Just How Close are London and K-W?

[haljackey]

Via Wikipedia

I knew that recently Kitchener's metro (which includes places like Waterloo and Cambridge) recently overtook London's position as the 10th largest metropolitan area in Canada. (Which for some reason includes places like St. Thomas and Strathroy... not really 'metro' if you ask me.)

What I didn't know is just how close these metros are in terms of population, due to the fact just how different these cities are. London is one big blob while K-W is a bunch of smaller blobs connected together.

London may have a bigger core due to this, but K-W has a better highway and transit system due to the need to get across a sizable area quickly.

These two metros will continue to share similar populations for the forseeable future...

In addition, these cities are insanely close, and only an hour drive apart!

With stats this similar, which will be bigger in the 2011 Census?

[MolsonExport]

^interesting. To what trends do the wiki folks have London pacing KW in growth? Our economy has been on the wane for 5 years. KW is on the doorstep of the GTA.

[ssiguy]

I've never seen those stats before and I doubt if they are acurate. Yes right now there is little between them but KWC is growing faster although with RIM now laying off that will certainly slow.
Also, in reality Metro Kitchener should take in all of Waterloo Region which send it's population up to 530,000.
London will never regain it's #10 spot but it will always remain a more important metro than Kitchener.

[flar]

My first thought was about 50 miles...

They aren't really that similar. London is a real city but it's nowhere near 500,000 in actuality. K-W is more of a conurbation than a city.

[jodelli]

Why does London's metro include St Thomas and KW's not include Guelph?
I get why it's done but notice that St Thomas barely encroaches onto the aerial of London while at the same scale KW, Cambridge and Guelph are all comfortably in the same image.



Population in and around the first image c.700,000 (combined pop. of Regional Municipality of Waterloo plus Guelph including Wellington County)

Population in and around the second image c.525,000 (combined pop. of City of London plus Elgin and Middlesex Counties)

I used the US Census method of calculating metros (by county) just for comparison purposes.

[haljackey]

I've made it very clear that St. Thomas shouldn't be included in London's metro for two reasons.

1. It's pretty far away. Most metro areas have other municipalities right at the principal city's border (example Kitchener/Waterloo border). There is a great deal of mostly rural, undeveloped land between London and St. Thomas. If this area included low density development at the minimum than this would be more legit. In this sense, London has no metro area because it is completely surrounded by farms.

2. Lack of transportation connections. All that connects London and St. Thomas are a few 2-lane rural roads. If there was a stronger link between the two like a 4 lane freeway then this would be more legit. In addition there is no transit line running between the two... not even a bus route! The old London-Port Stanley terminal rail line can be easily restored and would provide a useful commuter rail service from St. Thomas right to downtown London.

[jodelli]

Originally Posted by haljackey

I've made it very clear that St. Thomas shouldn't be included in London's metro for two reasons.

1. It's pretty far away. Most metro areas have other municipalities right at the principal city's border (example Kitchener/Waterloo border). There is a great deal of mostly rural, undeveloped land between London and St. Thomas. If this area included low density development at the minimum than this would be more legit. In this sense, London has no metro area because it is completely surrounded by farms.

2. Lack of transportation connections. All that connects London and St. Thomas are a few 2-lane rural roads. If there was a stronger link between the two like a 4 lane freeway then this would be more legit. In addition there is no transit line running between the two... not even a bus route! The old London-Port Stanley terminal rail line can be easily restored and would provice a useful commuter rail service from St. Thomas right to downtown London.

I absolutely agree with you, and wonder what Census Canada is doing. I've had relatives in St Thomas up until recently and visited London for various reasons in the last half dozen years or so and the distance between them is a bit of a trip.
As far west from the built up area of London as Highway 4 and 401 is, the exit is considered to be going a bit too far past St Thomas for eastbound travellers on 401. It's mostly because #4 takes a northward turn at Talbotville while 401 continues NE away from the town.

Both Wellington and Highbury Roads are more direct but are long stretches of two lane rural roads.

[ssiguy]

This has definately been discussed at StasCan once before.

St.Thomas was considered part of London CMA in the 1971 census but not 1976 but then returned to London CMA in 1981.

There are a lot of instances like this in Canada suchas as Orangeville being included in Toronto CMA but not Burlington or Whitby/Oshawa. Mission is part of Abbotsford but just as far apart as London to St.Thomas. Foothills RM is not part of Calgary but borders the city unlike Airdrie or Cochrane.

Hell, if you want a real extortion just look at how Chatham-Kent is considered a CMA eventhough as soon as you leave Chatham with 45,000 it is just farms and small disjointed towns.

[vid]

Chatham-Kent is a single municipality. You can't have just a portion of a municipality as a CMA.

CMA statistics are based on commuters. St. Thomas has enough people going to London for work that it is part of London's CMA. Guelph, on the other hand, didn't have enough commuters going to KW before it became a CMA itself, and at this point it can't be merged because once created, CMAs never merge into other CMAs, or lose their status as a CMA if the population drops below 100,000.

[flar]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Hell, if you want a real extortion just look at how Chatham-Kent is considered a CMA eventhough as soon as you leave Chatham with 45,000 it is just farms and small disjointed towns.

Except Wallaceburg, which is (was) the major centre serving north Kent and South Lambton counties, quite independently of Chatham. It used to have a huge employment base and a daytime population of about 25,000. It has withered away since the amalgamation (Chatham and Wallaceburg hate each other, Wallaceburg has lost practically everything, it's a shadow of its former self).

Btw, Chatham-Kent is a CA, not a CMA. You need 100k in the core city to be considered a metro.

[Highinthesky]

St Thomas is part of London's CMA, along with Strathroy, because according to Stat Can's definition of a CMA it meets the criteria. It is all about commuters not highways or urban development. I don't understand why there is debate when members create what they think is the proper definition of a CMA?

Also the city of London ends at basically Thomson Line so you're talking about 6km from the City of London to the City of St Thomas.

[Snark]

This is perhaps 5 years old, but it still paints a picture of the salient facts.

[Brandon716]

I've been to both cities many times now, what I find interesting about Kitchener-Waterloo is the investments they are getting for their new light rail line. London seems like a city that would benefit more as it is more centralized.

Both cities I could see becoming 650,000 in population in the coming years, but Waterloo is currently experiencing a hulling of very high paying jobs with RIM's decline. So in the immediate KW may experience slower growth throughout the transition away from RIM in Waterloo.

[ssiguy]

London has always been a "steady as she goes" kind of place. It like all cities has seen it's good and bad times but never the great swings as the economy is very diversified and it is a major regional centre.

In some ways this mindset has held London back in terms of economic and population growth but this timid approach is what stopped London from getting an urban freeway that ripes the city in two like Kitchener.

I've always fe;t London was a REAL city like Hamilton and Kitchener is more like a collection of smaller places that just sort of grew into each other like the Niagara Region.

[Blitz]

An urban freeway is something that London needs - it shouldn't be considered something negative. The road network and the traffic problems in London are disgraceful for a city its size.

[haljackey]

Originally Posted by Blitz

An urban freeway is something that London needs - it shouldn't be considered something negative. The road network and the traffic problems in London are disgraceful for a city its size.

I was in Kitchener last week and decided to make a timelapse driving video of Highway 8 now that construction is done. I was blown away:

• Video Link


I am absolutely blown away by this... How can a city of that size have 2 8 lane freeways? The contrast is appalling if you compare that to a similar city like London which has a dinky 4 lane limited access road with traffic lights on the edge of town.

Add to the fact that the Region of Waterloo has approved and funded plans to have their LRT done by 2017. I saw prep work underway in downtown Kitchener including ground leveling and foundation for a new transit hub.
-By contrast London has one of the worst bus systems in the country with no transit hub. BRT might be considered in the future, but this is just envisioned with no mention of LRT.


So just how close are K/W and London these days? Just by population... the cities themselves are quite opposites, however.

[bolognium]

As a cyclist in Kitchener for 3 years, I fuckin' hated that freeway. Constantly having to make massive detours to cross it because most neighbourhoods were severed.

With London's rail lines and the Thames already acting as severe barriers, I'd hate to see an urban expressway added to the mess. I'd much rather we focus on beefing up Veterans and maybe Wonderland in the west. As far as central London goes, we need to forget about an urban freeway and start seriously looking at rapid transit.

[koops65]

Originally Posted by vid

Chatham-Kent is a single municipality. You can't have just a portion of a municipality as a CMA.

CMA statistics are based on commuters. St. Thomas has enough people going to London for work that it is part of London's CMA. Guelph, on the other hand, didn't have enough commuters going to KW before it became a CMA itself, and at this point it can't be merged because once created, CMAs never merge into other CMAs, or lose their status as a CMA if the population drops below 100,000.

What happens when 2 CMA's grow together to become one large city? Are they still counted as 2 separate CMA's? This is very likely to happen with K-W-C and Guelph. By then I would imagine the combined population to be over 1 million, perhaps by 2030, or 2040.

[flar]

Once a CMA is created, it can't be undone. Unless they change the rules, Guelph will always be separate from KW. They may have to think about a new classification (like CSA in the states) for areas like KW-Guelph or Tor-Ham-Osh.

[vid]

Originally Posted by koops65

What happens when 2 CMA's grow together to become one large city?

Currently, what would happen when two CMAs grow into each other is undefined. There isn't a process by which a municipality can leave one CMA and move to another if its commuter patterns change, either. This isn't a scenario StatsCan really anticipated, or they just purposefully put it off.