SkepticalButOpenMinded

Canada is wealthier than most European and Asian countries with far better public transportation. The excuses are endless, but this is honestly just a problem of lack of will and imagination.

Why don’t you ask me first instead of writing your first ridiculous bad faith comment? I have no obligation to take time and effort to respond carefully to that kind of intellectual dishonesty. “What, just add buses like I said?” shows an unwillingness to actually learn anything.

If you’re actually curious and asking in good faith, here’s another more reasonable way to ask your question: Is there anything reasonable that can be done to incrementally improve public transportation? The answer is obviously yes.

• infill existing developments with added density. For example, we massively overbuild parking lots. Most are half empty even at the busiest times of day. Build low rise apartments in these areas. For example, a small apartment in the parking lot of supermarket strip mall. Infilling is already happening.
• infill suburban neighborhoods with additional units. Allow secondary units, basement units, eliminate set backs, allow townhouses and mid rise apartments everywhere. Added density doesn’t have to look that different.
• repurpose the thousands of vacant malls into housing. Malls are already conveniently located next to highways and other businesses. Parking lots around malls are a blank canvas for a new walkable urban center. This is already happening.
• eliminate parking minimums for new constructions.
• eliminate exclusive single family home zoning for new constructions.
• don’t allow any more new suburban sprawl.
• build sidewalks, bike lanes and separated bike roads. Most suburban streets are enormous and can easily be modified without greatly affecting traffic.
• allow mixed zoning, such as small corner stores in suburban residential areas. Even a single small grocer, coffee shop, childcare center, etc can start to eliminate some (not all!) local car trips. The US and Canada are some of the only places where you literally can’t have anything interesting in a residential area.
• in Europe and Asia, even low density suburbs get bus service. In combination with the measures above, bus service becomes worthwhile. Yes, even in the suburbs.
• make city centers car free or slowly start to eliminate places cars can go. This encourages the use of other modes, increases economic activity, and makes people safer. The most valuable real estate in the world is not car centric.
• the highway system is crumbling and many highways need to be totally replaced. This is an opportunity to build trains or dedicated bus lines.

These aren’t my opinion. This is what many urban planning experts propose, and the empirical evidence say they work. Don’t tell me it’s impossible because it’s already happening!

“But this wouldn’t work in my personal neighborhood!”

OK. It doesn’t have to work everywhere for things to improve. We will always need some cars, but we can at least move away from car centric urban planning.

I shouldn’t have to say this, but no, “moving away from” does not mean “completely raze”. 🙄

I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that improving public transportation requires cities to be “completely razed”. What a ridiculous straw person. Incremental change is not only possible, it’s already happening.

Oh no, I already have this super power.

The top three public transit systems in North America are in the US, not Canada. (NY, SF, and Chicago.) Vancouver’s is great for its size, but Toronto is ranked similarly to Los Angeles, and it shows with its car centric suburban sprawl and public resistance to density or expanding transit. The 401 is one of the worst highways on the continent.

I don’t know what you’re talking about. Canada is moving WAY slower than the US on density and public transportation. Many US cities are imposing supply minimums and eliminating exclusive SFH zoning, like in Minneapolis, Boston, and Portland. California, Oregon, and Maine have supply targets, while only BC has done the same. This is why the housing crisis and car dependence is much worse in Canada. We’re in total denial up here.

That is just empirically untrue. Almost to the point of delusion. Transportation is a HUGE problem.

• American transportation costs are some of the highest in the world, and is the biggest hit on family budgets after housing.
• Cars are one of the biggest sources of greenhouse gas pollution causing climate change.
• Tire pollution is the biggest source of micro plastics in the ocean.
• Driving is the deadliest activity we regularly do, the biggest source of childhood death, though guns are now not far behind in the US.
• Car centric urban design leads to long commute times, social isolation, lack of exercise, all of which are much worse in car centric places.
• Car centric suburban sprawl is why the US and Canada have a housing crisis, despite so much space.

On the contrary, I can hardly think of anything else that has as much negative impact on so many aspects of society.

Why not worry about both? Whataboutism.

And while we’re at it, why not use that worry to move away from car centric urban design and culture in general because cars are unavoidably dangerous and costly.

Never forget a name or face.

Yes, sometimes Amazon is cheaper. But one reason I quit amazon was because, even when it’s cheaper, I got so much counterfeit and super low quality disposable junk.

Seriously, take another look at your local stores. I suspect many people aren’t and are just making assumptions. I was surprised to find my local pet store offers free delivery, and literally everything at my local mom and pop hardware store is cheaper and better quality.

People should check again. After I decided to avoid Amazon, I’m surprised by how many things are cheaper and/or better quality at my local stores. I think Amazons reputation for lowest prices is less true every year.

The context provided in the question is of big companies buying smaller companies and ruining them. OP asked if “the opposite ever happens”, which I interpret to mean a big corporation buying a smaller company and it NOT going to shit.

Sure we can talk about any change in ownership whatsoever, but that seems like a complete change in topic with an obvious answer.