[Gdoggy]

Population on July 1 Change
2010 2006 2001 2001-2010
========== ========== ========== =========
California 37,266,600 35,947,461 34,481,753 2,784,847
Texas 25,213,445 23,356,591 21,330,190 3,883,255
New York 19,577,730 19,353,588 19,087,486 490,244
Florida 18,678,049 18,076,361 16,350,988 2,327,061
Ontario 13,210,700 12,160,282 11,410,046 1,800,654
Illinois 12,944,410 12,714,588 12,506,636 437,774
Pennsylvania 12,632,780 12,466,485 12,296,977 335,803
Ohio 11,532,111 11,490,596 11,395,572 136,539
Michigan 9,931,235 10,082,414 10,005,334 - 74,099
Georgia 9,908,357 9,323,575 8,418,687 1,489,670
North Carolina 9,458,888 8,853,849 8,202,468 1,256,420
New Jersey 8,732,811 8,619,354 8,488,427 244,384
Virginia 7,952,119 7,633,859 7,191,579 760,540
Quebec 7,907,400 7,631,600 7,237,479 669,921
Washington 6,746,199 6,371,097 5,988,346 757,853

[caltrane74]

Georgia and North Carolina have unreal growth rates.. If we don't watch it, they will catch us soon enough.

Florida and Ontario look to have about the same growth rate, which is good considering that Florida is also one of the fastest growing states.

California is a beast.

Ontario is outpacing Illinios and Pennsilvania ..... This should give us the heads up with regards to over taking Chicago in Population, which is one of my personal goals for Toronto. I mean, before we could overtake Chicago in population, Ontario at least had to overtake Illinios in population. Which we have done!!

[Gdoggy]

Georgia and North Carolina have unreal growth rates.. If we don't watch it, they will catch us soon enough.

Florida and Ontario look to have about the same growth rate, which is good considering that Florida is also one of the fastest growing states.

California is a beast.

Ontario is outpacing Illinios and Pennsilvania ..... This should give us the heads up with regards to over taking Chicago in Population, which is one of my personal goals for Toronto. I mean, before we could overtake Chicago in population, Ontario at least had to overtake Illinios in population. Which we have done!!

Georgia a few years ago grew by 200,000 a year. Their growth has been more than cut in half now. Last year the Toronto area alone grew by 10% more than the entire state of Georgia did.

[BretttheRiderFan]

Georgia and North Carolina have unreal growth rates.. If we don't watch it, they will catch us soon enough.

Florida and Ontario look to have about the same growth rate, which is good considering that Florida is also one of the fastest growing states.

California is a beast.

Ontario is outpacing Illinios and Pennsilvania ..... This should give us the heads up with regards to over taking Chicago in Population, which is one of my personal goals for Toronto. I mean, before we could overtake Chicago in population, Ontario at least had to overtake Illinios in population. Which we have done!!

As for city populations, it won't be long until this happens, because Chicago has been shrinking for about 50 years now, and Toronto is growing

If you are talking about metro populations, it will be a long time before Toronto catches up with Chicago, they are about 4 million higher than Toronto right now, and growing

I didn't realize Georgia had such a high population, very interesting

New Jersey is really an anomoly with it's position geographically. They don't really have any large metro areas within the State, most of their population lives in either suburbs of New York City or Philadelphia

[BretttheRiderFan]

Population on July 1 Change
2010 2006 2001 2001-2010
========== ========== ========== =========
California 37,266,600 35,947,461 34,481,753 2,784,847
Texas 25,213,445 23,356,591 21,330,190 3,883,255
New York 19,577,730 19,353,588 19,087,486 490,244
Florida 18,678,049 18,076,361 16,350,988 2,327,061
Ontario 13,210,700 12,160,282 11,410,046 1,800,654
Illinois 12,944,410 12,714,588 12,506,636 437,774
Pennsylvania 12,632,780 12,466,485 12,296,977 335,803
Ohio 11,532,111 11,490,596 11,395,572 136,539
Michigan 9,931,235 10,082,414 10,005,334 - 74,099
Georgia 9,908,357 9,323,575 8,418,687 1,489,670
North Carolina 9,458,888 8,853,849 8,202,468 1,256,420
New Jersey 8,732,811 8,619,354 8,488,427 244,384
Virginia 7,952,119 7,633,859 7,191,579 760,540
Quebec 7,907,400 7,631,600 7,237,479 669,921
Washington 6,746,199 6,371,097 5,988,346 757,853


Won't be long before Michigan is overtaken by Georgia

[Gdoggy]

Won't be long before Michigan is overtaken by Georgia

As these stats are from July 2010. It probably has already happened.

[BretttheRiderFan]

As these stats are from July 2010. It probably has already happened.

Also it looks like Florida will soon be larger than New York for population

[FrAnKs]

Oh wow, I'm still surprised to see Quebec on that list Lol ... probably not for a long time in the future. But after all, even if the Quebec's growth is not as good as we want to, it is not THAT bad...we're just 9 / 15 ! :P

[caltrane74]

When I was growing up, the Ontario Government, had projected that by the year 2000 the population of the province would have surpassed 14 million. And that the Toronto centered region would have a population of 7.7 million people. Well they were wayoff on one count, on the other they were closer as they included Hamilton in the Toronto projection....

[caltrane74]

In 1970 the provincial government disclosed its 'Design for Development: The Toronto Centered Region" The plan contained an estimate that by the year 2000 at least 8,000,000 of a total provincial population of 13,000,000 would live in the Toronto conurbation. Since Ontario is already experiencing serious pollution, traffic congestion, and complex social dislocations incidental to rapid urbanization, it is likely that public concern will increasingly be directed to the environmental and social consequences of further growth.

[CCF]

Would be interesting to see all 63 province/territory/state populations.

Anyone care to post it?

[goodthings]

:previous: :) We already know who's gonna be the 60th (PEI), 61st (NWT), 62nd (Yukon), and the 63rd (Nunavut)! :D

But it's interesting when will Nunavut take over Yukon. It will definitely happen, but how soon is the question.

[caltrane74]

Sounds like a good idea.. Ill try and put something together...

[Gdoggy]

I already have all the data, so here you go


Population on July 1 Change
2010 2006 2001 2001-2010
========== ========== ========== =========
California 37,266,600 35,947,461 34,481,753 2,784,847
Texas 25,213,445 23,356,591 21,330,190 3,883,255
New York 19,577,730 19,353,588 19,087,486 490,244
Florida 18,678,049 18,076,361 16,350,988 2,327,061
Ontario 13,210,700 12,160,282 11,410,046 1,800,654
Illinois 12,944,410 12,714,588 12,506,636 437,774
Pennsylvania 12,632,780 12,466,485 12,296,977 335,803
Ohio 11,532,111 11,490,596 11,395,572 136,539
Michigan 9,931,235 10,082,414 10,005,334 - 74,099
Georgia 9,908,357 9,323,575 8,418,687 1,489,670
North Carolina 9,458,888 8,853,849 8,202,468 1,256,420
New Jersey 8,732,811 8,619,354 8,488,427 244,384
Virginia 7,952,119 7,633,859 7,191,579 760,540
Quebec 7,907,400 7,631,600 7,237,479 669,921
Washington 6,746,199 6,371,097 5,988,346 757,853
Arizona 6,676,627 6,190,987 5,303,869 1,372,758
Massachusetts 6,631,280 6,466,069 6,411,336 219,944
Indiana 6,445,295 6,300,341 6,124,090 321,205
Tennessee 6,338,112 6,090,290 5,754,748 583,364
Missouri 6,011,741 5,857,974 5,642,852 368,889
Maryland 5,737,274 5,605,552 5,374,009 363,265
Wisconsin 5,668,519 5,571,510 5,408,099 260,420
Minnesota 5,290,447 5,147,857 4,982,180 308,267
Colorado 5,095,309 4,747,872 4,432,779 662,530
Alabama 4,729,656 4,594,911 4,463,343 266,313
South Carolina 4,596,958 4,334,146 4,062,301 534,657
British Columbia 4,531,000 4,113,487 3,907,738 623,262
Louisiana 4,529,426 4,237,693 4,460,400 69,026
Kentucky 4,339,435 4,216,783 4,068,775 270,660
Oregon 3,855,536 3,675,743 3,469,878 385,658
Oklahoma 3,724,447 3,571,612 3,463,996 260,451
Alberta 3,720,900 3,290,350 2,974,807 746,093
Connecticut 3,526,937 3,484,531 3,428,043 98,894
Iowa 3,023,081 2,965,203 2,929,240 93,841
Mississippi 2,960,467 2,896,691 2,853,090 107,377
Arkansas 2,910,236 2,814,910 2,690,743 219,493
Kansas 2,841,121 2,754,018 2,701,167 139,954
Utah 2,830,753 2,582,234 2,290,966 539,787
Nevada 2,654,751 2,491,122 2,094,338 560,413
New Mexico 2,033,875 1,940,631 1,828,437 205,438
West Virginia 1,825,513 1,808,136 1,798,190 27,323
Nebraska 1,811,072 1,759,327 1,717,672 93,400
Idaho 1,559,796 1,463,631 1,320,791 239,005
New Hampshire 1,323,531 1,311,184 1,256,685 66,846
Maine 1,312,939 1,313,479 1,284,295 28,644
Hawaii 1,300,086 1,269,228 1,218,790 81,296
Manitoba 1,235,400 1,148,401 1,119,583 115,817
Rhode Island 1,056,870 1,064,193 1,057,707 - 837
Saskatchewan 1,045,600 968,157 978,933 66,667
Montana 980,152 946,059 905,782 74,370
Nova Scotia 942,500 913,462 908,007 34,493
Delaware 891,464 853,301 794,954 96,510
South Dakota 820,077 786,973 758,803 61,274
New Brunswick 751,800 729,997 729,498 22,302
Alaska 708,862 675,322 633,538 75,324
North Dakota 653,778 636,019 636,225 17,553
Vermont 622,433 619,916 611,889 10,544
District of Columbia 610,589 583,841 578,228 32,361
Wyoming 547,637 512,664 492,976 54,661
Newfoundland 509,700 505,469 512,930 - 3,230
Prince Edward Island 142,300 135,851 135,294 7,006
Northwest Territories 43,800 41,464 37,360 6,440
Yukon Territory 34,500 30,372 28,674 5,826
Nunavut 33,200 29,474 26,745 6,455

[MonctonRad]

Being a contrarian by nature, here is a list of the bottom 15 states and provinces in 2010:

1. Prince Edward Island............142,300
2. Newfoundland & Labrador.....509,700
3. Wyoming.............................563,600
4. Vermont..............................625,700
5. North Dakota........................672,600
6. Alaska.................................710,200
7. New Brunswick.....................751,800
8. South Dakota........................814,200
9. Delaware..............................900,900
10. Nova Scotia.........................942,500
11. Montana.............................989,400
12. Saskatchewan..................1,029,100
13. Rhode Island....................1,052,600
14. Manitoba..........................1,219,600
15. New Hampshire.................1,316,500

EDIT: Rats, you beat me to it!

[fenwick16]

Being a contrarian by nature, here is a list of the bottom 15 states and provinces in 2010:


MonctonRad, your list makes provinces such as Nova Scotia and New Brunswick look much better. Maybe if we could list the population for the bottom 15 states/provinces in the year 2010 versus the population in the year 1900 for the others, then we could feel even better about Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. At least the two provinces have started growing again in population instead of declining as was the prediction a few years ago. :tup:

This is interesting data, I faintly remember when California overtook New York State in population (late 1960's). EDITED by me: I also remember metro Toronto overtaking metro Montreal, and I am only in my early fifties (it wasn't that long ago). Does a similar table as posted by Gdoggy exist for populations for the years 1990, 1980, 1970 and 1960?

PS: My memory isn't what it used to be, I thought that Quebec was once larger in population than Ontario. As pointed out so diplomatically by FrAnKs it wasn't in my lifetime, if ever.

[FrAnKs]

Fenwick16 : When you speak about Ontario passing Quebec, do you speak about population or as the most powerfull province in the country? ...
Because even in 1900 I think Ontario was just a little more populous than Quebec aswell.

[fenwick16]

Fenwick16 : When you speak about Ontario passing Quebec, do you speak about population or as the most powerfull province in the country? ...
Because even in 1900 I think Ontario was just a little more populous than Quebec aswell.

You're right, it was metropolitan Toronto overtaking metropolitan Montreal that I remember. I am not quite old enough to remember Quebec being larger than Ontario (if it ever was).

[Boreal]

Manitoba chasing down Hawaii, that's funny. I like it.

[BLACK STAR]

Population on July 1 Change
2010 2006 2001 2001-2010
========== ========== ========== =========
California 37,266,600 35,947,461 34,481,753 2,784,847
Texas 25,213,445 23,356,591 21,330,190 3,883,255
New York 19,577,730 19,353,588 19,087,486 490,244
Florida 18,678,049 18,076,361 16,350,988 2,327,061
Ontario 13,210,700 12,160,282 11,410,046 1,800,654
Illinois 12,944,410 12,714,588 12,506,636 437,774
Pennsylvania 12,632,780 12,466,485 12,296,977 335,803
Ohio 11,532,111 11,490,596 11,395,572 136,539
Michigan 9,931,235 10,082,414 10,005,334 - 74,099
Georgia 9,908,357 9,323,575 8,418,687 1,489,670
North Carolina 9,458,888 8,853,849 8,202,468 1,256,420
New Jersey 8,732,811 8,619,354 8,488,427 244,384
Virginia 7,952,119 7,633,859 7,191,579 760,540
Quebec 7,907,400 7,631,600 7,237,479 669,921
Washington 6,746,199 6,371,097 5,988,346 757,853




I cant believe Florida's population and their 56000 square miles stat. Alberta 3,700000 hardy souls and 255000 square miles!!

[Gdoggy]

but mostly every state, the entire land mass is inhabitable. The same can't be said for our provinces. Look at Ontario, 95% of the population lives in the southern part. The huge northern part of Ontario has almost no inhabitants once your north of Timmins etc. Still lots of room to grow in the south mind you.

[Waterlooson]

Alberta is a major stand out though.... check its growth rate.... clearly one of the highest in NA.

[Ayreonaut]

Check out the growth in Utah and Nevada too. They both stand out among the less-populated states/provinces.

[someone123]

This is a great site for historical demography (although the farther you go back the less complete and reliable the data is): http://populstat.info/

Data for Canadian provinces/territories/districts is here: http://populstat.info/Americas/canadap.htm

[youngregina]

Is no one at all surprised to see that Texas grew by more than the entire population of Alberta? I think that that is pretty interesting.

[graupner]

Is no one at all surprised to see that Texas grew by more than the entire population of Alberta? I think that that is pretty interesting.

Have you heard about Katrina and the mass exodus of almost 600,000 people ?

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouragan_Katrina

[BLACK STAR]

600,000 is not almost 4 mill. Yes its pretty amazing.

[Acajack]

Oh wow, I'm still surprised to see Quebec on that list Lol ... probably not for a long time in the future. But after all, even if the Quebec's growth is not as good as we want to, it is not THAT bad...we're just 9 / 15 ! :P

Interesting how Quebec grew (in total numbers of people) a lot more than very big states like IL, NY, PA, MA. Places like Chicago, New York and Boston are magnets for migrants/immigrants...

Quebec also grew by almost the same number of people as Virginia, which has a northern region that is literally booming because of the proximity to DC.

[Rusty van Reddick]

Please recalculate this list by PERCENTAGE of growth, somebody.

Then re-rank.

Alberta is SECOND in North America with just over 25% population growth. Second only to Nevada. Destroying Quebec.

[FrAnKs]

The % grow is not very important even if it is huge sometimes. A little village of 500 peoples can grow by 500 units in 10 years because it is close of a big booming city, and we get a 100% grow for those 10 years.

But, the most important, is what total number of peoples this place / state / village , is able to attract for X time... the percentage could be a wrong indication compared to a total number of peoples.

[freeweed]

Please recalculate this list by PERCENTAGE of growth, somebody.

Then re-rank.

Alberta is SECOND in North America with just over 25% population growth. Second only to Nevada. Destroying Quebec.

No kidding. Just when I think the average person might have a grasp on mathematics, I realize that something as simple as exponential growth completely eludes many people.

[Acajack]

Please recalculate this list by PERCENTAGE of growth, somebody.

Then re-rank.

Alberta is SECOND in North America with just over 25% population growth. Second only to Nevada. Destroying Quebec.

I never really knew/thought that Quebec was in a pissing contest with Alberta regarding "percentage of population growth"...

It's just surprising to me to see it add more net people than many heavyweights stateside, especially given all the near-hysterical talk (mostly internal to Quebec) about demographic decline, population aging, etc.

[freeweed]

It's just surprising to me to see it add more net people than many heavyweights stateside, especially given all the near-hysterical talk (mostly internal to Quebec) about demographic decline, population aging, etc.

I think it's possible that you, like myself, were surprised to see Canadian provinces in a top 15 list period. I mean, intellectually I probably could have figured this out in about 10 seconds, but still - we're so used to being told how "small" Canada is. Seriously, Ontario would be #5 in the US. That just doesn't seem possible, although I know it is.

Similar thing with growth. When you have a mental picture of relative numbers, reality can surprise you.

[Acajack]

I think it's possible that you, like myself, were surprised to see Canadian provinces in a top 15 list period. I mean, intellectually I probably could have figured this out in about 10 seconds, but still - we're so used to being told how "small" Canada is. Seriously, Ontario would be #5 in the US. That just doesn't seem possible, although I know it is.

Similar thing with growth. When you have a mental picture of relative numbers, reality can surprise you.

Yes indeed. Even the Maritimes didn't do too badly and generally added more people than similarly-sized or even larger states.

Manitoba added more people than Hawaii!

[samne]

Im surprised that economically depressed states like PA and OH are actually still gaining population and MI is still in the top 10.

[Metro-One]

BC is #27, which is right in the middle of the pack, but look at our growth rate! We added nearly as many people as Quebec did, pretty good for our size!

[Doug]

The obvious trend is the growth of the mountain region. By percentage growth:

Nevada               26.8%
Arizona              25.9%
Alberta              25.1%
Nunavut              24.1%
Utah                 23.6%
Yukon Territory      20.3%
Texas                18.2%
Idaho                18.1%
Georgia              17.7%
Northwest Territorie17.2%
British Columbia     15.9%
Ontario              15.8%
North Carolina       15.3%
Colorado             14.9%
Florida              14.2%
South Carolina       13.2%
Washington           12.7%
Delaware             12.1%
Alaska               11.9%
New Mexico          11.2%
Oregon               11.1%
Wyoming              11.1%
Virginia             10.6%
Manitoba             10.3%
Tennessee            10.1%
Quebec               9.3%
Montana              8.2%
Arkansas             8.2%
California           8.1%
South Dakota        8.1%
Oklahoma             7.5%
Saskatchewan       6.8%
Maryland             6.8%
Hawaii               6.7%
Kentucky             6.7%
Missouri             6.5%
Minnesota            6.2%
Alabama              6.0%
District of Columbia5.6%
Nebraska             5.4%
New Hampshire      5.3%
Indiana              5.2%
Kansas               5.2%
Prince Edward Islan5.2%
Wisconsin            4.8%
Nova Scotia          3.8%
Mississippi          3.8%
Illinois             3.5%
Massachusetts      3.4%
Iowa                 3.2%
New Brunswick      3.1%
Connecticut          2.9%
New Jersey           2.9%
North Dakota         2.8%
Pennsylvania         2.7%
New York             2.6%
Maine                2.2%
Vermont              1.7%
Louisiana            1.5%
West Virginia        1.5%
Ohio                 1.2%
Rhode Island        -0.1%
Newfoundland      -0.6%
Michigan             -0.7%

[Nouvellecosse]

Wow...

I never would have expected NS to be growing at a higher rate than NY, NJ, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut.

[Urbanguy]

The numbers posted here for US States & D.C.are only estimates. The official Census figures for 2010 which are of April 1, 2010 are as follows (& are different from the July figures posted here as official figures taken in April for some states are higher than these July estimates while others are lower):

California: 37,253,956
Texas: 25,145,561
New York: 19,378,102
Florida: 18,801,310
Illinois: 12,830,632
Pennsylvania: 12,702,379
Ohio: 11,536,504
Michigan: 9,883,640
Georgia: 9,687,653
North Carolina: 9,535,483
New Jersey: 8,791,894
Virginia: 8,001,024
Washington: 6,724,540
Massachusetts: 6,547,629
Indiana: 6,483,802
Arizona: 6,392,017
Tennessee: 6,346,105
Missouri: 5,988,927
Maryland 5,773,552
Wisconsin: 5,686,986
Minnesota: 5,303,925
Colorado: 5,029,196
Alabama: 4,779,736
South Carolina: 4,625,364
Louisiana: 4,533,372
Kentucky :4,339,367
Oregon: 3,831,074
Oklahoma: 3,751,351
Connecticut: 3,574,097
Iowa: 3,046,355
Mississippi: 2,967,297
Arkansas: 2,915,918
Kansas: 2,853,118
Utah: 2,763,885
Nevada: 2,700,551
New Mexico: 2,059,179
West Virginia: 1,852,994
Nebraska: 1,826,341
Idaho: 1,567,582
Hawaii: 1,360,301
Maine: 1,328,361
New Hampshire: 1,316,470
Rhode Island: 1,052,567
Montana: 989,415
Delaware: 897,934
South Dakota: 814,180
Alaska: 710,231
North Dakota: 672,591
Vermont 625,741:
District of Columbia: 601,723
Wyoming: 563,626

-----------------------

Numeric changes since 2000:

Texas: 4,293,741
California: 3,382,308
Florida: 2,818,932
Georgia: 1,501,200
North Carolina: 1,486,170
Arizona: 1,261,385
Virginia: 922,509
Washington: 830,419
Colorado: 727,935
Nevada: 702,294
Tennessee: 656,822
South Carolina: 613,352
Utah: 530,716
Maryland: 477,066
Pennsylvania: 421,325
Illinois: 411,339
Oregon: 409,675
Indiana: 403,317
New York: 401,645
Missouri: 393,716
Minnesota: 384,446
New Jersey: 377,544
Alabama: 332,636
Wisconsin: 323,311
Oklahoma : 300,697
Kentucky: 297,598
Idaho: 273,629
Arkansas: 242,518
New Mexico: 240,133
Massachusetts: 198,532
Ohio: 183,364
Connecticut: 168,532
Kansas: 164,700
Hawaii: 148,764
Mississippi: 122,639
Iowa: 120,031
Nebraska: 115,078
Delaware: 114,334
Montana: 87,220
Alaska: 83,299
New Hampshire: 80,684
Wyoming: 69,844
Louisiana: 64,396
South Dakota: 59,336
Maine: 53,438
West Virginia: 44,650
North Dakota: 30,391
District of Columbia: 29,664
Vermont: 16,914
Rhode Island: 4,248
Michigan: -54,804

Source: US Census 2010 (http://2010.census.gov/news/xls/apport2010_table5.xls)

[Nicko999]

The obvious trend is the growth of the mountain region. By percentage growth:

Nevada               26.8%
Arizona              25.9%
Alberta              25.1%
Nunavut              24.1%
Utah                 23.6%
Yukon Territory      20.3%
Texas                18.2%
Idaho                18.1%
Georgia              17.7%
Northwest Territorie17.2%
British Columbia     15.9%
Ontario              15.8%
North Carolina       15.3%
Colorado             14.9%
Florida              14.2%
South Carolina       13.2%
Washington           12.7%
Delaware             12.1%
Alaska               11.9%
New Mexico          11.2%
Oregon               11.1%
Wyoming              11.1%
Virginia             10.6%
Manitoba             10.3%
Tennessee            10.1%
Quebec 9.3%
Montana              8.2%
Arkansas             8.2%
California 8.1%
South Dakota        8.1%
Oklahoma             7.5%
Saskatchewan       6.8%
Maryland             6.8%
Hawaii               6.7%
Kentucky             6.7%
Missouri             6.5%
Minnesota            6.2%
Alabama              6.0%
District of Columbia5.6%
Nebraska             5.4%
New Hampshire      5.3%
Indiana              5.2%
Kansas               5.2%
Prince Edward Islan5.2%
Wisconsin            4.8%
Nova Scotia          3.8%
Mississippi          3.8%
Illinois             3.5%
Massachusetts      3.4%
Iowa                 3.2%
New Brunswick      3.1%
Connecticut          2.9%
New Jersey           2.9%
North Dakota         2.8%
Pennsylvania         2.7%
New York             2.6%
Maine                2.2%
Vermont              1.7%
Louisiana            1.5%
West Virginia        1.5%
Ohio                 1.2%
Rhode Island        -0.1%
Newfoundland      -0.6%
Michigan             -0.7%

Really?:cheers:

[Urbanguy]

Acajack & Boreal notice the July 2010 estimates versus the official April 2010 count for Hawaii were off by 60,000. ;) Just sayin....

[Urbanguy]

I would take the esimates with a grain of salt since they can be quite off from official results. Hawaii is a good example, undercounting 60,000 is HUGE for a relatively small state population-wise! I think that the U.S. Census will probably have to readjust their estimated growth rates from 2010 on out.

Here's another comparison over a 10 year period using official U.S. Census Results for April 1, 2000 to April 1, 2010 & Canadian estimates for April 1, 2000 to April 1, 2010. It's the best that I could do since each country's official census counts are done on different years.

States, Provinces, D.C., etc ranked April 1, 2010.

California: 37,253,956
Texas: 25,145,561
New York: 19,378,102
Florida: 18,801,310
Ontario: 13,167,894
Illinois: 12,830,632
Pennsylvania: 12,702,379
Ohio: 11,536,504
Michigan: 9,883,640
Georgia: 9,687,653
North Carolina: 9,535,483
New Jersey: 8,791,894
Virginia: 8,001,024
Quebec: 7,886,108
Washington: 6,724,540
Massachusetts: 6,547,629
Indiana: 6,483,802
Arizona: 6,392,017
Tennessee: 6,346,105
Missouri: 5,988,927
Maryland: 5,773,552
Wisconsin: 5,686,986
Minnesota: 5,303,925
Colorado: 5,029,196
Alabama: 4,779,736
South Carolina: 4,625,364
Louisiana: 4,533,372
British Columbia: 4,510,858
Kentucky: 4,339,367
Oregon: 3,831,074
Oklahoma: 3,751,351
Alberta: 3,724,832
Connecticut: 3,574,097
Iowa: 3,046,355
Mississippi: 2,967,297
Arkansas: 2,915,918
Kansas: 2,853,118
Utah: 2,763,885
Nevada: 2,700,551
New Mexico: 2,059,179
West Virginia: 1,852,994
Nebraska: 1,826,341
Idaho: 1,567,582
Hawaii: 1,360,301
Maine: 1,328,361
New Hampshire: 1,316,470
Manitoba: 1,232,654
Rhode Island: 1,052,567
Saskatchewan: 1,041,729
Montana: 989,415
Nova Scotia: 940,482
Delaware: 897,934
South Dakota: 814,180
New Brunswick: 751,273
Alaska: 710,231
North Dakota: 672,591
Vermont: 625,741
District of Columbia: 601,723
Wyoming: 563,626
Newfoundland and Labrador: 510,901
Prince Edward Island: 141,551
Northwest Territories: 43,529
Yukon: 34,246
Nunavut: 32,900

Growth from April 1, 2000 to April 1, 2010:

Texas: 4,293,741
California: 3,382,308
Florida: 2,818,932
Ontario: 1,554,218
Georgia: 1,501,200
North Carolina: 1,486,170
Arizona: 1,261,385
Virginia: 922,509
Washington: 830,419
Alberta: 740,167
Colorado: 727,935
Nevada: 702,294
Tennessee: 656,822
South Carolina: 613,352
Utah: 530,716
Quebec: 520,550
Maryland: 477,066
British Columbia: 455,088
Pennsylvania: 421,325
Illinois: 411,339
Oregon: 409,675
Indiana: 403,317
New York: 401,645
Missouri: 393,716
Minnesota: 384,446
New Jersey: 377,544
Alabama: 332,636
Wisconsin: 323,311
Oklahoma: 300,697
Kentucky: 297,598
Idaho: 273,629
Arkansas: 242,518
New Mexico: 240,133
Massachusetts: 198,532
Ohio: 183,364
Connecticut: 168,532
Kansas: 164,700
Hawaii: 148,764
Mississippi: 122,639
Iowa: 120,031
Nebraska: 115,078
Delaware: 114,334
Montana: 87,220
Manitoba: 86,320
Alaska: 83,299
New Hampshire: 80,684
Wyoming: 69,844
Louisiana: 64,396
South Dakota: 59,336
Maine: 53,438
West Virginia: 44,650
North Dakota: 30,391
District of Columbia: 29,664
Saskatchewan: 17,922
Vermont: 16,914
Nunavut: 5,505
Rhode Island: 4,248
Yukon: 3,652
Prince Edward Island: 3,101
Northwest Territories: 1,804
Nova Scotia: -591
New Brunswick: -4,694
Newfoundland and Labrador: -28,815
Michigan: -54,804

Sources:

US Census 2010 XLS (http://2010.census.gov/news/xls/apport2010_table5.xls)
Statscan, April 1, 2010 Estimates (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/100628/t100628a2-eng.htm)
Statscan, April 1, 2000 Estimates (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-002-x/91-002-x2000002-eng.pdf)

[Urbanguy]

Rank by percentage change from April 1, 2000 to April 1, 2010.

Nevada: 35.15%
Alberta: 24.80%
Arizona: 24.59%
Utah: 23.77%
Idaho: 21.15%
Texas: 20.59%
Nunavut: 20.09%
North Carolina: 18.46%
Georgia: 18.34%
Florida: 17.64%
Colorado: 16.92%
South Carolina: 15.29%
Delaware: 14.59%
Wyoming: 14.14%
Washington: 14.09%
Ontario: 13.38%
Alaska: 13.29%
New Mexico: 13.20%
Virginia: 13.03%
Hawaii: 12.28%
Oregon: 11.97%
Yukon: 11.94%
Tennessee: 11.54%
British Columbia: 11.22%
California: 9.99%
Montana: 9.67%
Arkansas: 9.07%
Maryland: 9.01%
Oklahoma: 8.71%
South Dakota: 7.86%
Minnesota: 7.81%
Manitoba: 7.53%
Alabama: 7.48%
Kentucky: 7.36%
Quebec: 7.07%
Missouri: 7.04%
Nebraska: 6.72%
Indiana: 6.63%
New Hampshire: 6.53%
Kansas: 6.13%
Wisconsin: 6.03%
District of Columbia: 5.19%
Connecticut: 4.95%
North Dakota: 4.73%
New Jersey: 4.49%
Northwest Territories: 4.32%
Mississippi: 4.31%
Maine: 4.19%
Iowa: 4.10%
Pennsylvania: 3.43%
Illinois: 3.31%
Massachusetts: 3.13%
Vermont: 2.78%
West Virginia: 2.47%
Prince Edward Island: 2.24%
New York: 2.12%
Saskatchewan: 1.75%
Ohio: 1.62%
Louisiana: 1.44%
Rhode Island: 0.41%
Nova Scotia: -0.06%
Michigan: -0.55%
New Brunswick: -0.62%
Newfoundland and Labrador: -5.34%

[craner]

^Very well done Urbanguy - thanks for going to the effort. :tup:

[caltrane74]

Urbanguy, this number is not squaring?

2001 - 2010

Ontario 13,210,700 12,160,282 11,410,046 1,800,654


Growth 2000 - 2010

Ontario - 1,554,218


Will have to pull up the base 2000 number I suppose.

I'll do it later.

[Urbanguy]

craner, you're welcome.

@ caltrane74, Hi, I used April 1, 2000 & April 1, 2010 numbers for the U.S. & Canada since they were the most comparable given that Canada's official count is held on different years & the July 1, 2010 estimates for the U.S were, in some cases -- quite off from the official release just done in April 2010. I provided links so that you or whomever is interested in viewing or verifying them can do so.

[fenwick16]

In the case of Canada, the population estimates include a census net undercoverage factor (CNU) to account for errors in the census counts (some people get left out of the census count for one reason or another - http://www.statcan.gc.ca/cgi-bin/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function=getSurvey&SDDS=3601&lang=en&db=imdb&adm=8&dis=2) . So it is debatable which is more accurate - the census data or the post-census estimates. Both are in fact just estimates. So it possible that the post census estimates are closer to the real population than the census numbers.

In order to show accurate percentage growth rates, the census data in one census year should be compared to census data in another census year (without the CNU). If census data (without the CNU) is compared to a population estimate (with the CNU) then the change in population will include the census net undercount factor instead of just the actual change in population.

[Waterlooson]

The % grow is not very important even if it is huge sometimes. A little village of 500 peoples can grow by 500 units in 10 years because it is close of a big booming city, and we get a 100% grow for those 10 years.

But, the most important, is what total number of peoples this place / state / village , is able to attract for X time... the percentage could be a wrong indication compared to a total number of peoples.

Percentage growth is very important when it occurs over many decades even if a place started with a small population... Lets use Calgary as an example, if memory serves, 60 years ago, Calgary's population was only 150,000... but because of high growth (almost interrupted) greater Calgary is pushing 1.3 million today.

[goodthings]

I wanna see Nunavut leading the nation, or maybe the entire continent.
NWT needs to catch up.
Newfoundland, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia have a lot of recovery to do.
Saskatchewan is catching up!
Alberta is ON FIRE!

I feel bad for Ontario, more specifically, the GTA, because Toronto doesn't have the infrastructure to handle the current immigrant surge.

DON'T HUG THE US BORDER!!! Population needs to spread out to the smaller cities like:
- Fort McMurray (so that it would diversify and won't suffer what Dawson experienced),
- Yellowknife (a decent-sized city in the North and a Canadian Arctic hub would be nice),
- Saskatoon and Regina (Saskatchewan is catching up),
- Moncton (another national powerhouse for the Atlantic),
- etc.

[Waterlooson]

In the case of Canada, the population estimates include a census net undercoverage factor (CNU) to account for errors in the census counts (some people get left out of the census count for one reason or another - http://www.statcan.gc.ca/cgi-bin/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function=getSurvey&SDDS=3601&lang=en&db=imdb&adm=8&dis=2) . So it is debatable which is more accurate - the census data or the post-census estimates. Both are in fact just estimates. So it possible that the post census estimates are closer to the real population than the census numbers.

In order to show accurate percentage growth rates, the census data in one census year should be compared to census data in another census year (without the CNU). If census data (without the CNU) is compared to a population estimate (with the CNU) then the change in population will include the census net undercount factor instead of just the actual change in population.

Excellent point.

[Waterlooson]

It may be that Toronto is now the largest city on the Great Lakes... Chicago has dropped under 2.7 million.

[jigglysquishy]

City proper, maybe, but the metro (where it counts) of Chicago is still bigger than Toronto.

By 2030 though, I could see Toronto being bigger.

[SHOFEAR]

I wanna see Nunavut leading the nation, or maybe the entire continent.
NWT needs to catch up.
.

No. The vast majority of jobs in those regions are government jobs. Airports, to reach the hospitals, Schools to teach the kids of hospital workers, Social angencies to catch all those that fall through the cracks, More social agencies and a local goverment to distribute and organize these schools/hospitals/social agencies locally, a territorial government to oversee a collection of these handfull of local governments....etc

Any population growth in the VAST majority of towns up north is nothing but a giant drain on our resources.

[Waterlooson]

City proper, maybe, but the metro (where it counts) of Chicago is still bigger than Toronto.

By 2030 though, I could see Toronto being bigger.

What is the population of metro Chicago as of the 2010 census?

[LeftCoaster]

9.785 million, so call it 9.8.

Toronto is growing faster but it will be a long time before, if ever, it takes over Chicago as truly the largest city on the great lakes.

[Waterlooson]

^^ Do you have a link to the source of that info (I think that's an old estimate)... It was looking like metro Chi would come in at about 9.5 million.

[Rusty van Reddick]

Oh, for God's sake- the Chicago "metro area" comprises everything from Kenosha to Michigan City to DeKalb. If Toronto's metro was defined with boundaries as insanely huge it'd be approaching the size of "metro" Chicago. We're talking ALL of the GTA plus Oshawa, Hamilton, K-W, Barrie...

[Waterlooson]

^^ In other words the extended Golden Horseshoe (includes Niagara)... which would be around 9 million?

[isaidso]

Oh, for God's sake- the Chicago "metro area" comprises everything from Kenosha to Michigan City to DeKalb. If Toronto's metro was defined with boundaries as insanely huge it'd be approaching the size of "metro" Chicago. We're talking ALL of the GTA plus Oshawa, Hamilton, K-W, Barrie...

No it would still be smaller by quite abit. The Golden Greater Horseshoe (31,561.57 km2) has a population of about 8.5 million. The Chicago-Joliet-Naperville metropolitan area (24,814.7 km2) had 9,580,567 (2009) then there were another 1,739,497 (2009) in the Milwaukee–Racine–Waukesha metropolitan area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Horseshoe#Greater_Golden_Horseshoe

[goodthings]

No. The vast majority of jobs in those regions are government jobs. Airports, to reach the hospitals, Schools to teach the kids of hospital workers, Social angencies to catch all those that fall through the cracks, More social agencies and a local goverment to distribute and organize these schools/hospitals/social agencies locally, a territorial government to oversee a collection of these handfull of local governments....etc

Any population growth in the VAST majority of towns up north is nothing but a giant drain on our resources.

A giant drain? They NEED people to kickstart their city-building and resource development.

Their MASSIVE growth in the future will be inevitable. Iqaluit will be 11,000-15,000 by 2030, Yellowknife will be 50,000-60,000 by 2050.

Yellowknife is starting to diversify. Inuvik is destined to become an energy hub. Inuvik and Hay River will become cities by then.

By then, the vast majority of the jobs will be in the mining and the oil sector. Just wait, and the magic will happen.

Only the federal government is turning the tap off of their infrastructure projects, which leads to further degradation of the territories and slower population growth.

Have you seen Nunavut's grocery prices? A nice port in Iqaluit will reduce these prices for sure.

[SHOFEAR]

A giant drain? They NEED people to kickstart their city-building and resource development.

Their MASSIVE growth in the future will be inevitable. Iqaluit will be 11,000-15,000 by 2030, Yellowknife will be 50,000-60,000 by 2050.

Yellowknife is starting to diversify. Inuvik is destined to become an energy hub. Inuvik and Hay River will become cities by then.

By then, the vast majority of the jobs will be in the mining and the oil sector. Just wait, and the magic will happen.

Only the federal government is turning the tap off of their infrastructure projects, which leads to further degradation of the territories and slower population growth.

Have you seen Nunavut's grocery prices? A nice port in Iqaluit will reduce these prices for sure.

Other than a few centers focused around natural resources the vast majority of the centers serve no purpose other than to allow people to live in the same area their grandparents did but with "modern" ammenities...

Hay River, Fort Smith, the hundreds of outposts etc....serve absolutly no purpose. There is no industry, no nearby mineral deposits...

[goodthings]

:previous:

Wait, is this person who I am replying to a real Canadian?

Hay River is a hub for barge operations supplying the communities further "down" the river (northward to Tuk, Norman Wells, etc.) and western Nunavut along the Northwest Passage. This is possible because it has a railway from Alberta. The annual barge shipping in the summer cheapens their grocery prices and is extremely vital for the lives of the people living in the NWP and the Mackenzie river.

Churchill (and sometimes Montreal) takes care of the eastern side for the same reason.

Fort Smith is a piece of Canadian territorial evolution, since it was the capital of the NWT, and it is near Wood Buffalo National Park as well.

The communities along the Mackenzie River will become "rest stops" once a highway along the Mackenzie River is built.

Nunavut (and Churchill) will get its first highway thanks to Manitoba.

Saying the the northern towns serve no purpose mean these:
1. You would like to surrender the northern lands with resources (oil, gas, etc.) beneath them to Russia and/or the USA.
2. You don't care about wasting the lives and the hardships of the "human flagpoles" in Grise Fiord and Pond Inlet, who could have lived a better life if they weren't sent there.
3. Let's flip the situation... If Toronto was to be a town of 500 people, would you say that it has no purpose?

And please, let's get back to topic.

[Waterlooson]

No it would still be smaller by quite abit. The Golden Greater Horseshoe (31,561.57 km2) has a population of about 8.5 million. The Chicago-Joliet-Naperville metropolitan area (24,814.7 km2) had 9,580,567 (2009) then there were another 1,739,497 (2009) in the Milwaukee–Racine–Waukesha metropolitan area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Horseshoe#Greater_Golden_Horseshoe

The Greater Golden Horseshoe has to have a population considerably higher than 8.5 million. In 2006 the census put it at 8.1 million (without including the under count of about 3.5% )... that would put the actual 2006 pop. just under 8.4 million. Over the last 5 years, the area has been growing by nearly 120,000 per year... for a 2011 pop. of around 9.0 million.

BTW, the facts of the 2010 US census will be out in a day or 2 (regarding metros)... but it's looking like metro Chi will come in at just under 9.5 million.... so the diff. isn't as big as some think. Within 10 years, I'll let the reader guess what will likely happen.

[Waterlooson]

deleted.........

[Urbanguy]

^I'd leave out that 3.5% undercount when comparing Canadian & US metros because the same or more could be applied to US Metros given the low participation rate in the Census, massive undocumented (& underreported) immigrant populations and so on. Also, I don't think that the metro populations will be released any time soon because the Census is still releasing State & select City & County populations.

Here is the estimated population for the Greater Golden Horseshoe according to Statscan & my adding of the CMA's included in the GGH as of July 1, 2010:

1.Toronto: 5,741,419
2. Hamilton: 740,238
3. St. Catharines-Niagara: 404,357
4. Oshawa: 364,193
5. Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo: 492,390
6. Barrie: 190,872
7. Guelph: 138,158
8. Brantford: 139,124
9. Peterborough: 121,054

Total: 8,331,805

Source: Statscan (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-214-x/2009000/t021-eng.htm)

[Urbanguy]

If you go by Economic Regions than the population increases to: 8,709,568 which includes the Toronto (6,037,039), Kitchener-Waterloo-Barrie (1,254,942), Hamilton-Niagara Peninsula (1,417,587) Economic Regions.

Source: Statscan (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-214-x/2009000/t075-eng.htm)

Heck if you do that than you might as well include Milwaukie with Chicago. ;)

[Waterlooson]

^I'd leave out that 3.5% undercount when comparing Canadian & US metros because the same or more could be applied to US Metros given the low participation rate in the Census, massive undocumented (& underreported) immigrant populations and so on. Also, I don't think that the metro populations will be released any time soon because the Census is still releasing State & select City & County populations.

Here is the estimated population for the Greater Golden Horseshoe according to Statscan & my adding of the CMA's included in the GGH as of July 1, 2010:

1.Toronto: 5,741,419
2. Hamilton: 740,238
3. St. Catharines-Niagara: 404,357
4. Oshawa: 364,193
5. Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo: 492,390
6. Barrie: 190,872
7. Guelph: 138,158
8. Brantford: 139,124
9. Peterborough: 121,054

Total: 8,331,805

Source: Statscan (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-214-x/2009000/t021-eng.htm)

You can't simply add up a list of CMAs and arrive at a population figure for the extended Golden Horseshoe.... Taking just one example: the Kitchener CMA excludes 2 townships that are within the Golden Horseshoe... so you have missed the population of those townships.... Rather than using the CMA figure for Kitchener, you should have used the figure for the "Region of Waterloo" which includes those 2 townships. You missed 5-10% of the population of the area.

Furthermore, the 2006 census put the population of the extended Golden Horseshoe at over 8.1 million... You are implying that entire area has only gained slightly more than 200,000 over 4 years! (2006-2010) A figure that is obviously wrong... and goes against Stats Canada's growth figures.... Toronto CMA just by itself has increased roughly 100,000 per year since the 2006 census.

For the 2000 US census, the under count was 1.18%:

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/cmb/cmbp/reports/final_report/fin_sec5_effect.pdf

So the under count in the US is no biggie. Sorry, but many of your assumptions are contradicted by the facts.

BTW, when I say 9.0 million for the extended Golden Horseshoe, I mean for 2011.

[MolsonExport]

Other than a few centers focused around natural resources the vast majority of the centers serve no purpose other than to allow people to live in the same area their grandparents did but with "modern" ammenities...

Hay River, Fort Smith, the hundreds of outposts etc....serve absolutly no purpose. There is no industry, no nearby mineral deposits...

This post smacks of massive ignorance.

[Waterlooson]

If you go by Economic Regions than the population increases to: 8,709,568 which includes the Toronto (6,037,039), Kitchener-Waterloo-Barrie (1,254,942), Hamilton-Niagara Peninsula (1,417,587) Economic Regions.

Source: Statscan (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-214-x/2009000/t075-eng.htm)

Heck if you do that than you might as well include Milwaukie with Chicago. ;)

What the hell does K-W have to do with Barrie? Any way we're not going by "economic regions"... if we did, Kitchener-Waterloo would pull in all the way to Hanover-Walkerton - 60 miles to the northwest, and Stratford to the west.

Many CMAs in Canada are ridiculously conservative... As in not including Wellesley and Wilmot townships in Kitchener's CMA (the Kitchener subdivision of Mannheim isn't even included in the Kitchener CMA which is totally crazy....it's part of Wilmot, that's like not counting a finger as part of your body) or not including Okotoks in with Calgary's CMA... Okotoks is a bedroom community if ever there was one... 100% of its growth is spill over from Calgary.

If Milwaukie is to be included with Chi, perhaps Buffalo should be included with the extended Golden Horseshoe... after all, Windsor is often included with Detroit;)

[Urbanguy]

@ Waterlooson,

As far as assumptions & facts go -- keep in mind that I have provided links for every figure that i've posted to official governmental sources. None were random numbers that i've grabbed from thin air or pulled from a hat. Since none of the figures seem to quench your thirst -- I highly suggest that you explore Statscan (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/), add all the townships, census divisions, CMAs, regions or whatever you feel to be part of the Greater Golden Horseshoe & post them all. Please provide the links to back up each claim so that we know that you're not just making assumptions or including your own estimates. I'll willingly go along until you have found the figure that you deem correct so we can finally put this to rest and move on. ;)

As far as the U.S. under count being no biggie for 2000, please keep in mind that the USAs population is 10x that of Canada & that i've also mentioned the low participation rate. The 2000 & 2010 household participation rate was approximately 74% (http://2010.census.gov/2010census/take10map/). There is no way in hell that the Census or any other statiscal agency can accurately compensate for the 26% of households that chose not to participate. We are talking millions of households, millions of people & household sizes that can vary from city to city, county to county, state to state & region to region -- combined with an economic down-turn not seen since the Great Depression. Think of what that does to a household size.

As for posting economic regions -- I did so hoping that those were close enough to the numbers that you long for. :D Obviously, they were too low or incorrect by your standards. :banana:

[Waterlooson]

@ Waterlooson,

As far as the U.S. under count being no biggie for 2000, please keep in mind that the USAs population is 10x that of Canada & that i've also mentioned the low participation rate.

Actually 9X. It's the percentage error that matters, not the totals.... The fact that the US has a much larger population doesn't make the under count more of a problem for the US than for Canada... Actually, Canada has the bigger problem since the under count percentage is 3X larger than that for the US.



The 2000 & 2010 household participation rate was approximately 74% (http://2010.census.gov/2010census/take10map/). There is no way in hell that the Census or any other statiscal agency can accurately compensate for the 26% of households that chose not to participate. We are talking millions of households, millions of people & household sizes that can vary from city to city, county to county, state to state & region to region -- combined with an economic down-turn not seen since the Great Depression. Think of what that does to a household size.



1)Just because a household doesn't mail in a census form, doesn't mean that the census has missed it in the count.

2) That 74% US census participation rate is higher than that for Canada - which was only 72%(for males) and 62% (for females) in the 2006 census.

http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/92-596/P2-2.cfm?Lang=eng&T=PR&LINE_ID=1105

http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/92-596/P2-2.cfm?S=6&O=A&T=CSD&LINE_ID=1106&TOPIC_ID=100

As far as I can tell, none of the points that you have raised have advanced your argument. Your use of Stats Canada figures doesn't support your invalid statements or conclusions. Eg. Nowhere does Stats Canada state that the population of the Greater Golden Horseshoe is 8,331,805.... that was just your conclusion based on adding a number of CMAs together.... but you made it look like that was something Stats Canada was putting out. :yes:

"Kitchener-Waterloo-Barrie"??? What economic region is that??? Barrie has nothing to do economically with K-W! Barrie is essentially on the other side of Toronto from K-W. It's like saying Buffalo-Niagara Falls-Toledo. Look on a map.

[Urbanguy]

^You have yet to produce an actual number that is backed up by real statistics from a credible source like Statscan for the GGH whether you disagree with their numbers or not. Again, I've provided something from real sources instead of guesstimates. If the boundaries or the places i've used are incorrect --well then correct them & provided sources so we know that they are valid. It's all a guess until you can provide proof as far as i'm concerned. ;)

[Urbanguy]

In regards to your statement: just because a household doesn't mail in a census form, doesn't mean that the census has missed it in the count.

I stated: There is no way in hell that the Census or any other statiscal agency can accurately compensate for the 26% of households that chose not to participate. We are talking millions of households, millions of people & household sizes that can vary from city to city, county to county, state to state & region to region -- combined with an economic down-turn not seen since the Great Depression. Think of what that does to a household size.

We are talking about a country of over 300,000,000 not a country slightly smaller in population than California. :P :whip:

[dubsH]

As far as I can tell, none of the points that you have raised have advanced your argument. Your use of Stats Canada figures doesn't support your invalid statements or conclusions.

So, umm, where exactly does it say that the Toronto/Golden Horseshoe/GGH has a population in excess of 9.1 million people and is "not that far away from Chicago's"? Just curious.

[caltrane74]

He took the Statscan number, added 3.5% undercount, and then added in 5 years of growth at 120,000 ) people per year, which oddly is probably an undercount on that regions growth. And the total current population, then comes in at over 9 million people for the GGH.

To be fair, I believe Toronto-GGH, will surpass the CMSA chicago area within 15 to 20 years.. Toronto GGH of 12 million to 13 million is possible within a generation of 15 to 20 years, at growth of 120,000(and plus) a year.

[MolsonExport]

Wow, KW is now merged with Barrie? Five headed monster? KWCGB?

Or just fancy accounting?

[Waterlooson]

So, umm, where exactly does it say that the Toronto/Golden Horseshoe/GGH has a population in excess of 9.1 million people and is "not that far away from Chicago's"? Just curious.

Don't go to the trouble of making up statements that I haven't made then attribute them to me... As in where did I say 9.1 million? Or that there is some official source comparing Toronto to Chicago? As though there needs to be.

From the 2006 census: "Extending along the western end of Lake Ontario, the Greater Golden Horseshoe is both the most populous and the most heavily urbanized region in Canada. It is home to 8.1 million people, two-thirds of Ontarians and one-quarter of all Canadians. It contains nine of the country's 33 census metropolitan areas and many census agglomerations."

http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-550/p14-eng.cfm

Furthermore: "Statistics Canada has reported a 2006 population for the City of Toronto of 2,503,281. When the
undercount is taken into account, however, the population could be between about 2,630,000 and
2,705,000."

http://www.toronto.ca/demographics/pdf/2006_age_and_sex_backgrounder_with_maps.pdf

That means for Toronto, the under count was at least 5% .... for Peel it was about 5%.... so I was being conservative with the 3.5% figure that I used.

Next, just add 5 years of growth (as reported by Stats Canada) after adjusting for the under count, and you come up with the 9.0 million.

Caltrane is correct that the 9.0 million figure may be conservative.
Based on facts coming out of the 2010 US census (from the Chicago population thread), people have added up the Chicago area counties and are coming shy of 9.5 million for the greater Chicago area. BTW, the 2010 census is showing the previous estimates for greater Chicago's population were greatly overestimated.

If growth rates are maintained... The GGH will surpass greater Chicago within 10 years.

[Waterlooson]

Wow, KW is now merged with Barrie? Five headed monster? KWCGB?

Or just fancy accounting?

I think some idiot in a government department somewhere simply drew a big ellipse on a map of southern Ontario and both KW and Barrie just happened to be the largest centres in it. As you already know, these areas are not connected...

[caltrane74]

Still though..

Seeing those numbers is unreal.. that is alot of people. There is no doubt, this area is huge, and getting bigger at a rapid rate.

[Waterlooson]

Yes, and Toronto had better get to work on its transit issues.

[jeremy_haak]

In the case of Canada, the population estimates include a census net undercoverage factor (CNU) to account for errors in the census counts (some people get left out of the census count for one reason or another - http://www.statcan.gc.ca/cgi-bin/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function=getSurvey&SDDS=3601&lang=en&db=imdb&adm=8&dis=2) . So it is debatable which is more accurate - the census data or the post-census estimates. Both are in fact just estimates. So it possible that the post census estimates are closer to the real population than the census numbers.

In order to show accurate percentage growth rates, the census data in one census year should be compared to census data in another census year (without the CNU). If census data (without the CNU) is compared to a population estimate (with the CNU) then the change in population will include the census net undercount factor instead of just the actual change in population.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/hp-pa/estima-eng.htm

This page details where it is appropriate to use census numbers versus estimates. It is quite clear that the population estimates are a better measure of actual population.

[fenwick16]

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/hp-pa/estima-eng.htm

This page details where it is appropriate to use census numbers versus estimates. It is quite clear that the population estimates are a better measure of actual population.

Thanks for the link. That explains it very well.

Percentage growth can be based on census numbers:
(source: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/hp-pa/estima-eng.htm)
In studying trends in population growth between the 2001 and 2006 censuses, it is quite appropriate to compare census unadjusted counts from the two censuses. In most cases, the results will be similar to trends shown by the national and provincial population estimates, since the measurement of growth is affected very little by net undercoverage.

The actual population is best represented by the population estimate (source: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/hp-pa/estima-eng.htm):
On the other hand, population estimates provide a more accurate measure of population counts. In addition, they are utilized to measure the evolution of the population between censuses and provide explanations behind the population growth.

The important thing in determining population growth is to compare census numbers with census numbers, or estimates with estimates. This will eliminate the census undercount factor from the calculation. An error will result when census numbers are compared to the estimates.