afransen
Senior Member
Is MCA a defined term for US Census? I don't see it defined. I see Chicago MSA having a definition, but nothing larger than that.
|
|
|
If you go to US census MCAs (adjacent metropolitan areas), Toronto is still well below not only NYC and LA (20 millionish), but also Chicago (13 millionish), DC-Baltimore, Dallas, Houston and San Francisco (all at or above 10 millionish). Even so, at current growth and prospects for growth, Toronto with its 8 millionish could well catch up to even Chicago by mid-century. As it does, it will be denser than all but NYC area.
Toronto closing the gap with Los Angeles by population is quite plausible. If 2018-2019 population growth numbers stayed constant Greater Toronto-Hamilton would pass Los Angeles MSA in population by 2050. I'll use Greater Toronto-Hamilton (Toronto CMA + Hamilton CMA + Oshawa CMA) as it's the best catchment area to approximate a US MSA imo. Extrapolating out to 2050 is, of course, problematic as things rarely stay constant but it indicates what's possible and when.
Below is the population of each with the absolute change over the previous year in brackets. The statistical analysis shows that Los Angeles is very catchable and by mid-century. Los Angeles MSA is bordered by another 4,650,631 (2019) in Riverside MSA while Greater Toronto-Hamilton is bordered by roughly 2 million in the rest of the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Nonetheless, I suspect in 20 years people will be comparing Toronto to Los Angeles rather than Chicago. Greater Toronto-Hamilton could reel in New York MSA too although that would take a few decades longer.
Los Angeles MSA in 2019: 13,214,799 (-35,080)
Greater Toronto-Hamilton in 2019: 7,680,502 (+144,566)
-35,080 X 31 years = -1,087,480
+144,566 X 31 years = +4,481,546
Los Angeles MSA in 2050: 13,214,799 - 1,087,480 = 12,127,319
Greater Toronto-Hamilton in 2050: 7,680,502 + 4,481,546 = 12,162,048
Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas Totals: 2010-2019
This page features Vintage 2019 population estimates totals and components of change.www.census.govPopulation estimates, July 1, by census metropolitan area and census agglomeration, 2016 boundaries
Annual population estimates as of July 1st, by census metropolitan area and census agglomeration, single year of age, five-year age group and sex, based on the Standard Geographical Classification (SGC) 2016.www150.statcan.gc.ca
1 year is too short a span to see a trend. Lot of ups and downs occur in some years. Seeing a trend over a longer period, such as a decade will be a better indicator.
You can see the change over the last decade here. Chicago actually shrank over that time and NYC was fairly stagnant.1 year is too short a span to see a trend. Lot of ups and downs occur in some years. Seeing a trend over a longer period, such as a decade will be a better indicator.
And Manhattan will be underwater in a few decades due to climate change —> New Yorkers will move to Toronto as refugees —> Voila we’re number one!Overtaking L.A. is a long way away.
Moreover, important to say, I don't think that should be a goal per se.
However, in the same breath, I will add that southern California is likely to see very serious water shortages in the decades ahead (even w/o climate change, never mind with).
It seems that material growth is unlikely, and some shrink entirely plausible.
And Manhattan will be underwater in a few decades due to climate change —> New Yorkers will move to Toronto as refugees —> Voila we’re number one!
[/s]
Well, desalination is improving with time. Water may get expensive in S Cali, but not so much that people can't live there.I don't think L.A. can address declining water supplies in the same fashion.
Looking through the area there are a lot of cities founded in the early 1900s. The problem is that they're no longer "satellite" cities, because they are part of the continuous built-up area now, jobs are very much fluid over the boundaries, and the individual cities are really not independent economies anymore. Aurora and Naperville would be good examples.Some of the nodes in GTA such as Hamilton and KW are quite old and they existed independent of Toronto and they are quite populous and quite far as well. That's why sometimes it feels hard to imagine that these are part of one larger metropolitan area. But once you start thinking that there are many commuters that travel daily to Toronto or other parts of GTA for work, then you start realizing that they are indeed part of one larger metropolitan area. Same can't be argued for London, for instance.
I am not sure about Chicagoland's satellite cities, if they too have similar large and old cities and far from the city centre.
I'm not sure why Orangeville is pulled out of its county on this map. The others make sense as they are single-tier.At any rate, I found us some hard data.
@mdu 's 1% seems in the ballpark.
I found the Transportation Toronto Survey (2016 data) which is used to show all movements, all-modes, across the region.
Survey here http://dmg.utoronto.ca/pdf/tts/2016/2016TTS_ODmatrices.pdf
From said survey:
View attachment 279679
Of note, their survey area is the GGH:
View attachment 279680
Lots and lots of data there to keep everyone amused.
Now, can we get something similar for Chicago??? Hmmmm