (which I love), and I once did a 350km from Canberra to Sydney, It was so long! like 4 hours hate it.


----------



## Max Power

Brisbaner21 said:


> ^^ Do you have to make a stop around Yellowknife or something? Is that the comparative of Alice Springs?


Oh no, definitely not. Yellowknife is a bit of stretch. Alice Springs is a fair enough analogy but in Canadian terms, think of maybe Edmonton. VIA Rail doesn't go north of Churchill, Manitoba which is a city in the northeastern section of Manitoba.


----------



## Brisbaner21

^^ I didn't know how far north you had to go for this train ride in Canada. Instead of going as far north as Alice Springs, I think there shoud be a train that goes from Melbourne-Adelaide-Port Augusta-Port Lincoln-Ceduna-Albany-Perth. Very long, I know, but right along the coast. Thats probaly why it didn't do so well in Canada. People would rather take a plane.


----------



## vid

It doesn't go along the coast, though. That was my point. It goes 400km north of the coast, through an 1800km stretch populated by about 12,000 people along it's entire course. It takes two days to cross Northern Ontario, and unlike the Australian Outback, you will be travelling for at least two hours between communities, and about three or four hours between stops. The drive between Toronto and Vancouver is 50 hours nonstop, about 72 hours if you make minimal sleep time, and about 90 hours for the average trip. 

The trip from Sydney to Perth is 48 hours. If you take the course VIA would take, travelling ~400km from the coast, it's 66 hours by driving. That's the kind of out-of-the-way bullshit VIA pulls. 

Across Canada is an 86 hour drive, non-stop. The average trip takes 10 days. A similar trip in Europe would get you from London to Helsinki to Bucharest to Athens with 5 hours to spare!


----------



## invincible

The appeal in these trips by rail is for people who want to experience traditional rail travel, not really for people who just need to get from A to B. Of course, an indirect route probably doesn't add to its desirability.

There's a certain level where rail becomes viable, which is usually when its prices and travel time match that of travel by coach. In Australia's case, the Melbourne-Adelaide route is struggling because it is marketed as a luxury service but there are plenty of people who just want an overnight trip between the cities, sort of like the service offered on the Sydney-Melbourne route.

And the main reason the tracks exist are to carry freight. There's currently a plan here to build an inland line from Melbourne to Brisbane, to avoid having to travel through Sydney.


----------



## Taller Better

Does Australia have a national Census the same as Canada does?


----------



## gappa

Taller said:


> Does Australia have a national Census the same as Canada does?


Yes - every five years. Last one was last year.


----------



## vid

Every developed country has national census. Australia has had them on years ending in 1 and 6 since 1961, Canada the same but since 1951. American Censuses are held every year ending in 0.


----------



## KIWIKAAS

vid said:


> Every developed country has national census. Australia has had them on years ending in 1 and 6 since 1961, Canada the same but since 1951. American Censuses are held every year ending in 0.


Not true.
Many countries get there statistics from the various national/local govt registers.


----------



## vid

Well they have a way of finding out population either way, don't they?


----------



## Taller Better

I could be wrong, but I think Canada has the longest tradition of regular census... starting April 5, 1666. It is very cool to look at online Census results from the 1880's and see your ancestors there!


----------



## vid

I still can't get the damn thing to work. There were lots of Aduonnos in 1901 though. For what that's worth.


----------



## Justme

Hi Yardmaster. As usual, I always enjoy your rail posts! I have also been in defence of Australia in this thread as can be seen from my earlier posts. But I don't agree with everything you wrote here (sorry for the late delay to this post, but I was in Tokyo and Japan for the last month)



Yardmaster said:


> Why haven't we built metro lines here? There's a simple answer to that, that has nothing to do with water tables (where are you coming from?) . And it doesn't have a lot to do with urban density, which, as sundry people have pointed out, is not that much dramatically different in Canada as against Australia.


 Actually, densities do have a lot here, although I agree with you about the Australian government choosing to maintain and upgrade their existing suburban network (this was probably the cheaper option, and the network was already a good size)

I can't really say for Canadian cities, but Australian cities were not very dense in the 1920's and except for Sydney now, most still aren't. Density levels really make the difference in usage numbers due to the cost of building underground. Although those figures posted by someone else showed not a great level of difference over the whole urban area, they don't really show how dense the cities are in the main core. Melbourne certainly does drop in levels very quickly after downtown, whilst Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver remain higher for a larger area - and it is in this central core where metro systems work at their best. Sydney remains denser for quite a bit longer and it is probably high enough these days for a metro system to be constructed. The problem is the cost is so big these days.



Yardmaster said:


> Also ... we had a vast tram-network, of some hundreds of kilometres, which has survived. Originally the second-largest cable-tram network in the world (after Chicago), it has gone through various modifications, but still survives, and is proudly loved by most Melburnians today.


I am surprised you gave this claim. Up until WWII when most cities had extensive tram networks, Melbourne's, although large, was still nowhere on the map of the world's largest. It certainly wasn't 2nd in the world, not by a long shot. It was only after WWII when many cities replaced their tram networks (or part of them) with subways (like Europe) or buses (like much of the US) that Melbourne started to rise up the table due to the very big networks either downsizing or disappearing. LA for instance had the world's largest at one stage with two separate networks. The larger (Pacific Electric) had over 1000km of route (4x Melbourne today). London also had 555km (route), Paris was extensive, Moscow, St. Petersburg, Berlin and an endless number of other American and European cities.



Yardmaster said:


> So why haven't we built a "Metro" ? Well, for a start, what is a "metro"? Do the cars need to run underground? Well, we have that, in the inner city,


Let's be honest, the small amount of underground line in Melbourne really isn't all that much. Most cities in Europe have suburban lines with far more underground, but they don't call them metro's. Sydney does have more of it's suburban network underground, but it still compares more to an S-bahn system than a true metro.



Yardmaster said:


> but there's not a lot of it. Personally, I think people here generally appreciate being able to look out the window.


People prefer to look out a window? Sorry, I really don't think that has any reason why there are not so much underground lines in Melbourne, otherwise Sydney would have much less as well. A true metro is simply so much faster than a tram or bus, and in central area's where there is little space, building underground stops the downtown area being carved up by railway lines. You probably know the phrase "Wrong side of the tracks". It really is based on reality. Railway lines can divide communities when above ground, and this is not a problem when going deep.



Yardmaster said:


> Is it to do with frequency? Trains run through our underground stations during the afternoon peak at the rate of about 75 per hour. Do our trains need to be smaller or larger to qualify as "metros"? All these questions have been dealt with at great length on this site, perhaps to no good effect, since it really doesn't look like much understanding has come from the process.


There are a number of things which define a metro system over a suburban or commuter system. One of them is the very words suburban and urban. Suburban railway systems have the main purpose of bring people in from the suburbs to the city center. They are used mainly in this way. You can look at most suburban systems and they have a radial pattern (or spoke system). Lines converge in the city center. A good system like those found in Australia and Europe may pass a loop in the city and continue out again, or pass through underground before continuing on the other-side. This can produce a near metro like system in the city center.

A metro usually also has to a certain degree a spoke network (London's is quite obvious), but it also still concentrates it's services in the central part of the city, for cross town transport. If you look at London, Paris, Madrid's metro in the central part, instead of a spoke system, it is a matrix system - almost like a spiderweb. People use these networks for short hops in dense urban area's.

There are many other differences as well, obviously overall frequencies (although Melbourne does extremely well in their hybrid network especially in the central area's where lines bundle), Train door separation, distance between stations etc. In fact, Melbourne's network is really a hybrid like the S-bahn and RER, and leans more to metro's than say Sydney's which certainly feels more suburban in nature (in total). But although I can't really pinpoint everything, it still feels like a suburban hybrid like the S-bahn rather than a true metro when I ride it.



Yardmaster said:


> One further thought ... everyone else in mainland Australia shits on the weather here, but it's still far warmer than Toronto! Last time it snowed? 1969? What I mean is, people'd much rather travel in the street than underground.


Please ;O) You must be joking about the travelling on the street part. Many warm cities around the world also have subway systems. Barcelona, Madrid, Osaka, Tokyo, Rome etc. Weather really has nothing to do with it.

Anyway, as I said, please don't take it the wrong way if I disagreed with some of your statements. I always enjoy your posts and normally find it top notch in accuracy.


----------



## Justme

chris_underscore47 said:


> Well I would never take a train trip to Sydney to MElbourne, let alone a trip by rail to Perth, that would be death. For big countries like ours, I believe Air is the way to go, I only used rail in Europe (which I love), and I once did a 350km from Canberra to Sydney, It was so long! like 4 hours hate it.


You don't know what you're missing ;O) A couple of years ago, I took the night train between Sydney and Melbourne. 1st class of cause which gave you a private sleeper. It would be horrid in economy on the seats of cause. But travelling overnight in a train for that distance with your own sleeper is so much nicer than flying.


----------



## isaidso

TRMD said:


>


I have a love/hate relationship with this style of suburban Canadian house. I grew up in a neighbourhood very similar to this, but much more heavily forested. Life is too perfect in these houses. Deer and foxes running around out back, every modern amenity/luxury inside. It's idyllic, but this style of house is too cookie cutter with no detailing to make it visually charming. From what I've seen in Australia, the Australian suburban house is usually brick, more likely to have just one floor, and the the detailing is better. 

Same s**t, different pile.


----------



## invincible

Justme said:


> I am surprised you gave this claim. Up until WWII when most cities had extensive tram networks, Melbourne's, although large, was still nowhere on the map of the world's largest. It certainly wasn't 2nd in the world, not by a long shot. It was only after WWII when many cities replaced their tram networks (or part of them) with subways (like Europe) or buses (like much of the US) that Melbourne started to rise up the table due to the very big networks either downsizing or disappearing. LA for instance had the world's largest at one stage with two separate networks. The larger (Pacific Electric) had over 1000km of route (4x Melbourne today). London also had 555km (route), Paris was extensive, Moscow, St. Petersburg, Berlin and an endless number of other American and European cities.


I think Yardmaster might have been a bit confused here - Melbourne had something like the second largest *cable* tram network after Chicago. The entire network was demolished by the early 1930s and replaced with electric trams.

Melbourne's rail network was also a lot less radial in earlier times. The Inner Circle line (built 1888) closed for passenger services in 1948 because of a lack of demand for such travel, especially with competition from the trams (which would have suffered from less congestion then). The Outer Circle line (built 1890) was built just in time for an economic collapse and the suburbs planned along the line were never built, leaving sections of railway to be closed starting from 1897, except for a single section which now exists as a suburban branch line.


----------



## Justme

invincible said:


> I think Yardmaster might have been a bit confused here - Melbourne had something like the second largest *cable* tram network after Chicago. The entire network was demolished by the early 1930s and replaced with electric trams.
> 
> Melbourne's rail network was also a lot less radial in earlier times. The Inner Circle line (built 1888) closed for passenger services in 1948 because of a lack of demand for such travel, especially with competition from the trams (which would have suffered from less congestion then). The Outer Circle line (built 1890) was built just in time for an economic collapse and the suburbs planned along the line were never built, leaving sections of railway to be closed starting from 1897, except for a single section which now exists as a suburban branch line.


Ok, cable-trams. Sorry, I didn't know that statistic. Pretty good record then.

Also, thanks for the info on the circle lines.


----------



## Justme

Damn, posted in the wrong thread. Sorry


----------



## algonquin

Deus Ex said:


> Why don't both countries just combine government and be one country? Theyre both British anyway.....


C'est une bonne idee. Les Canadiens sont seulement Anglais. Vous êtes un maître de l'histoire Canadienne et culture!


----------



## Zaki

algonquin said:


> C'est une bonne idee. Les Canadiens sont seulement Anglais. Vous êtes un maître de l'histoire Canadienne et culture!


lol, grande reponse. tres bonne.


----------



## invincible

DrJoe said:


> Infrastrucure!


I already posted this in another thread, but here's some of our ultra-advanced elevated rail.


----------



## algonquin

nice bridge 

Few people know that Toronto has an elevated system, the Scarborough LRT. Vancouver's entire rail system is elevated (the Skytrain). I'm not sure if any other Canadian cities have elevated portions, though I do know a good part of Edmontons LRT is underground.


----------



## Zaki

algonquin said:


> nice bridge
> 
> Few people know that Toronto has an elevated system, the Scarborough LRT. Vancouver's entire rail system is elevated (the Skytrain). I'm not sure if any other Canadian cities have elevated portions, though I do know a good part of Edmontons LRT is underground.


Ya we in Toronto just call it the RT. Here's some pics


----------



## Canadian74

Calgary's CTrain is mostly at ground level. I'll try to post a picture of their new train in the new colour scheme.


----------



## Quall

..


----------



## Taller Better

I read somewhere that North American style houses are gaining popularity in Australia, and that one enterprising developer created his vision of Wisteria Lane from Desperate Housewives (although the resulting houses looked nothing like those in the show but were just regular big suburban houses). There might be a big market niche there!


----------



## gappa

Taller said:


> I read somewhere that North American style houses are gaining popularity in Australia, and that one enterprising developer created his vision of Wisteria Lane from Desperate Housewives (although the resulting houses looked nothing like those in the show but were just regular big suburban houses). There might be a big market niche there!


Something like this?



wongm said:


> Did anyone see this article in Friday's Herald Sun?
> ]
> 
> 11 houses at Caroline Springs, based on the houses from Desperate Housewives... Though the one in the above looks nothing like them .
> 
> (there were some pics on the bottom of the article, but it wouldn't fit into the scanner)


It's strange; familys are getting smaller but houses are getting bigger. I guess you need room for all the useless stuff you bought at the mall. Luckily in Melbourne apartment living is really taking off as well.


----------



## Brisbaner21

California and Florida homes seem very similar to homes here in Queensland. I noticed that in Florida in June. I was very suprised.


----------



## city_thing

That desperate housewives thing is enough to make me cry.

Firstly, why would anyone want to live in a house named 'Lynette (f**king ugly name!)' is beyond me.

And secondly, those houses are hideous, far too large, and basically sum up everything that's wrong with the American dream. A place like that would leave a massive carbon footprint.


----------



## aussiescraperman

i like them. much prefer that than an apartment. apartments in my eyes are only ever temporary accomodation.


----------



## PerthCity

aussiescraperman said:


> i like them.


They look so old fashioned.


----------



## vid

Yes, because houses in the 1910s had double garages and fake stone and stucco! :|

They're cheap rip offs. The interiors are a soulless whitewash, and they're designed to be replaced within a few decades. There is just so little originality to them, and their materials ensure that they will remain that way.


----------



## PerthCity

vid said:


> Yes, because houses in the 1910s had double garages and fake stone and stucco! :|


1910s?? No it looks like something out of 80s or 90s America.


----------



## Cristovão471

All I say is stupid woman on the article. It's almost like we're going backwards than forwards with progressing in that suburbian living.


----------



## vid

BeachRes44 said:


> 1910s?? No it looks like something out of 80s or 90s America.


You said it looked old fashioned. I don't care how young you are, 80s and 90s isn't old fashioned!


----------



## PerthCity

vid said:


> You said it looked old fashioned. I don't care how young you are, 80s and 90s isn't old fashioned!


These are new houses, not existing ones!! :lol:


----------



## Taller Better

It is true.... they look very 80's/90's 'burbia. I would never under any circumstance live in one of those big barns.


----------



## vid

:doh:

This style is a ripoff of 1980s style, which was a rip off of the styles from the 1920s and 1910s. 



BeachRes44 said:


> They look so old fashioned.





BeachRes44 said:


> 1910s?? No it looks like something out of 80s or 90s America.


I guess 10 year olds are just old fashioned. :bash:


----------



## gappa

tayser said:


> Neo-federation is a very poor cousin of the real thing.
> 
> Gappa: are you in Kew or some such??
> I'm a fan of the California Bungalows of Malvern/Caulfield.
> 
> 80s and 90s Suburbia was dominated by neo-Federation style, and I my heart fluttered on a trip around Berwick South & Beaconsfield last week when I saw that the architectural diversity in the sprawlbelt is quite literally exploding now. Doesn't make auto-centric suburbia much better, but at least it's no longer a sea of the same thing house after house.


Hawthorn East.


----------



## isaidso

What's a California bungalow? How does that differ from a Canadian bungalow (often including a car port) or Canadian ranch style bungalow?


----------



## Taller Better

The Canadian ranch-style bungalow is just a regional derivative of the California ranch style house so popular in the 50's/60's. They were extremely popular right across the country, even when quite unsuited to the climate of such places as Winnipeg. Well, if we are still on the subject of house styles, I whipped up these three photos showing the colonial Georgian style of house popular in Toronto. First, an 1850's working class example:










Secondly a middle class townhouse in a more important part of town:










and thirdly a posh type, from 1822:











ahhhh.... my favourite style!!! 

Interestingly, if you travel through the USA, you will NOT see the Georgian style or blatantly British Victorian style from after the 1776 Independence for the better part of a century. Let's just say our American friends were not anxious to be seen emulating the British building styles. Nearer the end of the 19th century, Georgian style crept back into the States, under their new name of "Colonial". Frankly it was too beautiful to ignore, and folks were itching to get it back...
any moment now someone is going to get cranky for my hijacking this moribund thread off the rails!! hehe


----------



## Bartolomeu

canada


----------



## Calvin W

I've lived in Both Canada and Australia.

Highways, Railroads, Airports, are all better overall in Canada.

Transit it major cities (1 million+) I would say Australia has a better system.

Now when you are talking infrastructure like water, sewers, power transmission, phones, internet, Hands down Canada.


----------



## Yellow Fever

its basically a country vs country thread that is not allowed any more in SSC.


----------

