I keep hearing "Toronto is coming close to Chicago" but I dont see it

[WhipperSnapper]

What's so dense about Newmarket? Are you serious? Newmarket is at the northern fringe of the GTA and the middle class still live in 2 storey, 2000 to 2500 square foot houses and don't own riding lawnmowers for one. Sprawl is not continuous between Barrie and Toronto in case you didn't know. Y'know, Farms are not sprawl.

[koops65]

I'm guessing he meant that the sprawl leap-frogged over the Green Belt...

[Waterlooson]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

What's so dense about Newmarket? Are you serious? Newmarket is at the northern fringe of the GTA and the middle class still live in 2 storey, 2000 to 2500 square foot houses and don't own riding lawnmowers for one. Sprawl is not continuous between Barrie and Toronto in case you didn't know. Y'know, Farms are not sprawl.

Yes, I'm serious and just happen to be backed by some facts.... The average density over the huge area of the city of Toronto is 4,149.5/km2, and that for Barrie - which is considered a bedroom community of Toronto (urban sprawl) - is 1,753.6/km2, and that for Newmarket is 2,086.3/km2. So Newmarket is more similar to Barrie's density than to Toronto's. At any rate, sprawl is simply defined as uncontrolled development into rural areas from nearby cities. I know that's a pretty loose definition for "sprawl", but I'm not aware that only "acreage" size lots, where people need tractor lawnmowers, are required for an area to be considered sprawl. Articles in the media seem to agree with my view, and I've provided one of them.

More about Newmarket as it continues to transform from sprawl into a more urban community:

"Goodbye urban sprawl, hello higher density
Transforming Newmarket":

Planners and developers will toss away the growth manual that produced urban sprawl and, instead, blow the dust off plans calling for higher density.

See, they referred to Newmarket as "urban sprawl" that is becoming more urban due to higher density with the passage of time.

http://www.yorkregion.com/news-story...igher-density/

Just how low does the density have to be for an area to be considered sprawl? I would say, substantially lower than the city (Toronto in this case) where the growth came from... and that's what we have comparing Newmarket to Toronto.

[Waterlooson]

Originally Posted by koops65

I'm guessing he meant that the sprawl leap-frogged over the Green Belt...

Exactly. Where sprawl is not continuous (patchy) that makes it even worse. There's an awful lot of houses that have built among the farms.... people need to take a long look at Google Earth.

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by Waterlooson

Actually, the US Census Bureau and Stats Canada use very different criteria to define a "metro area", so you are comparing apples to oranges. In the US the labor exchange ratio need only be 15% for adjacent cities to be lumped into one "metro".... whereas in Canada, the labor exchange ratio has to be at least 35%

I scoured both the US Census site and StatsCan and came up empty so could you provide a link to that info please?

[Waterlooson]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

I scoured both the US Census site and StatsCan and came up empty so could you provide a link to that info please?

First link (for the USA):
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/def...s-Complete.pdf

From pg. 37248:

"OMB’s Decisions Regarding
Recommendations From the
Metropolitan and Micropolitan
Statistical Area Standards Review
Committee Concerning Changes to the
Standards for Defining Metropolitan
and Micropolitan Statistical Areas .... Adjacent core based statistical areas
(CBSAs) should automatically qualify
for combination if they possess an
employment interchange measure of 15
or higher."

Further down:" Section 8. Combining Adjacent Core
Based Statistical Areas
(a) Any two adjacent CBSAs will form
a Combined Statistical Area if the
employment interchange measure
between the two areas is at least 15. "

For Canada:
http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recen...eo009a-eng.cfm

The definitions are more complex, but:
"Merging adjacent CMAs and CAs: A CA adjacent to a CMA can be merged with the CMA if the total percentage commuting interchange between the CA and CMA is equal to at least 35% of the employed labour force living in the CA, based on place of work data from the decennial census. The total percentage commuting interchange is the sum of the commuting flow in both directions between the CMA and the CA as a percentage of the labour force living in the CA (i.e., resident employed labour force)."

Therefore, when comparing USA MSAs with Canadian CMAs, it would appear that Canadian figures maybe much more conservative, and explain why places like Okotoks are not part of Calgary's CMA, or why Hamilton, Barrie and Oshawa are not part of Toronto's CMA.

[Doady]

Please don't selectively quote things out of context. The heading of that quote is under is "Recommendations Concerning Combined Statistical Areas". That quote refers to how to determine which MSAs are part of a CSA. It is a definition for CSAs, not MSAs. The standard for inclusion in MSAs is 25%, and that is mimimum standard for both outgoing residents and incoming workers.

In other words, for Hamilton, Oshawa and Barrie to be included as "outlying counties" in a Toronto MSA, at least 25% of their residents would have to work in Toronto's "central counties" (which I'm guessing would include Halton, Peel, York), and at least 25% of the workers in Hamilton, Durham, and Barrie would have to come from the "central counties" also.

MSA seems to be based on upper tier municipal boundaries only, so Burlington would be included in Toronto MSA. But only 24% of Hamilton residents would work in Toronto MSA, and only 8% of Toronto MSA residents would work in a Hamilton MSA. So not only would the City of Hamilton not qualify for inclusion in the MSA of Toronto, an MSA of Hamilton might not qualify for inclusion in the Toronto CSA either.

For Barrie, 19% of residents work in Toronto/Peel/Halton/York, while only 4% of workers in Barrie come from those same places. So Barrie would likely also not even be part of the Toronto CSA, let alone the MSA.

Oshawa CMA is in Durham Region so it would likely be part of Toronto's MSA regardless.

[Waterlooson]

Originally Posted by Doady

Please don't selectively quote things out of context. The heading of that quote is under is "Recommendations Concerning Combined Statistical Areas". That quote refers to how to determine which MSAs are part of a CSA. It is a definition for CSAs, not MSAs. The standard for inclusion in MSAs is 25%, and that is mimimum standard for both outgoing residents and incoming workers.

In other words, for Hamilton, Oshawa and Barrie to be included as "outlying counties" in a Toronto MSA, at least 25% of their residents would have to work in Toronto's "central counties" (which I'm guessing would include Halton, Peel, York), and at least 25% of the workers in Hamilton, Durham, and Barrie would have to come from the "central counties" also.

MSA seems to be based on upper tier municipal boundaries only, so Burlington would be included in Toronto MSA. But only 24% of Hamilton residents would work in Toronto MSA, and only 8% of Toronto MSA residents would work in a Hamilton MSA. So not only would the City of Hamilton not qualify for inclusion in the MSA of Toronto, an MSA of Hamilton might not qualify for inclusion in the Toronto CSA either.

For Barrie, 19% of residents work in Toronto/Peel/Halton/York, while only 4% of workers in Barrie come from those same places. So Barrie would likely also not even be part of the Toronto CSA, let alone the MSA.

Oshawa CMA is in Durham Region so it would likely be part of Toronto's MSA regardless.

Since Hamilton, Oshawa and Barrie aren't "counties" (they are cities) your conclusions are not supported by what the document says. You should be talking about the counties outside of Hamilton, Oshawa and Barrie, and matching them up with the counties outside of Toronto to determine if they have enough in common to be included in a CSA. MSA is a totally different issue.

Here is the definition for MSA (in the document):

Metropolitan Statistical Area—A Core
Based Statistical Area associated with at
least one urbanized area that has a
population of at least 50,000. The
Metropolitan Statistical Area comprises
the central county or counties
containing the core, plus adjacent
outlying counties having a high degree
of social and economic integration with
the central county or counties as
measured through commuting.

That's way less strict than what is required to be included in a CMA for Canada.

No where does it say anything about a minimum 25% commuting pattern needed for MSAs.... So where did you get that? I have no idea.

Conclusion: MSAs are a generally a lot bigger than CMAs.... Kitchener is a good example... the CMA excludes 2 counties that are very strongly tied to the city.... obviously these 2 counties would be included in an MSA.... that would increase the population figure by around 50,000. Perhaps Guelph would also be included in the MSA.... I'm not sure, but perhaps it would be... that would add another 150,000 to Kitchener's MSA.

Another comparison is the Albuquerque Metropolitan Statistical Area which is so huge that it even includes Santa Fe.... separated by open country 65 miles away! So give me a break! MSAs in the US include much more area/population than CMAs in Canada. BTW, the CSA for Toronto would now weigh in at 9.7 million..... every bit as big as Chicago's CSA.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Waterlooson

Since Hamilton, Oshawa and Barrie aren't "counties" (they are cities) your conclusions are not supported by what the document says. You should be talking about the counties outside of Hamilton, Oshawa and Barrie, and matching them up with the counties outside of Toronto to determine if they have enough in common to be included in a CSA. MSA is a totally different issue.

Are you saying Toronto can't be considered a "core county" in the MSA because it's not a county? Hell, Peel and York are also not technically counties, so they can't be part of the MSA either? I have no idea what you are arguing, seriously.

Toronto, Hamilton and Barrie are single-tier so they are both lower tier and upper tier and would be treated as counties, either as "core counties" or "outlying counties" for defining the MSA. I never said anything about Oshawa being a county either. That why I said it would be part of Toronto MSA, because it's in Durham Region.

And counties are not considered for defining CSAs. CSAs are combinations of MSAs. MSAs are combinations of counties.

Around 27% of Simcoe County (minus) residents work in Toronto MSA's core counties, and so it would qualify as an "outlying county" of Toronto MSA if . However if Barrie is considered part of Simcoe, then only 24% of Simcoe work in Toronto's "core countries". Either way Barrie would not be part of Toronto MSA, but Barrie MSA would form a CSA with Toronto MSA.

Here is the definition for MSA (in the document):

Metropolitan Statistical Area—A Core
Based Statistical Area associated with at
least one urbanized area that has a
population of at least 50,000. The
Metropolitan Statistical Area comprises
the central county or counties
containing the core, plus adjacent
outlying counties having a high degree
of social and economic integration with
the central county or counties as
measured through commuting.

That's way less strict than what is required to be included in a CMA for Canada.

No where does it say anything about a minimum 25% commuting pattern needed for MSAs.... So where did you get that? I have no idea.

Again, read the document. It's the document you linked to. I have no other source beyond what you yourself have provided to us.

Section 2. Central Counties
The central county or counties of a
CBSA are those counties that:
(a) Have at least 50 percent of their
population in urban areas of at least
10,000 population; or
(b) Have within their boundaries a
population of at least 5,000 located in a
single urban area of at least 10,000
population.
A central county is associated with
the urbanized area or urban cluster that
accounts for the largest portion of the
county’s population. The central
counties associated with a particular
urbanized area or urban cluster are
grouped to form a single cluster of
central counties for purposes of
measuring commuting to and from
potentially qualifying outlying counties.

Section 3. Outlying Counties
A county qualifies as an outlying
county of a CBSA if it meets the
following commuting requirements:
(a) At least 25 percent of the workers
living in the county work in the central
county or counties of the CBSA; or
(b) At least 25 percent of the
employment in the county is accounted
for by workers who reside in the central
county or counties of the CBSA.
A county may be included in only one
CBSA. If a county qualifies as a central
county of one CBSA and as outlying in
another, it falls within the CBSA in
which it is a central county. A county
that qualifies as outlying to multiple
CBSAs falls within the CBSA with
which it has the strongest commuting
tie, as measured by either 3(a) or 3(b)
above. The counties included in a CBSA
must be contiguous; if a county is not
contiguous with other counties in the
CBSA, it will not fall within the CBSA.

...

Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA)
—
A statistical geographic entity consisting
of the county or counties associated
with at least one core (urbanized area or
urban cluster) of at least 10,000
population, plus adjacent counties
having a high degree of social and
economic integration with the core as
measured through commuting ties with
the counties containing the core.
Metropolitan and Micropolitan
Statistical Areas are the two categories
of Core Based Statistical Areas.

I noticed 25% can be either direction for MSA. Both not required. Same must be true for 15% for CSA. So the Hamilton, Barrie, Guelph and Toronto MSAs would form a Toronto-Hamilton-Guelph-Barrie CSA.

Toronto MSA would be have as "core" of Toronto, Peel, Halton, York, and possibly Durham. Otherwise Durham would be an "outlying county". Another would be Dufferin (35%).

Conclusion: MSAs are a generally a lot bigger than CMAs.... Kitchener is a good example... the CMA excludes 2 counties that are very strongly tied to the city.... obviously these 2 counties would be included in an MSA.... that would increase the population figure by around 50,000. Perhaps Guelph would also be included in the MSA.... I'm not sure, but perhaps it would be... that would add another 150,000 to Kitchener's MSA.

Only 11% of Guelph work in Waterloo Region. It would not even qualify to be in the same CSA as Kitchener, let alone the same MSA.

Guelph and Wellington County would be Guelph MSA. 18% of Guelph MSA would work in Toronto MSA so it would form CSA with Toronto MSA.

Only 13% of workers in Waterloo Region come from outside the Region, and fewer than 15% of Waterloo Region work anywhere outside the region, therefore Waterloo Region would be its own MSA, and no CSA would be possible either.

Another comparison is the Albuquerque Metropolitan Statistical Area which is so huge that it even includes Santa Fe.... separated by open country 65 miles away! So give me a break! MSAs in the US include much more area/population than CMAs in Canada. BTW, the CSA for Toronto would now weigh in at 9.7 million..... every bit as big as Chicago's CSA.

The definitions are right there in that document. MSAs and CSAs aren't based on distances, they are based on commutes. 6 miles or 65 miles doesn't matter. You are making up your own definitions and making a lot of assumptions.

And again you are confusing MSA and CSA. Sante Fe MSA is part of Alberquerque-Las Vegas-Sante Fe CSA. Sante Fe is not part of the Alberquerque MSA. Sante Fe is part of the Sante Fe MSA.

Toronto MSA I described would have population 6,111,072 in 2011. The Toronto-Hamilton-Guelph-Barrie CSA would have population 7,285,444. Either way, nowhere near 9.7 million.

[Ontario1]

Who the hell cares? What difference does it make any way?

[koops65]

It makes a difference to some people... the ones who either want to see Toronto catch up to Chicago (in ALL categories) or the ones who DONT want to see Toronto catch up to Chicago!

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Ontario1

Who the hell cares? What difference does it make any way?

You don't think there is any difference between misinformation and the truth? This is a discussion board. How is knowing the facts not important for discussion? If someone dominates a thread and continually makes the same false and outrageous claims over and over, potentially misleading people, I care about that, and I will correct them, simple as that.

For the record, I don't care too much if Toronto or Chicago is bigger. I only care that this guy is spreading so much misinformation here.

[isaidso]

It bears mentioning that size isn't everything. Amsterdam is listed as an alpha city on par with Sao Paulo and Mumbai yet 1 tenth the size. Toronto, how ever one counts it, is smaller than Chicago but the city has arguably moved ahead of Chicago already. Toronto's built from and population are catching up to its new found heft. Toronto is still early on in its upward trajectory so its hard to determine where it will settle.

[Doady]

Yes, you could argue Toronto has caught up to Chicago in terms of regional/global importance.

Chicago is a city in decline. The city is declining population. The metropolitan area is declining population (!).

In terms of built form, Chicago is older, its historic urban core/inner city is huge, Toronto can't compare, but Chicago's sprawl is also huge. So it has become suburbanized regardless. Just at what has happen to transit there as result of sprawl:

System    Pop'n15   Boardings15   Per Capita  
TTC       2.8M      859,920,200   307
CTA       3.5M      515,964,000   147
MiWay     0.75M     53,300,000    71
Brampton  0.56M     31,100,000    56
YRT       1.1M      30,131,400    27
Pace      4.8M      37,414,500    8

CTA is closer to MiWay than it is to TTC. Pace might as well not exist. This is what Chicago has become.

Chicago once was a great city, but it's merely a city of past glories now. Toronto is a city of the present and future. There is no comparison.

Chicago is not a place Toronto should aspire to become. Toronto should look up, not down. Toronto should move forwards, not backwards.

[Hot Rod]

not getting into this argument, but what are the TTC numbers? system or metro only?

Also, Chicago does have a rather extensive commuter rail network; Metra - that somewhat doubles as another subway system (has many lines with many stops in the inner city and core).

I think you have to take this into account given Chicago's layout and development vs. Toronto's recent accent.

[ue]

Originally Posted by Doady

Yes, you could argue Toronto has caught up to Chicago in terms of regional/global importance.

Chicago is a city in decline. The city is declining population. The metropolitan area is declining population (!).

In terms of built form, Chicago is older, its historic urban core/inner city is huge, Toronto can't compare, but Chicago's sprawl is also huge. So it has become suburbanized regardless. Just at what has happen to transit there as result of sprawl:

System    Pop'n15   Boardings15   Per Capita  
TTC       2.8M      859,920,200   307
CTA       3.5M      515,964,000   147
MiWay     0.75M     53,300,000    71
Brampton  0.56M     31,100,000    56
YRT       1.1M      30,131,400    27
Pace      4.8M      37,414,500    8

CTA is closer to MiWay than it is to TTC. Pace might as well not exist. This is what Chicago has become.

Chicago once was a great city, but it's merely a city of past glories now. Toronto is a city of the present and future. There is no comparison.

Chicago is not a place Toronto should aspire to become. Toronto should look up, not down. Toronto should move forwards, not backwards.

Where are you getting your information from? I see no indication that Chicagoland is declining (maybe slowing) in population. City of Chicago or Cook County? Ok. But not the entire metropolitan area.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Hot Rod

not getting into this argument, but what are the TTC numbers? system or metro only?

Also, Chicago does have a rather extensive commuter rail network; Metra - that somewhat doubles as another subway system (has many lines with many stops in the inner city and core).

I think you have to take this into account given Chicago's layout and development vs. Toronto's recent accent.

TTC serves City of Toronto only. YRT also contracts out many routes to TTC in York Region, but those are counted as part of YRT numbers only. MiWay is for Mississauga, Brampton Transit for Brampton.

Sorry, for lack of explanation, I didn't realize people from outside Toronto area would see my post. Maybe it is a little over the top, I wasn't trying to provoke people from Chicago, I was trying to provoke people from Toronto.

Commuter rail is based on park and ride, even a station in the middle of nowhere can be heavily used, so I think it's better to look at local transit. In any case, GO Transit had 69.5M riders in 2015 (~52M train), Metra had 81.6M (all train), so there's not much difference between GO and Metra if you consider population.

But you do bring up a good point about Metra serving City of Chicago residents. TTC is very hostile to suburban transit systems, even going as far to ban them from providing service within Toronto borders, so TTC's own numbers perhaps slightly inflated. TTC is a very backwards agency. But then again GO is not very willing to cooperate with TTC either.

Originally Posted by ue

Where are you getting your information from? I see no indication that Chicagoland is declining (maybe slowing) in population. City of Chicago or Cook County? Ok. But not the entire metropolitan area.

Yeah saw it when I search population numbers:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...324-story.html

Apparently not is only Chicago metro area declining population but state of Illinois as a whole.

[FFX-ME]

Here is a graphic comparing the GTA, golden horseshoe and Chicago metro populations as a function of year, latest data from 2010 and 2011.



Clearly Toronto is growing much faster than Chicago. The metro population is still much lower but the Golden horseshoe should pass it in 2030 or something.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Hot Rod

Toronto's recent accent.

I'm nitpicking but Toronto has been rapidly ascending for decades. What's different now is that it's grown to a size where it's becoming globally influential.

[kolchak]

I thought I'd post the Apple maps images for comparison -

windows screen capture
upload img