Cost of housing in Canada

[Brad Sallows]

If you conveniently ignore that people are moving to cities faster than away that makes sense.

People move to cities because where there are more people and jobs, there are more opportunities. People are willing to forgo the personal space if it means they can have more access to entertainment, shopping, jobs, etc..

Canadian cities apart from Montreal and Toronto don't really have good rail transit, because everything has been so heavily biased toward cars. I'd wager that if places like New York*, Chicago, London, Tokyo, and Singapore have figured out rail transit, so places like Vancouver, Ottawa, Edmonton and Winnipeg can too.

*America has the same car culture as us, and yet they have figured out how to mix both cars and transit. Likely because their cities aren't pretending that they are small towns with a bit of a traffic problem.

People moving to cities aggravates the problem of a rail line which is already incapable of dependably serving peak capacity. The same problem (large queues of passengers) exists along some bus routes, but as has been done repeatedly in the past, "more buses".

I suppose "people" is shorthand for "young people", which isn't the same thing at all as "people".

Most of the places that "figured out" rail transit were able to do so because "figured out" essentially means "were able to build before the onset of skyrocketing costs".

I wish rail enthusiasts luck - it would be preferable were they to succeed - but I want them to do it with the riderships' money. In case anyone wants to bleat out "but roads are subsidized and constructed at public expense!" I remind them in advance that roads are also usable by everyone. I doubt I'll ever be permitted to take a privately owned vehicle onto a rail line.

 

[dapaterson]

Don't travel much on major highways during the day, do you?

I do in fact. Most space is wasted by single occupant vehicles, with most capacity over time unused because of a refusal to use tools such as time of day access pricing to level out the loads.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I do in fact. Most space is wasted by single occupant vehicles, with most capacity over time unused because of a refusal to use tools such as time of day access pricing to level out the loads.

Time-of-day pricing is one of those ideas that sounds great, and obviously provides some benefit away from peak hours, but is unlikely to shift much of the traffic bulges that result from when people have to report for work/school.

A claim of "wasted by single occupant" is meaningless without assessing all the "unseen" costs. A value can be attached to every reason a person has for travelling alone instead of carpooling or using transit. I'd guess, for example, that travelling alone loses less time to sick days. While I was using transit I customarily picked up at least two respiratory infections a year. Since I stopped, over 6 years ago, I've had exactly one (recently, and which I can guess was most likely a result of the hours I spent in airplanes and airports in the preceding days).

 

[Remius]

Your 5 foreign examples of cities that have “figured out“ rail transport are all orders of magnitude more densely populated than any Canadian city. I would also wager that there is not a single rail transit system in the world that operates at a profit- they are all taxpayer subsidized. Which is fine: just be sure you understand what trade-offs you are prepared to make for limited tax dollars.

I would also argue that those foreign examples get nowhere near the amount of snow and freeze here either…

 

[YZT580]

People moving to cities aggravates the problem of a rail line which is already incapable of dependably serving peak capacity. The same problem (large queues of passengers) exists along some bus routes, but as has been done repeatedly in the past, "more buses".

I suppose "people" is shorthand for "young people", which isn't the same thing at all as "people".

Most of the places that "figured out" rail transit were able to do so because "figured out" essentially means "were able to build before the onset of skyrocketing costs".

I wish rail enthusiasts luck - it would be preferable were they to succeed - but I want them to do it with the riderships' money. In case anyone wants to bleat out "but roads are subsidized and constructed at public expense!" I remind them in advance that roads are also usable by everyone. I doubt I'll ever be permitted to take a privately owned vehicle onto a rail line.

your comments on buses works until it doesn't. Cities have tried separate lanes and they work except when accidents inconveniently sprawl across and then they don't. And then there is snow removal and that gums up about 2 weeks per year. The notion of factory towns died with the advent of the automobile. There is no perfect solution for public transit. I happen to be a fan of street cars,not fancy LrT but simple red rockets on a separate medium such as the Lakeshore in Etobikoke or the interurban near KNoccke in Belgium. Can add and subtract 80 every two minutes as many times as you have spare vehicles.

 

[Brad Sallows]

your comments on buses works until it doesn't. Cities have tried separate lanes and they work except when accidents inconveniently sprawl across and then they don't. And then there is snow removal and that gums up about 2 weeks per year. The notion of factory towns died with the advent of the automobile. There is no perfect solution for public transit. I happen to be a fan of street cars,not fancy LrT but simple red rockets on a separate medium such as the Lakeshore in Etobikoke or the interurban near KNoccke in Belgium. Can add and subtract 80 every two minutes as many times as you have spare vehicles.

A completely obstructed road with no alternative routes is pretty rare. Maybe where you live buses don't get re-routed, and during the equivalent rail closures (meaning: complete) the trains get switched onto other tracks? Also I must suppose that where you live rail is immune to snow (not here).

You are free to argue exceptions; I don't care when they are miniscule compared to the big picture. You're correct that there are no perfect solutions. But some are more flexible (buses) than others (rail). Additional fun fact: ridership studies often show that net ridership decreases after the introduction of rail (or more rail) systems. Why? Still debatable, but the observable, observed, and favoured mechanism is that transit agencies start cannibalizing bus services to shore up the cost of rail services. The people on discontinued and reduced service bus routes go back into cars or start looking for new homes closer to work, pushing up the demand (and thus prices). Win, win!

I'm not advocating factory towns, except in the sense that every town is a factory town - there has to be some essential fundamental commercial activity that gives it purpose. I am advocating moving some workplaces out of city centres. Spread the workplaces around and congestion will be reduced. I suppose I'd better make the obvious pedantic objection before someone else does: "What about the guy living in Squamish and commuting to downtown Vancouver who wants to continue living in Squamish after his workplace moves out to Abbotsford? Huh? What about him?"

 

[Kirkhill]

If you conveniently ignore that people are moving to cities faster than away that makes sense.

People move to cities because where there are more people and jobs, there are more opportunities. People are willing to forgo the personal space if it means they can have more access to entertainment, shopping, jobs, etc..

Canadian cities apart from Montreal and Toronto don't really have good rail transit, because everything has been so heavily biased toward cars. I'd wager that if places like New York*, Chicago, London, Tokyo, and Singapore have figured out rail transit, so places like Vancouver, Ottawa, Edmonton and Winnipeg can too.

*America has the same car culture as us, and yet they have figured out how to mix both cars and transit. Likely because their cities aren't pretending that they are small towns with a bit of a traffic problem.

Re London.

Ref ULEZ, TfL, Tube ridership.

Check this week's news.

Of your examples the only one I would give credence to is Singapore which, as a city-state, has no hinterlands to tax to support the local service users. Singapore's revenues and salaries all come from buying and selling and logistics.

 

[Kirkhill]

If you conveniently ignore that people are moving to cities faster than away that makes sense.

People move to cities because where there are more people and jobs, there are more opportunities. People are willing to forgo the personal space if it means they can have more access to entertainment, shopping, jobs, etc..

Canadian cities apart from Montreal and Toronto don't really have good rail transit, because everything has been so heavily biased toward cars. I'd wager that if places like New York*, Chicago, London, Tokyo, and Singapore have figured out rail transit, so places like Vancouver, Ottawa, Edmonton and Winnipeg can too.

*America has the same car culture as us, and yet they have figured out how to mix both cars and transit. Likely because their cities aren't pretending that they are small towns with a bit of a traffic problem.

Re people moving to cities:

Did Nepean move to Ottawa or did Ottawa move to Nepean?
I know that Calgary moved to Bowness and to Midnapore.
I know that Vancouver moved to Aldergrove.
Toronto seems to be making ever greater claims on what is Greater Toronto / Golden Horseshoe (apparently some folks now consider Peterborough part of the Golden Horseshoe with the Horseshoe centred on Toronto.

In England my first homes there were in Bedfont and Sunbury on Thames. Both of those were in Middlesex. That county now exists solely as the Middlesex County Cricket Club, denizens of The Oval at Lords. We moved to the other shore of the Thames to Surrey. That too is now part of London.

When people talk about more people moving to cities I think they tend to overlook the tendency of city authorities to expand outwards and claim rural communities.

Greater London

Area	1,572 km2 (607 sq mi)
Population	9,002,488[2]
Density	5,701/km2 (14,770/sq mi)

City of London

Area
• City	1.12 sq mi (2.90 km2)

Population (2021)
• City	8,583
• Rank	308th (of 314)
• Density	7,700/sq mi (3,000/km2)

City of Toronto

Area [4][5][6]
• City	630.20 km2 (243.32 sq mi)

Population (2021)[7]
• City	2,794,356 (1st)
• Density	4,427.8/km2 (11,468/sq mi)

Greater Toronto

Area
• Land	7,123.64 km2 (2,750.45 sq mi)

Population (2021)
• Total	6,711,985
• Density	1,033.77/km2 (2,677.5/sq mi)
	Combined population of Halton, Peel, Toronto, York, Durham

Reputedly all the wealth of Britain derives from the "Square Mile" of "The City". And for a millenium or two people have been clustering around it selling stuff to The City. The City has been trying to manage this mob of outsiders for just as long even as people escaped The City and moved out to the country in places like Covent Gardens and Hampstead Heath. To manage these folks and to secure the taxes it felt necessary it extended its authority. But every time it extended its authority the area serviced became larger, the population density become lower an it cost more money to police and service the larger area with relatively fewer taxpayers. And so The City went searching for more taxpayers to tax and extended its boundaries into areas where it couldn't afford to offer the same services that those in the Square Mile had become accustomed to.

Same thing happened in Vancouver. We in Aldergrove were taxed with green levies on tires and batteries to encourage the use of transit but our kids access to Greater Vancouver was a bus once an hour 8 hours a day and there was no way I was going to let them ride that bus due to safety concerns. We bought in Aldergrove because

A. It wasn't downtown
B. It was rural
C. It was accessible
D. It was affordable

When Greater Vancouver reached out it became less affordable and no more accessible. We moved.


Toronto is doing the same thing.

And Ottawa?
The further it stretches to find new taxpayers to fund monumental public works the less it looks like a City and the more it looks like a Country.

Population (2021)
• Federal capital city	1,017,449 (4th)[5]
• Density	365/km2 (950/sq mi)
• Urban	1,068,821 [10]
• Urban density	1,954/km2 (5,060/sq mi)
• Metro	1,488,307 (4th)
• Metro density	185/km2 (480/sq mi)

Area [7][8][9]
• Federal capital city	2,790.31 km2 (1,077.34 sq mi)
• Land	2,778.10 km2 (1,072.63 sq mi)
• Urban	520.82 km2 (201.09 sq mi)
• Metro	6,767.41 km2 (2,612.91 sq mi)

England

Population
• Mid-2021 estimate	56,536,000
• 2021 census	56,490,048
• Density	434/km2 (1,124.1/sq mi)[3]

Scotland

Population
• Mid-2021 estimate	5,480,000
• 2011 census	5,295,403
• Density	70/km2 (181.3/sq mi)[

Ireland

Population
• 2022 estimate	5,123,536[4] (122nd)
• 2022 census	5,149,139[5]
• Density	71.3/km2 (184.7/sq mi) (113th)

Netherlands

Population
• 19 August 2023 estimate	17,900,200[7] (68th)
• 2011 census	16,655,799[8]
• Density	520/km2 (1,346.8/sq mi) (16th)

Even the Netherlands with all its wealth and dense population struggles to bring a train to every door. Hence bicycles, although people still drive cars.

 

[YZT580]

A completely obstructed road with no alternative routes is pretty rare. Maybe where you live buses don't get re-routed, and during the equivalent rail closures (meaning: complete) the trains get switched onto other tracks? Also I must suppose that where you live rail is immune to snow (not here).

You are free to argue exceptions; I don't care when they are miniscule compared to the big picture. You're correct that there are no perfect solutions. But some are more flexible (buses) than others (rail). Additional fun fact: ridership studies often show that net ridership decreases after the introduction of rail (or more rail) systems. Why? Still debatable, but the observable, observed, and favoured mechanism is that transit agencies start cannibalizing bus services to shore up the cost of rail services. The people on discontinued and reduced service bus routes go back into cars or start looking for new homes closer to work, pushing up the demand (and thus prices). Win, win!

I'm not advocating factory towns, except in the sense that every town is a factory town - there has to be some essential fundamental commercial activity that gives it purpose. I am advocating moving some workplaces out of city centres. Spread the workplaces around and congestion will be reduced. I suppose I'd better make the obvious pedantic objection before someone else does: "What about the guy living in Squamish and commuting to downtown Vancouver who wants to continue living in Squamish after his workplace moves out to Abbotsford? Huh? What about him?"

rare, not really. Is an alternative really viable that adds an hour or even two to the bus ride or auto commute which is the same thing? You have a flight that leaves at 3. Your airbus picks you up at 11>30 for a 30 minute ride. At 3 you watch your flight depart overhead as you sit on the 427 because the bus company refuses to pay the toll. And yes, I am being pedantic to make a point. Nor are they minuscule random exceptions when they occur on a regular basis. I have spent extra hours weekly on the 401 between Milton and Cambridge because one of those random incidents has blocked two or more of the available lanes. Rail can be quite reliable even in winter but it requires the use of plows which were discontinued as a cost saving measure in this province decades ago. The TTC has been running the red rocket in winter conditions for over a century. They simply added sand boxes. Go on youtube and look for clips of city buses sliding out when a bit of ice forms. Fun fact back at you, buses don't have winter tires, are rear wheel drive, and are unable to climb most grades unless they have been plowed and sanded.
The point being that unless you are walking, you are totally dependent on the other guy to not screw up or you will be late at some point. But what has that to do with the price of housing? That is the topic at hand. People should be free to choose where they wish to live provided they are willing to pay the bucks. People should not be in the position where they cannot choose a reasonable residential solution because of poor decision making on the part of government. That second sentence covers everything from transit, to roads to paid incentives to businesses to locate in particular areas and finally to immigration.

 

[Brad Sallows]

But what has that to do with the price of housing? That is the topic at hand. People should be free to choose where they wish to live provided they are willing to pay the bucks. People should not be in the position where they cannot choose a reasonable residential solution because of poor decision making on the part of government. That second sentence covers everything from transit, to roads to paid incentives to businesses to locate in particular areas and finally to immigration.

It (transit) has a lot to do with the price of housing, because the demand for housing is influenced by where people work, and the ability to move between the two locations is a critical factor. One of the things transit has to be able to do is to follow demographic changes and shifts in where people choose to live and work. Rail transit is expensive and fixed. A poor decision results in what amounts to a stranded asset. It represents a huge opportunity cost: what is the next best, or perhaps more effective way, that the money could be spent? There should be no illusion that a decision to build rail transit is always a hard dispassionate numbers-crunching game; emotions and aesthetic and ideological preferences are brought to bear. Exhibit A is the high-speed rail line in California ("train to nowhere").

 

[lenaitch]

When Greater Vancouver reached out it became less affordable and no more accessible. We moved.


Toronto is doing the same thing.

And Ottawa?
The further it stretches to find new taxpayers to fund monumental public works the less it looks like a City and the more it looks like a Country.

It seems that, in the Canadian context, the villain is the province, not the individual municipality. I will guess "Greater Vancouver" isn't a jurisdiction, but probably some kind of regional concept for "planning purposes". Similarly, Toronto hasn't changed its boundaries since 1954. The surrounding regional governments as well as the various iterations of Golden Horseshoe, Greater Golden Horseshoe, Greater Horseshoe and Hamilton, etc., etc. are all entities of the province. The current City of Ottawa is essentially Carleton County, and was created as a single-tier government in 2001.

 

[Kirkhill]

From many mayors to one mayor?

Amalgamation of Toronto - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And while it is true that the cities are creatures of the province in this case the province is just down the street from the city.

Same boards of directors sitting at different tables. And both Ottawa and Toronto are a long way away from Kenora.

 

[Furniture]

It (transit) has a lot to do with the price of housing, because the demand for housing is influenced by where people work, and the ability to move between the two locations is a critical factor. One of the things transit has to be able to do is to follow demographic changes and shifts in where people choose to live and work. Rail transit is expensive and fixed. A poor decision results in what amounts to a stranded asset. It represents a huge opportunity cost: what is the next best, or perhaps more effective way, that the money could be spent? There should be no illusion that a decision to build rail transit is always a hard dispassionate numbers-crunching game; emotions and aesthetic and ideological preferences are brought to bear. Exhibit A is the high-speed rail line in California ("train to nowhere").

Or, in the case of most systems, busses take people to the railhead...

Rail is a part of a transit solution, not the only part of it.

Where do you live? How often do you interact with rail, LRT, and busses?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Or, in the case of most systems, busses take people to the railhead...

Rail is a part of a transit solution, not the only part of it.

Where do you live? How often do you interact with rail, LRT, and busses?

Mixed transit is the solution. Rail needs to be used strategically in combination with busses, bicycles, automobiles, etc.

Rather than rail lines running all over hells half acre, they should extend like a web from a central location to strategic points where people can use busses, bicycles and good old fashioned rubber cadillacs to get them the last couple of miles to their destination.

The only City in Canada that does this correctly is Montreal:



The City core is accessible from any bedroom community and reliable bus service is used to make up the last couple of miles of travel.

The network is also continuously being expanded and new lines are being built.

Toronto's transit system is terrible, but it is slowly improving. Toronto is in the process of trying to bring it self up to a reasonable standard.

Canada needs more of this as well:

Build them right beside the Metro Stations, in addition to more car parkades.


Oh and last thing....


Stop operating passenger trains on freight train lines. It's wildly inefficient, reduces the maximum speed your passenger trains can operate at and is also limiting factor in how many are able to operate on the line.

 

[mariomike]

Locally, the Union-Pearson ( UP ) Express has been a significant improvement.

$2.51 to Union in 8 minutes.

$2.68 to Pearson in 17 minutes.

Just tap your Presto.

Trains run every 15 minutes. Weekdays, weekends and holidays.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Or, in the case of most systems, busses take people to the railhead...

Rail is a part of a transit solution, not the only part of it.

Where do you live? How often do you interact with rail, LRT, and busses?

I used transit for a handful of years when transit became almost time-competitive with my car, and when on occasion I had to work out of offices in downtown Vancouver. One option I used started when a new bus loop was built nearby with a new non-stop express route to a Skytrain station; another was park-and-ride. By "time-competitive" I mean the morning commute to my usual workplace took a little less than twice as long as by car, and the afternoon commute was about the same (we had flex time so I could choose to commute at less-than-absolute-peak times). Trips all the way downtown were a little shorter than they would have been by car, but the chief wrinkle there was parking (availability and cost). What I mainly was doing was trading time and convenience (car) for cost (taking into account all costs, transit was a bit less expensive - at that time my combined cost of fuel and insurance premium for driving to work were less than fare costs, but factoring in mileage swung the balance; for most of my working life parking was free at the workplaces). Parenthetically, for a few months here and there over the years I worked where bicycling was practical, and also for a few years I lived where the Hastings bus to SFU gave me a straight shot to work.

Work-from-home and work-from-any-office completely altered the weights of factors. In particular, work-from-any-office made it crystal clear to me that the key to alleviating/resolving so many of these problems is moving workplaces, not residences. Not every workplace has to move. Shifting peak working hours would also help - this was made obvious to me after a handful of years experiencing what happens when public schools go out for the summer and return in the fall. Not every workplace has to be able to shift hours.

The desire of authorities to somehow press people into accepting high-density living across their entire adult lives is just trying to piss into a hurricane.

 

[YZT580]

Mixed transit is the solution. Rail needs to be used strategically in combination with busses, bicycles, automobiles, etc.

Rather than rail lines running all over hells half acre, they should extend like a web from a central location to strategic points where people can use busses, bicycles and good old fashioned rubber cadillacs to get them the last couple of miles to their destination.

The only City in Canada that does this correctly is Montreal:

View attachment 79556

The City core is accessible from any bedroom community and reliable bus service is used to make up the last couple of miles of travel.

The network is also continuously being expanded and new lines are being built.

Toronto's transit system is terrible, but it is slowly improving. Toronto is in the process of trying to bring it self up to a reasonable standard.

Canada needs more of this as well:

Build them right beside the Metro Stations, in addition to more car parkades.


Oh and last thing....


Stop operating passenger trains on freight train lines. It's wildly inefficient, reduces the maximum speed your passenger trains can operate at and is also limiting factor in how many are able to operate on the line.

bikes are only good with the proper infrastructure that is separate from cars and even then, in most Canadian cities winter will limit their application. The rest I fully agree with especially the integrated concept. The cities need to get their planners to stop thinking grandiose and put a little common sense into it. For instance the LRT's are far more elaborate than they need to be. A simple trolley line installed on a hydro right of way or parallel to an existing freight line needn't cost the multi millions that we spend on acquiring land and tearing up roads. Single and double coaches at the largest require smaller stations and can make shorter turns without the squealing that is plaguing oc transpo. Traffic increases just add another unit. Think smart instead of big

 

[Kirkhill]

Mixed transit is the solution. Rail needs to be used strategically in combination with busses, bicycles, automobiles, etc.

Rather than rail lines running all over hells half acre, they should extend like a web from a central location to strategic points where people can use busses, bicycles and good old fashioned rubber cadillacs to get them the last couple of miles to their destination.

The only City in Canada that does this correctly is Montreal:

View attachment 79556

The City core is accessible from any bedroom community and reliable bus service is used to make up the last couple of miles of travel.

The network is also continuously being expanded and new lines are being built.

Toronto's transit system is terrible, but it is slowly improving. Toronto is in the process of trying to bring it self up to a reasonable standard.

Canada needs more of this as well:

Build them right beside the Metro Stations, in addition to more car parkades.


Oh and last thing....


Stop operating passenger trains on freight train lines. It's wildly inefficient, reduces the maximum speed your passenger trains can operate at and is also limiting factor in how many are able to operate on the line.

While we were living in Aldergrove, bemoaning the lack of connectivity to Vancouver, a new pub opened up. It was called the Stationhouse Pub and Grill and was on Station Road. It was about a 10 minute walk from our front door.

The British Columbia Electric Railway (BCER) was an historic railway which operated in southwestern British Columbia, Canada. Originally the parent company for, and later a division of, BC Electric Company (now BC Hydro), the BCER assumed control of existing streetcar and interurban lines in southwestern British Columbia in 1897, and operated the electric railway systems in the region until the last interurban service was discontinued in 1958.[1] During and after the streetcar era, BC Electric also ran bus and trolleybus systems in Greater Vancouver and bus service in Greater Victoria; these systems subsequently became part of BC Transit, and the routes in Greater Vancouver eventually came under the control of TransLink. Trolley buses still run in the City of Vancouver with one line extending into Burnaby.

British Columbia Electric Railway - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm not against rail, or public transit generally. And like highways I expect that there will be surplus capacity. I also expect that somebody should pay for the system and those that benefit should pay. You can define benefit as you will.

I am not opposed to "inefficiency" either. Working with the fishing industry I became used to highly profitable but inefficient systems. It comes with a seasonal industry. Billions of dollars worth of processing gear and boats sat idle for most of the year, operating for 5 to 10 weeks annually. The operating and capital costs were covered in those few, highly productive, weeks.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Working with the fishing industry I became used to highly profitable but inefficient systems. It comes with a seasonal industry. Billions of dollars worth of processing gear and boats sat idle for most of the year, operating for 5 to 10 weeks annually. The operating and capital costs were covered in those few, highly productive, weeks.

Threadjack: As I am accustomed to doing, a contrarian take: achieving a lot in a short time looks to me like high efficiency. Since I suppose you might be referring to the net-based salmon fisheries (seiners and gillnetters), the efficiency is even higher taking into account that over the duration of the "season" there are actually only a few "opening" which are often measured in hours. Even the trollers are relatively efficient, albeit for a typically longer season (mid-spring to early fall). (I had fishers in the family - salmon, herring, halibut, packers, and I deckhanded part of 2 seasons on my grandfather's troller.)

 

[Kirkhill]

Threadjack: As I am accustomed to doing, a contrarian take: achieving a lot in a short time looks to me like high efficiency. Since I suppose you might be referring to the net-based salmon fisheries (seiners and gillnetters), the efficiency is even higher taking into account that over the duration of the "season" there are actually only a few "opening" which are often measured in hours. Even the trollers are relatively efficient, albeit for a typically longer season (mid-spring to early fall). (I had fishers in the family - salmon, herring, halibut, packers, and I deckhanded part of 2 seasons on my grandfather's troller.)

Fair enough. English is a wonderful language. Efficiency and Benefits can both be defined variously.

Your right about the salmon industry. It also applied to Bering Sea pollock, west coast hake/whiting and the Bristol Bay herring as well as the crabbers.

The pollock industry was an interesting case because it started as "derby" fishery - come one come all and fill your boots until the quota runs out - and changed to a fixed quota system (kind of like a maritime version of Canadian dairy quotas).

The old fishery generated a large fleet of new boats which sat idle waiting for the derby to start. The new fishery resulted in many of those boats being idled permanently and the fleet generally aging. Meanwhile the money was made by the holders of the quotas, which could be transferred for cash, and not the fishers. But the fishery was deemed to be more sustainable.