2019 Population Estimate of Canadian Metropolitan Areas

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by Doady

Yes, Vaughan is probably the worst planned suburb of Toronto. Haphazard, lower density, longer walking distances, less permeability. Which is why I am confused that people are devoting so much attention to it.



Vaughan is almost half farmland and one quarter industrial land. Residential/commercial uses are the minority. The residential/commercial land have population density of around 4,000 per sqkm or 10,000 per sq mile, typical for subdivision in Toronto area. After taking into account farmland and industrial, Frisco might be around 1,800 per sqkm or 4,500 per sq mile.

The Toronto urban area (including Milton) overall has density of around 3,000 residents per sq km, the highest in all of Canada and USA. Dallas urban area has around 1,200 per sq km, lower than Barrie, Kingston, Sherbrooke, Abbotsford basically every urban area with more than 100,000 people in Canada. Statistics Canada separates Milton from Toronto urban area but even as a separate urban area Milton is 2 times denser than Dallas.

Every Canadian urban area is 2 or 3 times denser than similar-sized US urban area. Toronto urban area is 3 times denser than the Philadelphia, Dallas, Houston urban areas. Montreal is 3 times denser than the Boston urban area and 2.5 times denser than the Detroit and Phoenix urban areas. Calgary is 2 times denser than the Austin, Columbus, Milwaukee urban areas. You don't have to look that deep, the 2-3 times higher urban density and the 4-5 times higher transit ridership in Canada should already be enough to indicate major differences between the two countries. Any similarities between the two countries are just superficial.

again, you continue to quote US urban area numbers that are reduced by the existence of a low-density fringe housing (in most cases, except atlanta) a small portion of the total population.

and vaughn looks exactly like the inland empire, CA or maybe the south bay. frisco lots sizes are a bit bigger and there is a bit less multifamily, but cmon otherwise the resemblance is painfully obvious

(btw 18% of frisco housing units are multifamily, vs in vaughn around 9800 units are in >5 story buildings; 61000 out of 91000 vaughn units are single family homes and another 17000 are townhouses/semi detached).

so similar type of housing, similar built environment, but much greater (I assume) bus transit share in vaughn.

vaughn multifamily:



frisco multifamily

[park123]

I guess Canadian cities have higher public transit (bus) shares of people commuting into the center city. But the strange thing is that central Boston doesn’t seem less crowded or busy than central Montreal. Ditto for Chicago and Toronto. How can that be, given the higher transit share in Montreal vs Boston and Toronto vs Chicago? Maybe more people drive into Boston and Chicago? And more people take the bus into Toronto and Montreal? Living in Manhattan, I see a of people from NJ drive in even here. It’s not all public transport.

Or maybe the high transit share is just people in suburban Toronto taking the bus from their suburban apartments to their suburban workplaces? Maybe it’s relatively poor immigrants (or immigrants from places where people are not used to commuting largely by car) taking the bus from one suburban location to another?

[park123]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

again, you continue to quote US urban area numbers that are reduced by the existence of a low-density fringe housing (in most cases, except atlanta) a small portion of the total population.

and vaughn looks exactly like the inland empire, CA or maybe the south bay. frisco lots sizes are a bit bigger and there is a bit less multifamily, but cmon otherwise the resemblance is painfully obvious

(btw 18% of frisco housing units are multifamily, vs in vaughn around 9800 units are in >5 story buildings; 61000 out of 91000 vaughn units are single family homes and another 17000 are townhouses/semi detached).

so similar type of housing, similar built environment, but much greater (I assume) bus transit share in vaughn.

vaughn multifamily:



frisco multifamily

You’re obviously reaching with your photo choices, to make suburban Toronto look bad and suburban Dallas (that means all of Dallas) look good. But you have to remember that your Dallas apartment render is surrounded by parking on a dusty 6 lane highway with like 6 trees, zero pedestrians, and a drive through Arby’s 200 yards across the street as the nearest business.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by park123

Or maybe the high transit share is just people in suburban Toronto taking the bus from their suburban apartments to their suburban workplaces? Maybe it’s relatively poor immigrants (or immigrants from places where people are not used to commuting largely by car) taking the bus from one suburban location to another?

Is there any evidence that immigrants don't learn to adapt to the transportation patterns of the locals for any practical reason?

I'm sure that even though NYC and LA have similar foreign born/first generation immigrant shares (high 30s to 40% in the city, near 30% in the metro), immigrants are not the reason why NYC or LA differ in transit share.

I'm sure an immigrant to LA quickly picks up the car culture and one to NYC quickly learns to navigate the subway well.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

again, you continue to quote US urban area numbers that are reduced by the existence of a low-density fringe housing (in most cases, except atlanta) a small portion of the total population.

and vaughn looks exactly like the inland empire, CA or maybe the south bay. frisco lots sizes are a bit bigger and there is a bit less multifamily, but cmon otherwise the resemblance is painfully obvious

(btw 18% of frisco housing units are multifamily, vs in vaughn around 9800 units are in >5 story buildings; 61000 out of 91000 vaughn units are single family homes and another 17000 are townhouses/semi detached).

so similar type of housing, similar built environment, but much greater (I assume) bus transit share in vaughn.

vaughn multifamily:



frisco multifamily

Vaughan does have subway service.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Vaughan does have subway service.

Yeah, its got a station at the northern terminus of Toronto's subway, just built a bit over two years ago.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Yeah, its got a station at the northern terminus of Toronto's subway, just built a bit over two years ago.

actually Vaughan has 2 subways stops and 3rd one on the border with Toronto.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by park123

Or maybe the high transit share is just people in suburban Toronto taking the bus from their suburban apartments to their suburban workplaces? Maybe it’s relatively poor immigrants (or immigrants from places where people are not used to commuting largely by car) taking the bus from one suburban location to another?

Yes, all this. Canadian metros have lower incomes, higher housing costs, higher auto/gas prices, more road congestion, no legacy racial issues and huge immigration populations. All these factors contribute to much higher transit ridership in suburban sprawl relative to U.S.

It's totally normal to ride a bus to a shopping center in, say, Mississauga, or Vaughn. That would be really weird in, say, suburban Detroit. In many Canadian metros, you have tons of moderate income immigrant households who use buses. The same households in the U.S. wouldn't even consider buses.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yes, all this. Canadian metros have lower incomes, higher housing costs, higher auto/gas prices, more road congestion, no legacy racial issues and huge immigration populations. All these factors contribute to much higher transit ridership in suburban sprawl relative to U.S.

It's totally normal to ride a bus to a shopping center in, say, Mississauga, or Vaughn. That would be really weird in, say, suburban Detroit. In many Canadian metros, you have tons of moderate income immigrant households who use buses. The same households in the U.S. wouldn't even consider buses.

Nah, when it comes to regular shopping and aside from trips downtown maybe, Canadian metros are pretty car centric as well. Hence the road congestion, like you stated.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Razor

Nah, when it comes to regular shopping and aside from trips downtown maybe, Canadian metros are pretty car centric as well. Hence the road congestion, like you stated.

Right, Canada is car centric by global standards, but compared to U.S. there's a notable ridership difference in sprawl.

In the U.S., sprawl usually has 0 or near-0 ridership. There's typical no transit service whatsoever, or maybe a skeletal network of infrequent buses. In Toronto, places like Mississauga have decent ridership share, even if the built form isn't particularly different than the U.S.

[iheartthed]

Isn't the 401 the widest highway in the world?

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Right, Canada is car centric by global standards, but compared to U.S. there's a notable ridership difference in sprawl.

My response was more to your statement below. Soon, I'm heading out to a shopping centre myself to grab some supplies, and I certainly am not taking a darn bus! And I'm in the majority if you were to do up a sample size. Maybe you're targeting teeny boppers in your original statement?

Originally Posted by Crawford

It's totally normal to ride a bus to a shopping center in, say, Mississauga, or Vaughn. That would be really weird in, say, suburban Detroit.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Razor

My response was more to your statement below. Soon, I'm heading out to a shopping centre myself to grab some supplies, and I certainly am not taking a darn bus! And I'm in the majority if you were to do up a sample size. Maybe you're targeting teeny boppers in your original statement?

I'm saying the transit ridership share to, say, 12 Oaks Mall in Novi, MI (a huge regional mall) is 0, as Novi doesn't even have bus service, while the ridership to analogous malls in the GTA, such as Square One in Mississauga, would be something higher.

Whether it's 10%, 15%, or whatever, that's a notable difference, even if the built environment isn't notably different. Such metro-wide differences in mobility probably account for the trans-national differences in ridership share.

[suburbanite]

Bus ridership is definitely different. I grew up near the lake in Oakville, a place that looks and feels pretty similar to North Shore Chicago. This is the map of all 15+ bus routes though:



Even though there isn't the same stigma around bus travel, and it wasn't uncommon for kids from high-income households to take the bus if we wanted to go to the mall or a hockey rink or something, it obviously isn't heavily utilized by the standard 2 car + upper middle class household. The difference is that within one of the richest suburbs in the city, you have a place like Kerr Village where very low-income households are located around the corner from multi-million dollar lakefront homes. Many people here are inter-suburban commuting via bus to various service jobs.

A much more even distribution of low-income households across the GTA is the primary reason pretty much every neighbourhood will have at least passable bus service. Are there any American cities that have a higher level of that sort of intermingling and do you see better, widespread bus coverage to match?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm saying the transit ridership share to, say, 12 Oaks Mall in Novi, MI (a huge regional mall) is 0, as Novi doesn't even have bus service, while the ridership to analogous malls in the GTA, such as Square One in Mississauga, would be something higher.

Whether it's 10%, 15%, or whatever, that's a notable difference, even if the built environment isn't notably different. Such metro-wide differences in mobility probably account for the trans-national differences in ridership share.

In my city of 300,000 (sister city to a larger one of 1 million right across the river) the buses are not necessarily always packed but they still have plenty of middle class and upper middle class teenagers going to the mall, the movies, restaurants, parties, part-time jobs, etc.

When my kids have parties each time the half-hour suburban milk run bus passes at the corner of the street, it might drop a half-dozen or so teens aged 15-18 who are destined for my backyard swimming pool.

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Even struggling U.S. metros often outperform similarly-sized or larger Canadian ones in terms of wealth and career opportunities.

As for education and culture, Montreal certainly compares favourably to Boston and Philly - it's just that most of its "stuff" is in French so you're not aware of it. Or maybe discounting it.

Montreal is historically more of a renters' city too. They spend more of their earnings on enjoying cultural events, food and/or building liquid assets. They also have more robust protection for tenants.

Whereas Toronto and many anglo and American cities have a deeply engrained and costly obsession with the money pit that is homeownership. Unfortunately this is affecting the goverments central monetary policy too but thats a different discussion.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm saying the transit ridership share to, say, 12 Oaks Mall in Novi, MI (a huge regional mall) is 0, as Novi doesn't even have bus service, while the ridership to analogous malls in the GTA, such as Square One in Mississauga, would be something higher.

Whether it's 10%, 15%, or whatever, that's a notable difference, even if the built environment isn't notably different. Such metro-wide differences in mobility probably account for the trans-national differences in ridership share.

Isn’t that a bit of a false equivalency? Detroit is nowhere close to as reliant on public transit as Toronto, so of course suburban Detroit. A better comparison would be Chicago, Boston, New York. I can’t speak for the suburban areas of Boston or New York, but I’m Chicago is is not uncommon at all for people in Evanston, Oak Park, Skokie, Berwyn, etc. to take public transit. The further from the city you go the less common it gets, but is that different around Toronto?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Handro

Isn’t that a bit of a false equivalency? Detroit is nowhere close to as reliant on public transit as Toronto, so of course suburban Detroit. A better comparison would be Chicago, Boston, New York. I can’t speak for the suburban areas of Boston or New York, but I’m Chicago is is not uncommon at all for people in Evanston, Oak Park, Skokie, Berwyn, etc. to take public transit. The further from the city you go the less common it gets, but is that different around Toronto?

Chicago would be no different. The transit share around Oakbrook/Northbrook/Woodfield and all the random Walmarts/Targets/whatevers in sprawl suburbia will be minimal. In contrast, Toronto really has a bunch of bus lines with fairly high ridership in near-cornfield sprawl.

Evanston, Oak Park, Berwyn have nothing to do with what we're talking about. They're old, pre-auto communities.

I suspect the main reason Toronto has higher ridership than Chicago is sprawl.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Chicago would be no different. The transit share around Oakbrook/Northbrook/Woodfield and all the random Walmarts/Targets/whatevers in sprawl suburbia will be minimal. In contrast, Toronto really has a bunch of bus lines with fairly high ridership in near-cornfield sprawl.

Evanston, Oak Park, Berwyn have nothing to do with what we're talking about. They're old, pre-auto communities.

I suspect the main reason Toronto has higher ridership than Chicago is sprawl.

Ah ok, you used Mississauga in your example which is certainly more analogous to Evanston than Schaumburg, but that’s pretty cool if bus ridership is stays consistent even out in the farther sprawl suburbs.

[dc_denizen]

So Frisco has multifamily % close to Vaughn but vastly different transit ridership

Both has similar built form of ugly large arterials and single family developments

Vaughn has concentrated commercial and industrial workplaces (Dallas is not an industrial city)

Vaughn is populated by predominantly East Asian immigrants, Frisco (I assume) rust belt transplants and some immigrants