News   May 17, 2024
 328     0 
News   May 17, 2024
 608     0 
News   May 16, 2024
 912     1 

2018 Provincial Election Transit Promises

Yeah...the claim of "Toronto is the fourth largest city in North America" is a classic example of that.
City Population
1 Mexico City 8,918,653
2 New York City 8,550,405
3 Los Angeles 3,971,883
4 Toronto 2,826,498
91 more rows
List of North American cities by population - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_cities_by_population

When you look at metro areas, all those numbers become a lot more impressive, especially NYC, LA, and Toronto. With our metro area being at 6.5 million, and believed to nearly double within the 20 years, there's no excuse for not building transit, even out in "suburban cities," especially since our "city" area is so small (It's nearly half that of NYCs, and their system reaches every corner of the city, even if demand seemingly doesn't warrant it (They have elevated and at-grade lines everywhere and toll people heading downtown on cars)). The right technology just has to be used. There's nothing wrong with tunneling Richmond Hill Centre because the demand warrants it. There's nothing wrong with building an elevated/at grade subway extension to Mississauga because the demand warrants higher order transit, Mississauga isn't getting it with RER, and that region is expected to receive the greatest increase in population (as a percentage). There's nothing wrong with building an LRT line to Pickering or electrifying the RER line to Oshawa, the right technology just has to be built in the right locations. With all these lines, they all have particular locations on the list of priorities.

None of these should be built after relief line south is built, Yonge north shouldn't be built until RLN is built, Mississauga shouldn't be built until RLW is built, etc. I just hope the current government understands the importance of prioritizing projects (they probably don't) and important concepts on how to utilize certain technologies. They also need to understand that highway expansion is no longer viable. They should even consider 1-2$ tolls on the 427 and 401 express lanes to help pay for transit expansion (This could easily bring in close to 700 M annually).
 
The metro area obviously gives a better sense of how big a city is than a single municipality. Toronto has the 7th largest metro area in North America. So the 4th largest city claim is a bit misleading but not that far off.

Mexico City 21,493,000
New York City 20,320,876
Los Angeles 13,353,907
Chicago 9,533,040
Dallas-Fort Worth 7,399,662
Houston 6,892,427
Toronto 6,346,088
Washington 6,216,589
Miami 6,158,824
Philadelphia 6,096,120

http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/mexico-city-population/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistical_areas#United_States
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/180213/t001a-eng.htm
 
The metro area obviously gives a better sense of how big a city is than a single municipality. Toronto has the 7th largest metro area in North America. So the 4th largest city claim is a bit misleading but not that far off.

Mexico City 21,493,000
New York City 20,320,876
Los Angeles 13,353,907
Chicago 9,533,040
Dallas-Fort Worth 7,399,662
Houston 6,892,427
Toronto 6,346,088
Washington 6,216,589
Miami 6,158,824
Philadelphia 6,096,120

http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/mexico-city-population/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistical_areas#United_States
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/180213/t001a-eng.htm

That’s misleading in of itself, because the “metro” areas have different definitions in the USA and Canada. Last time I saw this discussed here, it seemed that Toronto’s “metro area” was marginally larger than Chicago’s, when you apply the same definition to both regions.
 

I've always wonder when this will actually drive transit investment. How bad does traffic congestion and subway crowding have to get before governments are actually compelled to invest in earnest?

I like how there's a cyclist, local bus and GO bus in the background when that woman is being interviewed at 1:21.
 
That’s misleading in of itself, because the “metro” areas have different definitions in the USA and Canada. Last time I saw this discussed here, it seemed that Toronto’s “metro area” was marginally larger than Chicago’s, when you apply the same definition to both regions.

Not even close, the Toronto metropolitan area is 7,100 square kilometers, while the Chicago metropolitan area is 28,100 square kilometers. The metropolitan area is usually generalized as the area in which individuals are able to commute into the city. Chicago's is much larger than Toronto's because of a larger commuter rail system (that goes into two other states), a larger freeway system, and the lack of a greenbelt.
 
That’s misleading in of itself, because the “metro” areas have different definitions in the USA and Canada. Last time I saw this discussed here, it seemed that Toronto’s “metro area” was marginally larger than Chicago’s, when you apply the same definition to both regions.
There's obviously no universally accepted way of comparing metro areas between countries, but there are plenty of rankings of metropolitan areas and urban areas around the world that attempt to use similar standards for all cities. Toronto is in the 6th to 9th spot in North America in all of them that I've seen. So the official metropolitan populations would seem more or less accurate, at least as far as North America is concerned. There's no metropolitan or urban area definition that would result in Toronto being bigger than Chicago. Toronto is growing much faster than Chicago though, so in two or three decades they should be a lot closer.
 
Last edited:
Steve Munro addresses the "how big is my metropolitan penis" comparison: (and the context necessary to scale the inference)
The Sixth Worst City Myth
by Steve
Recent stories beginning with the Toronto Sun, and followed by other media including Global, CTV and City, latched onto a claim from a recent study that Toronto was the sixth worst city in the world for commuting. The study from UK's Expert Market blog writer Sean Julliard combines data from several other sites and indices to formulate a commuting index for 74 cities around the world.

Toronto likes to think of itself as a "transit city" while having severe congestion problems that are regional in scope, not simply confined to the core area which is a tiny fraction of the overall territory covered by this study. That ranking intrigued, but did not surprise me, and I set out to determine just how Toronto ranked so low in a rather long list.

Links to both an Excel and PDF version of the scores and their components are available in Julliard's article.

First off, it is vital to understand just how these scores were compiled. Here are the components:

  • Metro population: This is the regional population, not necessarily the same as the city population. No source is cited for these values, nor is there a guarantee that other factors are drawn from the same geographic scope. For example, the population given for Toronto is almost 6 million (obviously the GTA), but the price of a monthly farecard is based on the undiscounted value of a TTC Adult Metropass.
  • The following four values come from the Moovit Insights compendium of public transit facts and statistics (Toronto page):
    • Average time spent commuting: These are transit commuting times and have nothing to do with traffic congestion except as it might affect transit vehicles.
    • Average time spent waiting for a bus or a train daily: Again, this is a transit value and appears to be a compendium of all wait times on journeys, not just the initial stage of a trip.
    • Average journey distance: This is a transit journey distance. The value shown for Toronto, 10km, lines up with information from other studies. It is slightly higher than the average for the TTC itself because regional commutes are included in the total. This is a one-way value.
    • Proportion of commuters who have to make at least one change during a transitjourney.
  • The following value is derived from the Numbeo Cost of Living index (Toronto page):
    • The percentage of a monthly salary represented by the cost of a monthly transittravel card. In Toronto's case, this is a salary for Toronto proper, and an undiscounted adult Metropass.
  • The following value is derived from the INRIX Global Traffic Scorecard:
    • Average hours spent in traffic congestion over 240 days (twelve twenty-day months)
Note that most of these factors refer only to transit with only the final one having anything to do with road congestion. This did not prevent many from reporting on how the study showed Toronto with the sixth worst congestion in the world.

Julliard notes that his composite index was primarily based on two factors:

The final ranking is weighted, with cost and time spent commuting judged to be the most important factors.

He does not explain exactly how much weight each factor is given in the total score.

Toronto ranks high on the transit cost component because of our relatively expensive Metropass. Numbeo notes:

Toronto has 13th Most Expensive Monthly Pass (Regular Price) in the World (out of 444 cities).

As for congestion, Toronto sits at 49th place (with 1st being the worst), and its position is rising (bad) thanks to increased time spent by commuters in traffic.

And so we have a sixth worst ranking on Julliard's scale because we have rotten traffic and expensive transit.

Traffic Congestion

The INRIX scores rank many North American cities, including Montréal (38th), worse off than Toronto for congestion. Los Angeles tops the list with New York (3rd) and San Francisco (5th) not far behind. On a world scale, we are better off than London (7th) and Paris (12th) among many others.

This is a very different view than presented in media reports based on Julliard's blog.

Transit Indices

Toronto is almost at the bottom of the list for the average time spent commuting by transitat 73rd place out of 74 in Julliard's list. This is not surprising with a very high 96 minutes spend on average claimed by Moovit. Remember that this is for a round trip, and so their value for the average one-way trip is 48 minutes. That's a reasonable number for Toronto. It is worth noting that of the 74 cities, only 24 have values of an hour or less. Others in the 90+ list include: Portland, Miami, Istanbul, Philadelphia, Sao Paulo, Birmingham (UK), Salvador (Brazil), Rio de Janiero, Brasilia, and Bogata.

For transit wait time, Toronto is much better off at 41st with a relatively low value of 14 minutes. We may take long journeys, but we spend less time waiting to make them.

Our journeys are comparatively long at 10km reflecting the geography of the GTA's population and work locations, and we sit at 63rd place in the list.

As for transfers, we rank well down on the list at 69th, and that is a direct result of our transit network's design. Most riders (73%) have to transfer at least once, and given the size of Toronto, that would be hard to avoid except with massive duplication of routes to provide many more one-seat rides. Only 17 cities in the list have a value under 50%, and they tend to be smaller than Toronto with populations averaging 1.7 million (25% of the GTA value).

Toronto is 62nd on the list for cost of a monthly travel card (a TTC Metropass) as a percentage of monthly income at 6.5%. Montreal has a value less than half of Toronto's, and most cities in Julliard's list fall below 5%.

Concluding Thoughts
[...continues...](a must read!)
https://stevemunro.ca/2018/06/23/the-sixth-worst-city-myth/
 
Last edited:
Excellent heads up!

This stands out:
The Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ), a provincial center-right party, unveiled a master plan Wednesday to address congestion in the city of Montreal, including new highway extensions, rapid bus routes, and a new tram system!
[...]
This new tram system is a cheaper alternative to untenable plans to dig new metro tunnels. Trams also add a certain charm to the neighbourhoods they connect. This street-level light-rail would also alleviate metro congestion downtown.
[...]
Contrast that with the (insert expletive here) we have for a Premier elect who claims to be a Conservative.

This is going to be fascinating to watch.

More here:
https://www.mtlblog.com/construction/montreals-metro-and-transit-map-of-the-future
 
The US uses MSA, while Canada uses CMA. MSAs do not require nearly as stringent standards for a municipality to be included. Toronto's CMA also does not have Hamilton and Oshawa included as they are desperate CMAs, so Burlington and Whitby aren't counted as Toronto suburbs as they are included in the Hamilton and Oshawa CMAs.

That said, toronto is smaller than Chicago, even at the metro size. Toronto's "MSA" equivalent, slthough impossible to determine exactly, probably sits somewhere around 7.5-8 million people. Chicago is over 9 million.

Toronto, if it were in the US, would likely be the fourth largest metro in the country, behind Chicago, and marginally ahead of SF and Dallas.
 
When figuring out these farebox recovery ratios, a better comparison to see where the subsidies come from. Ids Toronto`s low subsidy rate as compared to say NY, Mon, Van, Chi, SF, Cal due to lower state & federal subsidies or due to lower local ones? Vancouver commuters are taxed to death but it has resulted in the fastest rising ridership in NA and massive expansions to it`s SkyTrain system.
 

Back
Top