Which of these very similar countries do you think has the edge in infrastructure? Should be a fun comparison.

I don't know enough about Australia's infrastructure to vote, but I would say it is
a good guess that voting will be along partisan lines! ;)

Australia has no subways, Canada has what, three?

Canada.

Canada by far.. Highway network is much better

Australia has no subways, Canada has what, three?

Two so far. Toronto & Montreal.

Two so far. Toronto & Montreal.
I give Skytrain the benefit of the doubt.

I give Skytrain the benefit of the doubt.

I would consider that to be the equivalent of Melbourne's Metlink Suburb/City Loop Rail, Brisbane's CityTrains, and Sydney's CityRail network. All 3 are suburb-based transit systems with a small number of underground stations. Toronto and Montreal equivalents to some extent would be GO Transit and AMT.

Perth also has a train network, but I've never been on it, so I don't know how expansive the network is.

Australia.

Sydney has the monorails. And Melbourne, Adelaide and a few other cities have the trams.

Australia has the weather. :lol:

Two so far. Toronto & Montreal.
Doesnt Edmonton also have a subway?

Canada for me........
.......In terms of mass transit, I believe both are pretty equal. The tide turner is the highways.

Canada for me........
The tide turner is the highways.
^^Basically that

Doesnt Edmonton also have a subway?

Nope. It's just a 12km light rail route with half of it being at-grade.

Well, Canada obviously has more, which isn't surprising seeing as it has both a higher population and a larger land area, but I think the edge should be given to the one with the highest quality.

That being said, I think all Can/Aus "comparisons" should be banned here, because they're nothing but trouble.

^^^^^ I am TOTALLY with Nouvelle on this one. It has been proven countless times that Australia/Canada threads get vicious, and this is very definitely just a city vs city type thread that has been banned. I say flush the thread! :toilet:

Australia will bash Canada with its weather, Canada will bash Australia with the 401.

Canada.
Far better road network than Oz

I theorise that Torontos and Eastern Canada's road network in general is a direct byproduct of being across the road from the US. However not all Canada cities have such a road network.

Look at Vancouver. It's canada's 3rd largest city and apparently they have only 1 or 2 lengths of freeway.

I theorise that Torontos and Eastern Canada's road network in general is a direct byproduct of being across the road from the US. However not all Canada cities have such a road network.

Look at Vancouver. It's canada's 3rd largest city and apparently they have only 1 or 2 lengths of freeway.

Vancouver is really the only exception to the rule. Despite the generally better road network in Canada all the cities have higher transit ridership than their Aussie equivalent.

Australia will bash Canada with its weather, Canada will bash Australia with the 401.

How true. Sad when you consider the thread is about infrastructure, not
beaches.

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.

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

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.

Australia's cricket grounds put ours to shame.

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.

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.

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!!! :)

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.

Australia's cricket grounds put ours to shame.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Russia

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. :)

They still have the fequency and usability of COMMUTER trains.

Trains to the city at my station (Springvale), about 20km from the city.
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 (http://www.metlinkmelbourne.com.au/timetables/timetable_display.php?ID=MTNPKM&TYPE=train&DAY=M-F&DIRECTION=D)
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.

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

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. ;)

Trains to the city at my station (Springvale), about 20km from the city.
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 (http://www.metlinkmelbourne.com.au/timetables/timetable_display.php?ID=MTNPKM&TYPE=train&DAY=M-F&DIRECTION=D)
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.

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.

^ 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

[QUOTE=Toadman]

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?

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

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

i think Canada wins.. enough reasons have been given

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...

^ 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. :D

Doesnt Edmonton also have a subway?

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

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.

Adelaide has more km of Freeway than Vancouver :lol:

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.

Vancouver has 2.1 million people and just 1 freeway.

^^
I count 3

http://www.greatriverfishing.com/images/map_vancouver.jpg

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?


http://map.web.mapquest.com/?e=9&GetMapDataDirect=Gme5diw%2ca%3a9u12%3b%40%245h%2dasu672%26%3d2ll%2d2xla72%26ua%265abxla%24w%21zta0zt%3alwz0gz%24n9r7%7c9%4022u6%2a%3al6t5%26%40%24%3a%26w1%261472u6%24%2e90b%269abxu6%24%3a%26ur2u%2da%7c%26yt29%40%24

And Adelaide

http://map.web.mapquest.com/?e=9&GetMapDataDirect=Gme5diw%2ca%3a9u12%3b%40%24%2elw%40wlab2u%402x5%2dz2u672%26ua%265abxla%24w%21zta0zt%3alwz0gz%24n9r7%7c9%4022u6%2a%3al6t5%26%40%24%3a%26%3db5%21fbxl67%3a9ay%26g672u6%24%3a%26ur2u%2da%7c%26yt29%40%24

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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!!

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

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.

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.

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???

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.

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.

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:

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.
http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/6052/ghdgdf1tz.jpg

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.

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.
http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/6052/ghdgdf1tz.jpg

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. :)

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.
http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/6052/ghdgdf1tz.jpg

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?

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.

Perhaps the lesson we have learned today is that Sydney is more suburban
than Toronto.. that is an interesting point that I did not know! :)

Only place where Toronto lacks is the lack of integration of fare systems between each city falling under GTA, like Brampton faresystem and York faresystems are not integrated.. And further from toronto city area has less reliable public transport system.. But even with that, Toronto public transportation system is way better than any city in Aus.. the no of commuters tell the story.. After certain time each evening, you can only board on the Night Safe coaches in Sydney, not available elsewhere.. Anyone has the Stats of howmuch TTC handles each day compared to Sydney's public bus system (I think it has one of the largest fleet in the world)??

^oi, so just because Toronto's PT system might in your opinion be better than Sydney's means Canada as a whole has better Infastructure than Australia? Bull Shit.

Melbourne's PT system could kick Montreal's Ass. Melbourne has Trains, Trams and Buses. Brisbane's PT system is probably better than Vancouver's and the improvements keep coming. The South-East Busway has increased patronage in massive numbers. Tunnels are under construction linking the South East busway to the Inner Northern Busway, which has greatly improved connections to the Queensland University of Technology Kelvin Grove Campus and has taken buses off streets heading into Fortitude Valley. The Green Bridge(Busway and pedestrian bridge. i.e. NO CARS) is approaching completion, with Environmental Impact Studies underway for the Eastern Busway.

Perth's Rail network could probably beat some Canadian cities as it is and is improving enormously. Really, you have to take everything into account.

Sydney's buses carry over 600,000 passengers per day.
SOURCE (http://www.sydneybuses.info/)

Sydney's Ferries carry about 40,000 per day.
SOURCE (http://www.sydneyferries.info/aboutus/index.php)

I just put that as an example..Nothing to do with city vs city comparison, but in general Canada has invested much more in public transport than Aus.. Aus is only investing recently which is why the systems are much mroe modern, for eg brisbane busway systems.. But in general, say mode of travelling between Sydney and Canberra and Toronto - Ottawa... Canberra doesnt even have an international airport while its the capital of the country.. smaller cities like calgary, Winnipeg have LRT's which are being modernised but in Aus, there isnt much of a system in place...
Aus infrastructure is good and maybe it will be better than Canada in the future but rite now Canada is better...
Montreal's PS is one of the most reliable ones in North America and cannot be that much worse than Melb.. Been to both the places and used PS quite a lot, so I know it pretty well...
I just found link regarding Melb transport
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Grim-future-for-transport/2005/02/20/1108834659703.html

Perhaps the lesson we have learned today is that Sydney is more suburban
than Toronto.. that is an interesting point that I did not know! :)

Lol, did you miss the last three years of City vs City?

Canberra doesnt even have an international airport while its the capital of the country.. smaller cities like calgary, Winnipeg have LRT's which are being modernised but in Aus, there isnt much of a system in place...

Canberra doesn't have an international airport because no one in their right mind would ever decide to go to a place like Canberra. Most of the people visiting the place are either politicians or other government officials or people driving between Melbourne and Sydney who have decided to take a detour.

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


And what is the ridership? Montreal has 365 million per year. Add the various suburban systems and its well over 400 million. Again you see the value of a true metro system.

^oi, so just because Toronto's PT system might in your opinion be better than Sydney's means Canada as a whole has better Infastructure than Australia? Bull Shit.

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

Unlikely, since Montreal has Metro, an extensive Commuter Train Network (larger and more reliable than Toronto's GO Transit), and integrated bus networks through Montreal Island and surrounding suburban areas.

Brisbane's PT system is probably better than Vancouver's and the improvements keep coming. The South-East Busway has increased patronage in massive numbers. Tunnels are under construction linking the South East busway to the Inner Northern Busway, which has greatly improved connections to the Queensland University of Technology Kelvin Grove Campus and has taken buses off streets heading into Fortitude Valley. The Green Bridge(Busway and pedestrian bridge. i.e. NO CARS) is approaching completion, with Environmental Impact Studies underway for the Eastern Busway.

I wouldn't discount Vancouver Translink's own investments. Right now, they're constructing the underground Canada Line (downtown to Airport/Richmond). Also, the Evergreen rapid LRT line between Burnaby-Coquitlam will soon start construction. There's also plans to expand seabus service, extend WestCoast Express and add a new Skytrain line along Broadway to reach UBC. The City of Vancouver is also planning a new streetcar network to service city proper.

Perth's Rail network could probably beat some Canadian cities as it is and is improving enormously. Really, you have to take everything into account.

It's probably better than every city except Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. However, at the the same time the 4th largest Canadian city (Ottawa/Calgary) has only 2/3 of Perth's metro population, and does not require such extensive service yet.

Lol, did you miss the last three years of City vs City?

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:

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?


One similarity ... British Columbia wouldn't be part of Canada, and Western Australia wouldn't be part of Australia, unless we built them a rail(road/way).

Canberra doesn't have an international airport because no one in their right mind would ever decide to go to a place like Canberra. Most of the people visiting the place are either politicians or other government officials or people driving between Melbourne and Sydney who have decided to take a detour.
Whoever coughed up the idea for Canberra and actually went ahead with it was smoking weed and drinking thus was dillusional.

Whoever coughed up the idea for Canberra and actually went ahead with it was smoking weed and drinking thus was dillusional.

Well, it actually has to do with a rivallry between Melbourne & Sydney ....

proof that all rivallries end in tears.

Can we see some photos of two countries, in terms of highways, railways, public transport systems?

According to South Park, there is only 1 road in the whole of Canada and the main city is called "Downtown Canada" :rofl:

According to South Park, there is only 1 road in the whole of Canada and the main city is called "Downtown Canada" :rofl:

Ah! Now I know where some Aussies got their information on Canada during
the Aus/Can rivalry!! :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious . At least one of
the 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. :)

@Yardmaster. I am not sure which quote you are using for Australia and
Canada being similar, but there are similarities.. both are large countries
with small populations, which creates problems for infrastructure. Also,
unrelated, there are considerable social similarities between the countries,
due to the similar histories.

Ah! Now I know where some Aussies got their information on Canada during
the Aus/Can rivalry!! :hilarious :hilarious :hilarious . At least one of
the 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. :)

Neither of the South Park Creators are from Canada. I am not quite sure why they pick on Canada like they do, but it is pretty funny. The funny thing about South Park joking about Canada's one road is that in parts of Northern Ontario, there is actually only one road that traverses the country.

Cheers.

Well blow me down, I thought one of them was.
Not surprising about Northern Ontario... go further north
than that and there is none. I think the "picking" on
Canada is tongue in cheek, really... I am hoping no
one is thick enough to take it literally, but who knows?
Much of it was done as a parody of the way America
views us. I just noticed via googling that Trey Parker's first film
was "The Giant Beavers of Sri Lanka - 1989 16mm short".
How can you not love a guy who makes a film called that?????

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

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!

Definitely Canada!

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 (http://www.stcum.qc.ca/english/en-bref/fiches/a-a4.pdf)


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.

............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??

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.

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.

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.

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)

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

Not the four legged type... :naughty:

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?

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:

http://www.newmodellersshop.co.uk/images/push%20to%20make.jpg

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.

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:

http://www.newmodellersshop.co.uk/images/push%20to%20make.jpg

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! :old:

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.

Not the four legged type... :naughty:

lmao!!

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.

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.

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!

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.

^^^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.

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

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.

Missasomething......it's Mississauaga;););)

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.

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

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/7990/11469820512042215kr.png (http://imageshack.us)
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/6338/11469821042044615dh.png (http://imageshack.us)

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

[QUOTE=TB]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.

:lock: :lock: :lock:

City vs City

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)

http://www.confederationbridge.com/en/media_gallery/wallpaper_800x600.jpg

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

http://64.246.11.82/images/p/P7261682_1.jpg.99971.jpg

http://64.246.11.82/images/c/CN_eb_Skoonka.jpg.71545.jpg

http://64.246.11.82/images/c/CP9151_9832.jpg.30260.jpg

http://64.246.11.82/images/c/cp8578-mp104Ashcroft-12-10-2005-03.jpg.99743.jpg

http://64.246.11.82/images/c/cp9717-mp83.4Thompson-08-13-2005-02.jpg.64625.jpg

http://64.246.11.82/images/s/Stoney_Creek_High.JPG.30933.jpg

http://64.246.11.82/images/s/stoney_creek_low.JPG.65472.jpg

Sweet pics:D

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)

http://www.confederationbridge.com/en/media_gallery/wallpaper_800x600.jpg

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

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)

http://www.confederationbridge.com/en/media_gallery/wallpaper_800x600.jpg

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

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. :D

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

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

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

I like the chutes over the railway for rockslides!

: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

Anglosaxon countries rankings

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

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...

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

I thought these threads were banned.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

http://www.urbantransport-technology.com/projects/sydney2/images/sydney4.jpg

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!

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

we are acutally 21 million and canada is 33 million.

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)

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.

^^ 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.

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).

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.

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. ;)

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...

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):)

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

http://www.sydneyferries.info/img/networkmap.gif

:master: :master:

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

this is typical everyday

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/photos/congestion_vert.jpg

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/photos/goods_movement_190.jpg

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

hardly a freeway

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

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.

Calgary just reached over 1 million a few months back

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.

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.

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

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.

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

I'd say we lose on those too.

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:

^^ lol

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.

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

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

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:

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!

^^ 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?

^^ 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.

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.

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!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/ooompaloompa123/transport/kuranda.jpg

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.

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.

Very slow train from what I'm used to. But that in a way this works out as an advantage. A couple of years ago I took the overnight from Sydney to Melbourne. A private, 1st class comfortable cabin, complete with a nice wake up breakfast. All for a good price. If the train was as fast as we have here, it would be too short for a good nights sleep, but too long to just sit and stare out the windows.

I love sleepers in trains.

I like Australia AND Canada.
I'd love to backpack from Vancouver to New Foundland one day. French Canadians kinda scare me though.

Australia is a cool country, it's just got a bad image from people like Steve Irwin, everyone thinks we hunt snakes and jump on crocodiles. We just don't have the population to be a serious contender against Canada. But who really gives a sh*t? Both countries are good.

http://usera.imagecave.com/Jaye/31-Metro_OldMill.jpg

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/2801/downtown012cw0.jpg

http://usera.imagecave.com/Jaye/400_cl_23_north_SB.jpg

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/1716/downtown010of6.jpg

http://usera.imagecave.com/Jaye/400_cl_29_north.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/43/79280920_8b214d1672_b.jpg

http://usera.imagecave.com/Jaye/401_cl_346_west.jpg

http://usera.imagecave.com/Jaye/subway-5301-05.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/toronto/20040612/RIMG6674.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/toronto/20040612/RIMG6675.jpg

http://www.globalphotos.org/toronto/20040612/RIMG6698.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/41/79661346_86f9cdfce6_b.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/37/125385844_5140404ede_b.jpg

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/8874/154526377799c348985byw9.jpg

^^ and?

Over 80% of Australia's power production comes from fossil fuels, in Canada its rougly 30%.

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.


Thanks for that info! Looks amazing! :cheers:
It is nice to go through the Rockies.. they are pretty spectacular.

In Australia, you can't even drive between Melbourne and Sydney and Sydney and Brisbane on a proper dual highway.
Victoria has established a proper intercity expressway network radiating from Melbourne to the major regional towns, totalling about 1000km or so.



Australia is behind other developed country's in every respect except backwardness and multiculturalism.
then again Australia's population is tiny compared to other developed countries.

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.


Not only is that a slightly illogical way to look at it (you can't simply exclude one giant population in Toronto exclusively for comparison)...it's incorrect anyway.

Obviously, the TTC provides WAAAAAY better PT than Sydney. But the TTC also services the suburbs too. There is a lot of cross-transit usage between the 416 and the 905, so if you are travelling into Toronto from the attached burbs, or vica versa, you are getting the benefit of the TTC service (which crosses over the borders and intigrates).

Also, these suburbs don't rely on just "commuter" service....they have local inner-city transit of their own to "get around town". Mississauga Transit has annual ridership of over 25 million itself.

So, they have GO Transit for the bigger commutes ( 96% of all GO Train trip are to-from Union Station in downtown Toronto), as well as local transit for the "non-commuter" transit needs.

I'd say even most of the 905 transit users have access to better transit than those 4 million Sydneysiders.

So...a more accurate way to articulate your statement would be....2.6 million 416 residents have waaaaay better pt. And another 2.6 million Mississauga, Brampton, Vaughan, Richmond Hill, Markham, Oakville, Burlington and Hamilton residents have "better" transit than Sydney. That makes more than 5 million people in the Toronto area with better transit than ALL the people in Metro Sydney.

As for the balance of the GTA residents...well they either have "as good' or worse than the average Sydneysider I guess. But now we are talking about very low density suburbs, or outright rural areas.


And there's a very good reason for this...the vast majority of the people who live in the suburbs, live in much denser cities, utilizing more of a grid system, which can better support transit.




KGB

:banana:SYDNEY TORONTO FIGHT!:banana:

Canada has a larger population, so their infrastructure would be better.

Two so far. Toronto & Montreal.

You're forgetting about Edmonton's short little subway through Downtown and University.

A railway crossing on an autoroute (A20) in Quebec:

http://www.canhighways.com/PQ/PQ20-29_images/PQ20_dv_131_east.jpg

I don't think there would be any on any Australian freeway.

Photo came from this website: http://www.canhighways.com/PQ/PQ20-29_images/PQ20_p3_images.htm. Scroll down to bottom of page for this photo and its caption. Note also the pic above it.

^ I imagine that is only case in Canada where that happens. I would also imagine it sees little or no rail traffic.

LOL :D

the grey parts are our freeways, i've never seen a map of canada's freeways. can someone post one?

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a211/aussiehuskie/aussieroads.jpg

cheers

Unfortunately for Australia, Canada has a vastly superior road network. Just look at Quebec City, the place has less than 1Mill yet has 8 urban freeways. Sydney would kill for a freeway network like Montréal’s. Sure Montréal’s is rundown in places and requires expanding in others, but the coverage is comprehensive and most are 6 lanes wide.

Likewise both Toronto and Montreal has subway systems, nothing in Australia compares to these. One reason is most likely the population density of both cities, Australia is much more suburban.

Australia has been let down badly by the Howard government. In a time of record surpluses, the spending on public infrastructure has been abysmal.

Quebec City's Freeway Network
http://www.jeaniejohnston.net/images/quebec_map.gif
Montréal’s Freeway Network
http://www.superaquaclub.com/assets/images/mapregion.jpg
Toronto's Freeway Network
http://www.toronto-yyz.com/owshare/wag/images/map-yyz.gif

:banana:SYDNEY TORONTO FIGHT!:banana:

Remember the old days of City vs City, Randwicked? Lots of nosebleeds
back then! LOL!

Unfortunately for Australia, Canada has a vastly superior road network. Just look at Quebec City, the place has less than 1Mill yet has 8 urban freeways. Sydney would kill for a freeway network like Montréal’s. Sure Montréal’s is rundown in places and requires expanding in others, but the coverage is comprehensive and most are 6 lanes wide.

Likewise both Toronto and Montreal has subway systems, nothing in Australia compares to these. One reason is most likely the population density of both cities, Australia is much more suburban.

Australia has been let down badly by the Howard government. In a time of record surpluses, the spending on public infrastructure has been abysmal.


howard sucks when it comes to road funding. He'd rather spend on war and telling other countries to stop logging :ohno:

Sydneys freeways are ordinary at best, most are only 2+2 lanes and the network is small for a city its size. Melbourne actually has 115km more freeway than Sydney.

In Victoria Melbourne is linked to all towns larger than 50,000 pop by expressway however a 50km strecth needs to be completed by John Howard and unsurprisingly we are still waiting after 5 years

SYDNEY/MELBOURNE FREEWAY NETWORK (the red lines) BOTH MAPS ARE ON THE SAME SCALE

MELBOURNE
http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/3756/c05042007085750ya9.jpg

SYDNEY
http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/1104/c05042007085855wb2.jpg

^ I imagine that is only case in Canada where that happens. I would also imagine it sees little or no rail traffic.

There's only a handful of routes out there.

Trans-Canada Railway
Yellowhead Railway
Edmonton-Calgary Railway
Prince Rupert Railway

There's only a handful more. Most of the rail lines have been pulled out of the rural prairies - the only ones saved are to serve the mines (Ft. MacMurray, Prince Albert).

howard sucks when it comes to road funding. He'd rather spend on war and telling other countries to stop logging :ohno:

It is not Howard's federal government which decides on this kind of infrastructure, it is the incompetent Labour state governments. This is especially true here in New South Wales.

It is not Howard's federal government which decides on this kind of infrastructure, it is the incompetent Labour state governments. This is especially true here in New South Wales.
Yep that too.

The M39 expressway should be extended to Shepperton by now. But we are still on the enviroonmental studies and other hoo haa

Is this war costing Australia a packet? I know it is costing the USA and Britain a fortune. What a waste of money.

Just hope we get a real motorway from Townville to Brisbane. This country-road highway we have right now is crap. Driving would much more relaxed. But first they should build a motorway from Brisbane to Sydney. Might be more important.

Airservice is generally quite good in Asutralia. I can fly straight to Japan from Cairns.

Australia is a cool country, it's just got a bad image from people like Steve Irwin, everyone thinks we hunt snakes and jump on crocodiles.

How exactly is this a bad image? I think its pretty cool to wrestle crocodiles and play with snakes. Very simialr to to the typical canadian trapper who has to fight with Grizzlies.

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


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

I can think of a similar statement which I could apply to Canada, but somehow I don't think you would find it funny. :lol:


Likewise both Toronto and Montreal has subway systems, nothing in Australia compares to these. One reason is most likely the population density of both cities, Australia is much more suburban.

And I can't see the need for subway systems here in the near future. Lines near the city are underground at the moment, but it would take a lot of development in the suburbs to force the Government to sink the suburban lines. I like looking out a window and seeing sky while I'm in a train anyway. Its a much more pleasant and safer experience than using a subway. :)

A railway crossing on an autoroute (A20) in Quebec:

http://www.canhighways.com/PQ/PQ20-29_images/PQ20_dv_131_east.jpg

I don't think there would be any on any Australian freeway.

Photo came from this website: http://www.canhighways.com/PQ/PQ20-29_images/PQ20_p3_images.htm. Scroll down to bottom of page for this photo and its caption. Note also the pic above it.

Yeah, that's pretty bizzare for sure. I was shocked to see it; it's only a few miles outside of Montreal.

How exactly is this a bad image? I think its pretty cool to wrestle crocodiles and play with snakes. Very simialr to to the typical canadian trapper who has to fight with Grizzlies.

Considering most Australians live in large cities and never see any crocodiles at all, the Steve Irwin image is largely incorrect. Whilst he did raise Australia's profile, it would just be nice to see the nation's inhabitants portrayed for what we really are -civilised, industrialised people.

City Australia and country Australia are two very different worlds.

Steve Irwin also once said "John Howard is the best politician ever" -hopefully people from outside Oz know that such a sentiment can only be held by the most absolutely stupid people alive. It's strange that he made a remark when he called himself a "wild life warrior" and supported Howard even though he's in favour of logging Tasmania's old growth forests and has only recently discovered that global warming isn't some extreme left wing theory and that it's actually causing the deaths of many, many species.

and has only recently discovered that global warming isn't some extreme left wing theory

Maybe he was waiting for more conclusive proof before jumping all over the place allocating funds so we can 'save the Earth' from the heat. :nuts:

Considering most Australians live in large cities and never see any crocodiles at all, the Steve Irwin image is largely incorrect. Whilst he did raise Australia's profile, it would just be nice to see the nation's inhabitants portrayed for what we really are -civilised, industrialised people.

City Australia and country Australia are two very different worlds.

Steve Irwin also once said "John Howard is the best politician ever" -hopefully people from outside Oz know that such a sentiment can only be held by the most absolutely stupid people alive. It's strange that he made a remark when he called himself a "wild life warrior" and supported Howard even though he's in favour of logging Tasmania's old growth forests and has only recently discovered that global warming isn't some extreme left wing theory and that it's actually causing the deaths of many, many species.

Whether you like John Howard or not, I don't think to many people would deny that he is the best politician of his generation (even Rudd said so)... That doesn't make him a good person though ;)

MELBOURNE
http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/3756/c05042007085750ya9.jpg
Some of those freeways have either not been built yet (Deer Park Bypass) or are still under construction (Eastlink and Geelong & Pakenham Bypasses). Also some sections of these roads (in existence) are not full freeway standard as they still have at-grade intersections. These are the Western Freeway/Highway (M8) between Deer Park and Melton and again between Melton and the Bacchus Marsh exit, the Calder Fwy/Hwy (M79) between the Melton Hwy exit and Diggers Rest, the Hume Fwy/Hwy (M31) north of Craigieburn and the Princes Fwy/Hwy (M1) east of Pakenham. AFAIK there are plans to fully grade separate the Western and Calder Fwy/Hwy sections. BTW, if my interpretation of Googlearth images is correct, where the Western "Freeway" passes through Rockbank there are even houses with driveways going straight onto it! Definitely not freeway standard. How would they upgrade this bit? Bypass the town, cut direct access and provide a service road or just acquire and demolish the houses? Obviously Vicroad's definition of a freeway is more loose than the NSW RTA's, where if a road is a declared freeway then it most definitely is - no at-grade intersections or direct access from abutting properties.

I give Skytrain the benefit of the doubt.

In that case Australia has Perth, Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide, Brisbane!

Does anyone have statistics on the commuter/light rail for cities in both countries? I've compared the 5 biggest cities and so far I have:

Melbourne
Commuter Rail- 342km in length with 209 stations
Light Rail- 245km in length

Sydney
Commuter Rail- ??km with 302 stations
Light Rail- 10.8km with 22 stations

Brisbane
Commuter Rail- ??km with 143 stations

Perth
Commuter Rail- ??km with 59 stations

Adelaide
Commuter Rail- 126km with 81 stations
Light Rail- 10.8km with 21 stations



Montreal
Metro- 60.8km in length with 65 stations
Commuter Rail- 216km with 59 stations

Toronto
Metro- 68.3km with 69 stations
Commuter Rail- ??km with 58 stations
Light Rail- 306km

Vancouver
Metro (Or is the SkyTrain light rail?)- 49.5km with 33 stations
Commuter Rail- ??km with 8 stations

Calgary
Light Rail- 42.1km with 36 stations

Ottawa
Light Rail- 8km with 5 stations

It's worth pointing out that when I last looked up the length of Toronto's streetcar network, it was measured in terms of track length, which (assuming double track throughout the network) needs to be halved to get a more useful figure of route km. Either that, or Toronto has done some massive construction and overtaken Melbourne and most European networks.

As for freeways, it's a common practice in Victoria to put minor roads or private roads right on the freeway since there is little point separating them from traffic. Keep in mind that most rural freeways are simply roads which were duplicated and had interchanges built on major intersections.

And M roads are not freeways either - for example the M780 (Western Port Highway - A780 on the above map, but the road has been upgraded) has no grade separated intersections, has properties along the road and has roundabouts and traffic lights, and is inside the metropolitan area.

Besides, there are enough freeways in Melbourne, once the ones under construction are finished. There is not enough traffic to warrant construction of freeways, when the existing road (and rail) network is effective and any new freeway would be incredibly expensive.

And I can't see the need for subway systems here in the near future. Lines near the city are underground at the moment, but it would take a lot of development in the suburbs to force the Government to sink the suburban lines. I like looking out a window and seeing sky while I'm in a train anyway. Its a much more pleasant and safer experience than using a subway.

Sinking, or more precisely decking, of railway lines would be a project undertaken by private developers. And there is little point sinking railways that have worked fine for a hundred years and level crossings are only a problem where tram and train tracks intersect.

canada is better air connected...and it is nearer to more world countries than Australia....international tickets are cheaper....

canada is better air connected...and it is nearer to more world countries than Australia....international tickets are cheaper....

Have you flown around Australia? Or to it from elsewhere? I have been down here awhile and have found Internationally this Country is Well connected! Domestically between the major centers the air traffic would rival anything in Canada.

It's worth pointing out that when I last looked up the length of Toronto's streetcar network, it was measured in terms of track length, which (assuming double track throughout the network) needs to be halved to get a more useful figure of route km. Either that, or Toronto has done some massive construction and overtaken Melbourne and most European networks.


You are correct. In fact, halving it would not make it accurate either, as there is track that is used to get streetcars around that isn't actually part of scheduled routes. So, scheduled route length would actually be a bit less than half.

The city has just announced a plan for 80kms of new LRT on 7 new lines. When or if that gets built, in whole or in part is anybody's guess. It has approved and received funding for an 8.7 km heavy rail subway extention though.

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/4638/reportmap1800pxom6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)



Here is the average weekday ridership (boardings) numbers for inner city (City of Toronto proper) TTC rail (does not include GO Transit commuter service) by line or route. 2005-2006


Heavy rail subway:

1 Yonge-University-Spadina: 628,990
2 Bloor-Danforth: 473,250
3 Scarborough RT: 42,520
4 Sheppard: 41,290

Total heavy rail = 1,186,050


LRT (streetcar)

511 Bathurst 13,600
506 carlton 41,200
502 Downtowner/503 Kingston Rd 6,100
505 Dundas 35,200
504 King/508 Lakeshore 47,900
501 Queen 41,200
510 Spadina/509 Harbourfront 43,400
512 St Clair 31,000

Total LRT = 259,600

Total rail boardings within city proper = 1,445,650





KGB

I've never been to Australia so I won't vote. I would be surprised if Canada didn't have more of everything since Canada is about 50% larger in area and 50% larger in population.

Roads and highways I know that Canada's are significantly more extensive, but what about ferries, subways, airports, sea ports? Could someone from Australia give us a low down on these? Some photos and useful facts would be great.

I've seen some Australian infrastructure pics: very interesting. Would love to see more.

Ferries are a viable mode of transport in Sydney, not sure about the other cities. They're only a tourist attraction in Melbourne because of the low bridges over the Yarra River. For longer distances, there's the Spirit of Tasmania which connects Tasmania (at Devonport) to the mainland (at Port Melbourne).

http://vq.id.au/dump/spiritoftasmania.jpg

Subways - none exist in Australia. However, Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth all have electric suburban railways which are quite substantial and Adelaide has a diesel suburban network. New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia also have regional networks suitable for commuting to their respective capital cities.

Airports - Sydney to Melbourne is one of the world's busiest air routes and the timetable resembles a bus timetable. With the size of the country, air travel is of course very important.

Seaports - Australia is surrounded by the sea, so everything goes through them. :)

^^^ 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.

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

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.

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.

^^^ 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.

^^ 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.

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.


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.


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.

^^ 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.

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) (membres.lycos.fr/cartesferro/)

For Australia (& NZ) (http://www.railmaps.com.au/) (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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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:

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

What is Sydney's subway system like?

What is Sydney's subway system like?

Imaginary.

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

Imaginary.

Oh.....

Toronto wins. :)

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

Oh.....

Toronto wins. :)

How about Sydney's street cars? What are those like?
Historical.. (ie: gone for the past 50 years)

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

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

They have commuter trains...which they are apparantly quite proud of.




KGB

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

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

They have a monorail? That runs for a few stations downtown (imagine that running on Queen or whatever from University to Yonge).

Wow, commuter trains?! :D Like GO, Agence métropolitaine de transport, and West Coast Express?? How lovely! They're almost as developed as a city of 2 million!

Queen from University to Yonge? I've never been to Toronto but I know that that isn't very much.

This is a really depressing sad. :(

What is Melbourne's public transit network like? Do they have commuter rail, subway, LRT, street cars, buses, BRT, and national lines too?

Does Toronto even have BRT? :shrug:

You guys are so nice. :)

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

Effective public transport is partially supply-driven. Of course there's not going to be any demand for suburban mass transit if your chances of having a train turn up in the direction you want to travel is virtually nil. People will stick behind the wheel, ergo you have the terrifying Hwy 401.


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.

So is it a simple proposition to get from Toronto to downtown Mississauga during the morning rush as it is to get from Sydney to Parramatta? There doesn't appear to be a GO station there.


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.


Yeah but what about the majority of Greater Torontonians who live in the suburbs is what I'm saying.






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.


You know I only do it because I love you guys and can't stand to see you stumble under the terrible weight of the feelings of superiority you bear. :)

Wow, commuter trains?! :D Like GO, Agence métropolitaine de transport, and West Coast Express??

No, not like those at all. I wouldn't expect you to understand, after all we all know that North America really got stiffed when it comes to main line passenger rail. :) Suburban rail is quite a different proposition to what you're used to.

P.S. could you post some pics of far-northern Canadian infrastructure so we can compare to the outback?

"So is it a simple proposition to get from Toronto to downtown Mississauga during the morning rush as it is to get from Sydney to Parramatta? There doesn't appear to be a GO station there."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GOTrain.svg <See this

Ok..

Long Branch to Clarkson on the red line is Mississauga..
Dixie to Meadowvale on the orange is Mississauga..
I'm pretty sure Malton and maybe Bramalea? Are also in Mississauga..

The Orange one goes to Mississauga's core. (At least I think it does?)

Northern Infrastructure?

Ontario Northland is a regional rail service, not really good for commuting though, but it's there. Algoma Rail is a similar service.

Sudbury (156,000), Thunder Bay (110,000), Sault Sainte Marie (80,000), North Bay (56,000), Timmins (45,000), Kenora (15,000), and Terrace Bay-Schreiber (3,000) have bus transit serving their urban areas. I can't speak for the others, but Thunder Bay's Transit system runs from 5:30am to 1:30am and covers the entire city except for one little suburb of 2,000 which won't pay the 0.05% tax for having buses. Sudbury has something like 25 lines, and an on-demand taxi service in rural areas. I could even be missing some cities, I don't know if Temiskaming Shores (11,000) Dryden (9,000), Fort Frances (8,000) or Kapuskasing (8,000) have buses.

What kind of transit do cities of 5 to 12 thousand in Australia have?

That's just Northern Ontario. Iqaluit (8,000) had a bus, but it broke down. :)


Anyway, explain main line passenger rail and Suburban rail. I'm guessing Suburban Rail is similar to Vancouver's (2.5 million) skytrain?

Thanks Vid. Which station/s are in the downtown core?

Exhibition is somewhat downtown.. Only Union is the true downtown station.

Erindale and Streetsville (Orange) are Downtown Mississauga, Port Credit (Red) is also a commercial centre located in the municipality.

Doesn't Toronto have about two or three subway lines? :sly:

I don't see the problem with Australias commuter rail services at all, the Sydney system has great area coverage, probably more than that of the bigger Canadian cities. I don't think below ground services around Australian cities are that necessary, as the tracks and stations don't need to be sheltered from blizzards.

Common sense would tell you that a subway would be completely inappropriate for Sydney, as there is no benefit in digging kilometres of expensive tunnels under such a wide harbour.

As for streetcars, Melbourne is ahead of Toronto there.