Census 2011 Results:

[eemy]

Those changes might make sense to you, but then you can no longer compare CMAs with each other since they are not based on a consistent set of criteria, they are basically just arbitrary boundaries based on someone's opinion.

Instead, what rules would you change?

Does anyone know whether it is possible to get more detailed commuting data?

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Looking at only the nine largest CMAs (those over 500,000), here IMO are the areas that should be added:

Toronto

Current population: 5,583,064
Recommended population: 6,115,020

Reason: Eliminate the Oshawa CMA and absorb into the Toronto CMA. Shift Burlington to the Toronto CMA from the Hamilton CMA. No other additions.

Hamilton

Current population: 721,053
Recommended population: 608,449

Reason: Remove Burlington (to Toronto CMA). Add Norfolk County.

I'd much rather have Oakville taken from the Toronto CMA and added to the Hamilton CMA. It's closer to Hamilton than Toronto.

Toronto
Current population: 5,583,064
Recommended population: 5,400,544


Hamilton
Current population: 721,053
Recommended population: 903,573

[caltrane74]

Snobs in Oakville doth protest having any association with Hamilton.

[waterloowarrior]

Oakville commuting flow stats

in the 06 census out of 71k commuters:
37% worked in Oakville
25% worked in Toronto
23% worked in Mississauga
6% worked in Burlington
2% worked in Brampton
2% worked in Hamilton

For the 65k jobs in Oakville
40% lived in Oakville
16% lived in Missisauga
16% lived in Burlington
11% lived in Hamilton
5% lived in Toronto
3% lived in Brampton

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-re...NAMEE=&VNAMEF=

[Andrewjm3D]

I worked for Nelvana in Oakville, I hated every minute I was in that town. Nice historic area by the lake but everything north of the QEW is a suburban sprawling nightmare.

[vid]

They have The Weather Network and Nelvana? Fan-cy!

[eemy]

Thanks for drawing my attention to those tables waterloowarrior.

I did some quick analysis:

In 2006, Okotoks was *very* close to being included in the Calgary CMA. 48.5% of labour force of the combined Foothills municipalities worked in Calgary (needs to be 50%), and 23.9% of the people working in those municipalities commuted from Calgary (needs to be 25%). Granted, this was looking at the Calgary CSD - the delineation urban core is somewhat more specific, so the percentages of each of those is probably slightly less in actuality.

As for Burlington, more people work in Oakville, Mississauga, and Toronto than Hamilton, but by far most work in Burlington itself, so it would not be considered a part of any other CMA under the forward-commuting rule. Under the reverse commuting rule, 33.5% of the people working in Burlington live in Hamilton, so it clearly is a part of Hamilton's CMA under the reverse commuting rule.

As for the Oshawa CMA, about 65% of it's labour force works in Oshawa and about 78% of those working in Oshawa live in Oshawa. Based on the 35% rule for merging CAs and CMAs, that would mean that Oshawa would merge with Toronto were it not for the rule that CMAs cannot merge with each other. It, however, does not satisfy either the forward or reverse commuting rules.

[eemy]

Maybe someone can verify the numbers for me, but I'm getting that a number of townships surrounding Ottawa should be included in its CMA under the forward commuting rule. Mississippi Mills, Beckwith, Carleton Place and North Grenville (possibly among others, the only other one I checked was Arnprior) all had greater than 50% commuting into the Ottawa CMA. In most cases, it was only a bit more than 50% of the population of those municipalities, but in the case of Beckwith Twp, it was 62%.

In the 2006 rules, they must be working within the delineation urban core in order to count for the forward commuting rule. I'm not entirely clear what constitutes the delineation urban core, but my understanding is that it would refer to the primary urban core of the municipality. In that case, I wonder if the fact that Kanata being classified as urban fringe means that people commuting into Ottawa, but working in Kanata do not count when tallying commuters for the forward-commuting rule. The fact that Kanata is a very large employment node means that those municipalities to the west of Ottawa are likely going to see more commuters working in Kanata than in the rest of the city. Anyone have any insight?

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

Maybe someone can verify the numbers for me, but I'm getting that a number of townships surrounding Ottawa should be included in its CMA under the forward commuting rule. Mississippi Mills, Beckwith, Carleton Place and North Grenville (possibly among others, the only other one I checked was Arnprior) all had greater than 50% commuting into the Ottawa CMA. In most cases, it was only a bit more than 50% of the population of those municipalities, but in the case of Beckwith Twp, it was 62%.

In the 2006 rules, they must be working within the delineation urban core in order to count for the forward commuting rule. I'm not entirely clear what constitutes the delineation urban core, but my understanding is that it would refer to the primary urban core of the municipality. In that case, I wonder if the fact that Kanata being classified as urban fringe means that people commuting into Ottawa, but working in Kanata do not count when tallying commuters for the forward-commuting rule. The fact that Kanata is a very large employment node means that those municipalities to the west of Ottawa are likely going to see more commuters working in Kanata than in the rest of the city. Anyone have any insight?

I wonder if that is the case... here are some of the rules from
http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recen...eo049a-eng.cfm

The delineation rules for population centres (POPCTR) are ranked in order of priority:

1. The 2006 urban areas are retained as 2011 population centres if their current population is 1,000 or more. Kanata stays as a population centre
2. If a dissemination block with a population density of at least 400 persons per square kilometre is adjacent to a population centre, then it is added to that population centre. Greenbelt keeps Kanata/Ottawa separate
3. If a dissemination block or group of contiguous dissemination blocks, each having a minimum population of 1,000 and a population density of at least 400 persons per square kilometre for the current census, then the dissemination block or group of contiguous dissemination blocks is delineated as a new population centre. N/A
4. The distance by road between population centres is measured. If the distance is less than two kilometres, then the population centres are combined to form a single population centre, provided they do not cross census metropolitan area (CMA) or census agglomeration (CA) boundaries. Kanata is less than 2KM from Ottawa population centre as the crow flies... but not by road (based on a few test measurements I did)
5. If a population centre is contained within a census subdivision (CSD) or a designated place (DPL), the difference in land area between the population centre and the CSD or DPL is calculated. For confidentiality purposes, if the difference between the CSD and the population centre is less than 10 square kilometres, then the boundary for the population centre is adjusted to the CSD boundary. However, if the difference between the DPL and the population centre is less than 10 square kilometres and the remaining population is less than 100, then the population centre will annex the entire DPL. Greenbelt means it will be more than 10KM^2

[trebor204]

Here is a map of the Ottawa CMA (large grey Outline) (Created Using ArcMap with Shapefiles from StatsCan)
The map is a bit crowded




Red Regions - Population Centres
Black Bold Text - Name of Popilation Centres

Green Outline - Census Division
Green Text - Name of CD

Blue Outline - Census Subdivision
Blue Text - Name of CSD

Yellow Regions - Designated Places

[dennis1]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

Those changes might make sense to you, but then you can no longer compare CMAs with each other since they are not based on a consistent set of criteria, they are basically just arbitrary boundaries based on someone's opinion.

Instead, what rules would you change?

Does anyone know whether it is possible to get more detailed commuting data?

They change their Metro Data in the US. The Standards for last years census are not the same as in 1990. Canada can do this. Or is Statistics Canada lazy?

[Razor]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

We'll have to wait two more years to see what the undercounts were, but in the meantime, Statistics Canada recommends using the estimates as they are a more accurate representation of population. In that sense, I think we can legitimately say that Calgary has surpassed Ottawa in population, even if the preliminary results from the census don't reflect that.

Nah..The only thing you can "legitimately say" are quoted numbers from the Stats Canada website. Until those numbers change, it's pure speculation as far as I'm concerned..Sure, there's going to be undercount adjustments made for all cities, but until it changes on their records it's all we can go on.

[jmt18325]

The estimates are also stats Canada numbers...numbers that they seem to trust.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by vid

They have The Weather Network and Nelvana? Fan-cy!

They also have the Canadian headquarters for Ford and they have Glenn Abbey, home to the Canadian Open. It may be boring, but it's one of the most wealthiest cities in the country.

[Andrewjm3D]

Originally Posted by isaidso

They also have the Canadian headquarters for Ford and they have Glenn Abbey, home to the Canadian Open. It may be boring, but it's one of the most wealthiest cities in the country.

Well Nelvana is no more (in Oakville that is). I bailed before they closed their small studio at Sheridan Campus. Now it's a lame studio called Pipeline leeching off the college for cheap inexperienced labour.

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by vid

Because Fort MacMurray is just one small part of the Municipality of Wood Buffalo. It would be like calling Ontario "Toronto".

No, that's not the same thing. Do you understand the difference between a regional municipality and a consolidated metropolitan area? A CMA is a city and it's surrounding municipalities while a regional municipality is more like a suburb. In this thread we're discussing consolidated metropolitan areas like Toronto, Lethbridge and Halifax. Wood Buffalo is a regional municipality, of which Fort McMurray is part of, yet Wood Buffalo is on this list as a CMA. As far as I know Fort McMurray is the sole source of population in Wood Buffalo, which means that for the purposes of the census, Wood Buffalo and Fort McMurray are the exact same thing, yet rather than calling the city Fort McMurray, for reasons I highly doubt I will ever understand, the census continues to refer to it as Wood Buffalo.

Maybe someone can state this in simpler terms for Vid because i'm quite confident he won't get this.

[mbeaumont]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

As far as I know Fort McMurray is the sole source of population in Wood Buffalo

Anzac, Conklin, Draper, Fort Mackay, Fort Chipewyan, Janvier to name a few are other sources of population in the regional municipality

[eemy]

Originally Posted by Razor

Nah..The only thing you can "legitimately say" are quoted numbers from the Stats Canada website. Until those numbers change, it's pure speculation as far as I'm concerned..Sure, there's going to be undercount adjustments made for all cities, but until it changes on their records it's all we can go on.

I suggest reading what Statistics Canada says on the matter, since they're the ones conducting the actual census. The population estimates are quoted numbers from Statistics Canada and "provide a more accurate measure of population counts."
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/hp-pa/estima-eng.htm

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

No, that's not the same thing. Do you understand the difference between a regional municipality and a consolidated metropolitan area? A CMA is a city and it's surrounding municipalities while a regional municipality is more like a suburb. In this thread we're discussing consolidated metropolitan areas like Toronto, Lethbridge and Halifax. Wood Buffalo is a regional municipality, of which Fort McMurray is part of, yet Wood Buffalo is on this list as a CMA. As far as I know Fort McMurray is the sole source of population in Wood Buffalo, which means that for the purposes of the census, Wood Buffalo and Fort McMurray are the exact same thing, yet rather than calling the city Fort McMurray, for reasons I highly doubt I will ever understand, the census continues to refer to it as Wood Buffalo.

Maybe someone can state this in simpler terms for Vid because i'm quite confident he won't get this.

Statistics Canada has methodology for everything, and as it turns out, that includes the naming of a CMA/CA. It is outlined here: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-re...geo009-eng.cfm

The CA/CMA derives its name from the principal population centre in the municipality. It could be possible to request the name be changed to something like Wood Buffalo-Fort McMurray with the consensus of all municipalities, but as long as the municipality is Wood Buffalo, the first part will stick.

As others have noted, Wood Buffalo is not unique in this regard. Saguenay, Cape Breton, Kawartha Lakes, Norfolk, Centre Wellington, and Temiskaming Shores are also examples of CAs that do not share a name with their better known population centres (Chicoutimi/Jonquire, Sydney, Lindsay, Simcoe, Elora/Fergus, and New Liskeard respectively).

[vid]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

No, that's not the same thing.

You're right. The more accurate comparison would be calling the Ville de Saguenay "Chicoutimi" or "Jonquiere".

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

Do you understand the difference between a regional municipality and a consolidated metropolitan area? A CMA is a city and it's surrounding municipalities while a regional municipality is more like a suburb.

Census Metropolitan Area. A CMA is a statistical division used by Statistics Canada to explain relationships of large cities with their surrounding municipalities. It is not a form of government.

A regional municipality is a form of local government that provides services to a large area with multiple communities in it, and it may or may not have other municipalities below it. Examples include Greater Sudbury, Ottawa and pre-amalgamation Metropolitan Toronto.

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

In this thread we're discussing consolidated metropolitan areas like Toronto, Lethbridge and Halifax. Wood Buffalo is a regional municipality, of which Fort McMurray is part of, yet Wood Buffalo is on this list as a CMA. As far as I know Fort McMurray is the sole source of population in Wood Buffalo, which means that for the purposes of the census, Wood Buffalo and Fort McMurray are the exact same thing, yet rather than calling the city Fort McMurray, for reasons I highly doubt I will ever understand, the census continues to refer to it as Wood Buffalo.

Toronto, Lethbridge, Halifax, and Wood Buffalo are all incorporated local governments. Their proper names, respectively, are "City of Toronto", "City of Lethbridge", "Regional Municipality of Halifax" and "Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo". They are all CSDs—Census Subdivisions. The census refers to the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo because that is the proper, legal name for that government entity. Statistics Canada doesn't refer to Thunder Bay as "Lakehead", so why should it refer to Wood Buffalo as "Fort McMurray"?

You want the population for Fort McMurray itself? Here it is: the population for the Population Centre (formerly known as Urban Area) of Fort McMurray, Alberta. It has 61,374, contrasted to Wood Buffalo's 65,565 people.

If you want Wood Buffalo's name changed to Fort McMurray, then don't complain to Statistics Canada about it. Complain to the Alberta Government, which gave the community that name when it was created in 1995.

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

Maybe someone can state this in simpler terms for Vid because i'm quite confident he won't get this.

Insulting other forumers, as well as creating new profiles to continue posting here after you've been banned, are both against forum rules. I'm surprised you've managed to last this long.

[Razor]

[QUOTE=jeremy_haak;5587920]I suggest reading what Statistics Canada says on the matter, since they're the ones conducting the actual census. The population estimates are quoted numbers from Statistics Canada and "provide a more accurate measure of population counts."
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/hp-pa/estima-eng.htmQUOTE]

So what are you saying ?...It's simple really.."Official" population satistics are found on the stats can site, and people can't speculate nor can cities conduct their own "un-official" censuses every year.Once every 5 years the federal government conducts a detailed census where everyone must participate.The results then gets put into record and then these counts are posted on their web-site..Subsequently, in about two years an adjustment will be made for an undercount..This updated figure will then be released to the public. Until the next census or adjustment, no figures should be taken as gospel on any forums etc. until the next census, or adjutment figures are released. Black and white really. Any number that is posted by someone on this forum that isn't a reflection of the government count is just speculation really.I also noticed that Wikipedia already has the new 2011 official numbers up now, and they are pretty good at mirroring "official" results.