Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Expansions are occurring in Toronto right now, and a plan for a massive $50 billion expansion of subway and LRT lines throughout the city has been tabled, but funding is (as always) contentious. Our right-wing mayor doesn't think anyone should have to pay anything for world class transit, so he's refusing to institute any of the recommended fundraising schemes, despite their being advocated by the local Board of Trade (which always leans right) and just about every other council, organization, and panel in the city. Meanwhile, at the Provincial level, the current Premier backs the plan, but is being stymied by the opposition, and cannot do anything without their support because she has a minority government. The left wants corporate tax increases to cover the cost (which I think is a good point. I don't think they have to cover the whole tab, but corporate taxes in Canada are significantly lower than the US, and corporations benefit from expanded transit at least as much as riders), while the right (as always) cannot stomach any kind of fee, surcharge or tax, and slashing spending is the only form of revenue they will countenance.
Meanwhile, drivers in surrounding municipalities who drive into the city every day for work, scoff at paying a road toll because they don't want to admit that their driving is contributing to the gridlock that expanded transit is attempting to improve. Elsewhere in the province, Toronto is thoroughly despised and no one wants to pay a dime to help the city, even though they are happy to accept public works projects in their own regions that are funded in part by all the tax dollars Toronto pays into provincial and federal coffers, but never gets back. They also refuse to admit the importance of Toronto to the province's (and country's) economy, or acknowledge that improving transportation in the region will benefit the whole economy, since so many goods pass through the GTA in their way to other parts of the province and beyond. Gridlock makes these goods more expensive for everyone.
Finally, on the federal front, the "Harper Government" could care less about Toronto's needs and won't contribute a tarnished nickel to improving transit in the city. Because they have no seats in Toronto, and probably never will, they figure Torontonians are not their constituents, so why should they bother doing anything for the city. It doesn't matter that it is the financial hub of the country - it's a bastion of liberalism and progressive politics and spending precious money and political capital to help the city will never pay any dividends to the Conservatives.
So Toronto's transit is expanding, but whether or not The Big Move will get the funding it needs to become a reality is anyone's guess. In the end, it's never been about the need for transit in this city - everyone has always recognized that. It's really about politics, and politics has always prevented Toronto from having the kind of transit system it needs. The Big Move is the right plan at the wrong time. Five years ago it would have been a done deal. In today's political climate, it remains to be seen.
Makes you pretty grateful for Los Angeles' situation, where all projects have the local-contribution funded (still rely a bit on federal aid) until 2030. Problem is the money trickles in sooooo slow, hence the Purple Line extension not being completed until after 2030.
I am pretty confident there is the political and popular will to get these projects sped up. People are sick of the only options in much of LA being cars or buses.
From me peeking in and out of this thread I want to add a comment: Just because Toronto is "growing" does not mean its is better than Chicago, or LA. Put it like this, boy 1 has 2 dimes, and get one more every week, rather then boy 2 who has 2 quarters, and get one nickle every week, boy 1 is growing his money rapidly and will catch up, but boy 1 other is slow, but boy 1 is still more/better. So back to reality, Toronto is massively growing, but quite honestly while it is a world city, Its not yet a better city then L.A. or Chicago, it grew by annexing, and that only. BUT, like the illustration, in time it will catch up, and slow down. Its getting there...
From me peeking in and out of this thread I want to add a comment: Just because Toronto is "growing" does not mean its is better than Chicago, or LA. Put it like this, boy 1 has 2 dimes, and get one more every week, rather then boy 2 who has 2 quarters, and get one nickle every week, boy 1 is growing his money rapidly and will catch up, but boy 1 other is slow, but boy 1 is still more/better. So back to reality, Toronto is massively growing, but quite honestly while it is a world city, Its not yet a better city then L.A. or Chicago, it grew by annexing, and that only. BUT, like the illustration, in time it will catch up, and slow down. Its getting there...
Hope I made sense.
It grew in population by amalgamating with five municipalities on its borders, but a city's population count isn't what makes it great, and it's not really what makes it feel urban either - that has more to do with urban development and population density. Toronto's "boroughs" have collectively more people than Old Toronto, but Old Toronto is much more urban.
An argument could be made for all three cities being the best, but that wasn't what this thread was about - it was about which is more urban, and that is somewhat less subjective than which one is better. I'm not one to dismiss LA and surrounding cities as a giant collection of suburbs like some people do. I do believe it is less urban - in the sense that its population density is lower - than Chicago and Toronto, but I do realize that it is still quite urban in its own way.
One misconception about Toronto that is rather annoying is that it is some kind of new metropolis that lacks the history of Chicago. In fact, both cities were incorporated within 3 years of each other, and while Chicago grew faster than Toronto, the growth of the two cities followed a similar trajectory. By 1920, much of Old Toronto's construction was complete, and it wasn't until the 50's that urban renewal schemes led to the destruction of some neighbourhoods and the creation of others. The current boom is mostly filling in holes left when suburbanization of the city led to huge swathes of the downtown being razed to build parking lots. Toronto's old downtown was levelled in the 60's. in this sense, Toronto's downtown is quite new, but the neighbourhoods that surround it are dominated by architecture from the late-1800's and early 1900's.
It grew in population by amalgamating with five municipalities on its borders, but a city's population count isn't what makes it great. An argument could be made for all three cities being better than the others, but that wasn't what this thread was about - it was about which is more urban, and that is somewhat less subjective than which one is better. I'm not one to dismiss LA and surrounding cities as a giant collection of suburbs like some people do. I do believe it is less urban - in the sense that its population density is lower - than Chicago and Toronto, but I do realize that it is still quite urban in its own way.
There are probably a lot of other better metrics to use against LA than population density. I believe LA has a fairly similar population density when you're plotting it over the same amount of area even when you're doing a cutoff at fairly high densities or over small areas.
It grew in population by amalgamating with five municipalities on its borders, but a city's population count isn't what makes it great, and it's not really what makes it feel urban either - that has more to do with urban development and population density. Toronto's "boroughs" have collectively more people than Old Toronto, but Old Toronto is much more urban.
An argument could be made for all three cities being better than the others, but that wasn't what this thread was about - it was about which is more urban, and that is somewhat less subjective than which one is better. I'm not one to dismiss LA and surrounding cities as a giant collection of suburbs like some people do. I do believe it is less urban - in the sense that its population density is lower - than Chicago and Toronto, but I do realize that it is still quite urban in its own way.
I don't think the population densities are that much lower in Los Angeles, if at all. However, if Toronto has similar structural density to Chicago, then they are definitely in a tier above Los Angeles in that regard. LA at the core is as structurally dense as the next level of US cities, certainly not suburban.
Has anyone seen this list i forgot what it is called but i remember seeing in the future Chicago wil be ahead of tornot in population again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
