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.
Also, I believe that Miami, although smaller, is much more denser as a city (Miami - 12,284.47/sq mi; Toronto - 11,468/sq mi).
If you're going to compare the two in this way, you'd have to take the most dense 56 sq mi of Toronto in order to match Miami's city limits. I don't have the exact figure for Toronto on this (other posters will chime in I'm sure, as I recall seeing some recent analysis on this exact matter in a recent thread) but the number would end up being somewhere near 30,000/sq mi.
Miami is not more dense than Toronto -- that's just silly.
Also, comparing American MSA populations to Canadian CMA is very misleading. The Miami MSA is a whooping 6,100 sq mi vs Toronto CMA's 2,400 sq mi. A closer, yet still flawed comparison, would be to use the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area population, which at half of the land area of Miami's MSA, has a population currently exceeding 7.5 million.
Last edited by Arcenal813; 11-29-2022 at 10:53 PM..
Toronto blows Miami out of the water in terms of transit and hence it's an unfair comparison.
The only cities in NA that can be legitimately compared with Toronto in terms of transit are NYC, Washington, Boston, Montreal, Chicago, and San Fransisco. LA, Philly, and Vancouver have good systems but not really in Toronto's league.
Toronto blows Miami out of the water in terms of transit and hence it's an unfair comparison.
The only cities in NA that can be legitimately compared with Toronto in terms of transit are NYC, Washington, Boston, Montreal, Chicago, and San Fransisco. LA, Philly, and Vancouver have good systems but not really in Toronto's league.
Almost agreed 100%. I'm not sure I'd rate the Bay Area's transit network as Tier 2 rather than Tier 3. (New York occupies a tier all its own.)
Part of the reason why stems from the fragmented nature of the agencies that operate it. There are seven different agencies running mass transit in the Bay Area, including one that operates only the rapid transit system that will soon ring the bay. New York has four mainly because the region spreads across three states, and no metropolitan transit agency save three (WMATA and the two serving Missouri's two large cities) crosses a state line administratively. (New York and Philadelphia both have interstate transit agencies as well, but both of them also operate facilities beyond transit, in particular bridges and tunnels crossing rivers that form state lines; New York's also operates the region's three commercial airports and its seaports.)
If you're going to compare the two in this way, you'd have to take the most dense 56 sq mi of Toronto in order to match Miami's city limits. I don't have the exact figure for Toronto on this (other posters will chime in I'm sure, as I recall seeing some recent analysis on this exact matter in a recent thread) but the number would end up being somewhere near 30,000/sq mi.
Miami is not more dense than Toronto -- that's just silly.
Also, comparing American MSA populations to Canadian CMA is very misleading. The Miami MSA is a whooping 6,100 sq mi vs Toronto CMA's 2,400 sq mi. A closer, yet still flawed comparison, would be to use the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area population, which at half of the land area of Miami's MSA, has a population currently exceeding 7.5 million.
Just adding on to this but as always - you know your stuff.
Old Toronto is a good representation of a dense part of the core of Toronto.
In 2016 there were 798K people in 37 sq miles. In 2021 that rose to 840K with approximately a density of 22.5K per sq mile in 37 Sq miles
The most dense part of Toronto is the DT core with 275K in 6.7 Sq miles. It is the second largest downtown core in the U.S/Canada only to NYC, which is simply in a class of its own in the two countries.
Using MSA and CSA I think Toronto's MSA would be even more than 7.5 million because there are another few municipalities in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Region closely linked to them ie commuting patterns and transit. CSA the GGH would probably be the best proxy and it has 9.7 million as of 2021. This is in an area not too much larger than Chicagoland. That said, The GGH has more patchy and nodular density than Chicagoland because of large swaths of protected greenspace .. for now. Doug Ford is doing his best to sprawl out so we may see some changes to the contiguous urbanized area numbers.
In any event - I think the numbers above give a pretty good depiction as to why the Toronto urban area has a good Pt infrastructure - but imo it needs more given the high growth rates in the region.
In 2016 there were 798K people in 37 sq miles. In 2021 that rose to 840K with approximately a density of 22.5K per sq mile in 37 Sq miles
The most dense part of Toronto is the DT core with 275K in 6.7 Sq miles. It is the second largest downtown core in the U.S/Canada only to NYC, which is simply in a class of its own in the two countries.
Using MSA and CSA I think Toronto's MSA would be even more than 7.5 million because there are another few municipalities in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Region closely linked to them ie commuting patterns and transit. CSA the GGH would probably be the best proxy and it has 9.7 million as of 2021. This is in an area not too much larger than Chicagoland. That said, The GGH has more patchy and nodular density than Chicagoland because of large swaths of protected greenspace .. for now. Doug Ford is doing his best to sprawl out so we may see some changes to the contiguous urbanized area numbers.
In any event - I think the numbers above give a pretty good depiction as to why the Toronto urban area has a good Pt infrastructure - but imo it needs more given the high growth rates in the region.
Miami's land area is a very comparable 36 square miles and that holds 442K people.
I think MSA and CSA's don't make much sense for metropolitan area comparisons given how they're defined whether it's among US metropolitan areas or in comparison to metropolitan areas outside of the US. I think some attempts at apples to apples comparisons would be like Demographia though that has its own issues. The US census also has an urban area calculation that ignores the legal borders of US counties and county-equivalents, but instead goes by contiguous census tracts (which are fairly small divisions) of a certain density along with adjacent non-residential land use tracts. On that count, Miami's actually pretty dense and that's partly due to its geography where most of development is on a pretty thing coastal strip between the ocean and the Everglades. However, it's not as dense as Toronto by pretty much any apples to apples comparison though it's long linear shape would seemingly be very conducive to mass transit.
Miami's land area is a very comparable 36 square miles and that holds 442K people.
I think MSA and CSA's don't make much sense for metropolitan area comparisons given how they're defined whether it's among US metropolitan areas or in comparison to metropolitan areas outside of the US. I think some attempts at apples to apples comparisons would be like Demographia though that has its own issues. The US census also has an urban area calculation that ignores the legal borders of US counties and county-equivalents, but instead goes by contiguous census tracts (which are fairly small divisions) of a certain density along with adjacent non-residential land use tracts. On that count, Miami's actually pretty dense and that's partly due to its geography where most of development is on a pretty thing coastal strip between the ocean and the Everglades. However, it's not as dense as Toronto by pretty much any apples to apples comparison though it's long linear shape would seemingly be very conducive to mass transit.
Well 37 Sq Km's with 840K vs 36 with 442 is a considerable difference. I'm not saying 442 in 36 is anything to be dismissive about however.
Demographia is ok and I think it is good at its attempt at making apples to apples comparisons. Right now the best we have really. The only issue I have with it is that some urban areas are simply cut off geographically from some close by satellite cities, that have some strong connectivity to the prime urban area they are satellites of.
Thanks for the list. Interesting to see Miami at number 4.
Well 37 Sq Km's with 840K vs 36 with 442 is a considerable difference. I'm not saying 442 in 36 is anything to be dismissive about however.
Demographia is ok and I think it is good at its attempt at making apples to apples comparisons. Right now the best we have really. The only issue I have with it is that some urban areas are simply cut off geographically from some close by satellite cities, that have some strong connectivity to the prime urban area they are satellites of.
Thanks for the list. Interesting to see Miami at number 4.
Square miles, not kilometers, but yes, it is a considerable difference. Miami had a strong emptying out of sorts in parts of the urban core over the latter half of the 20th century despite the large population increase over that time and it's only fairly recently been redeveloping those areas. You'll still see random parcels of empty lots close to downtown and especially when it's within blocks of a freeway.
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.
