# World's Biggest Metro



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Please spare me...

London 18 million covers a smaller area than NYC 21 million.
Enough said.

MikeHunt and coth stop your trolling.
18 million is an official figure cited by the GLA,, go complain to them.
Even INSEE, which uses stricter measures than the US Census, comes to a 17 million metro area for London!!!!


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, Shiro. I am a troll because I don't accept a ridiculous and incorrect statement?

London's population figures from demographia.co.uk:

Southeast England 18,387,000 

Metropolitan Area 13,945,000 

Greater London 7,172,000 

Inner London 2,766,000 

Outer London 4,406,000


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

And how is Demographia a better source than the GLA (or INSEE for that matter)?

You are a troll because you keep trolling against commonly accepted figures.


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

GLA didn't, SHiRO.

And that fact that you dislike someone's numbers doesn't mean that someone is trolling.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

Shiro, look at the facts that I posted in another poll about population densities of London. Counties like Essex and Kent are enormous, and yet tiny counties on the west side of the Hudson that are a fraction of the size of English counties have nearly the same population. Driving from the end of Essex to the end of Sussex or Kent is much further than NY to Philly. London is much smaller than NY. Anyone who knows both cities well knows that. How much time have you even spent in NY? How many times have you been to NJ and Long Island?


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Density has nothing to do with the size of a metro area.

You are a bit confused I think.

You do realize you are going up against the GLA and INSEE are you (and also the US Census if we would calculate London's metro according to their methods).

I don't know why it would even cross your mind to think THEY are wrong and YOU are right.


----------



## EarlyBird (Oct 2, 2004)

SHiRO, you'll have to learn to deal with this I'm afraid. MikeHunt does this in every thread where London can be compared to NYC and coth does it in every thread where Moscow can. How coth became a mod I'll never understand.


----------



## Mr_ed2 (Jul 18, 2003)

MikeHunt said:


> Shiro, look at the facts that I posted in another poll about population densities of London. Counties like Essex and Kent are enormous, and yet tiny counties on the west side of the Hudson that are a fraction of the size of English counties have nearly the same population. Driving from the end of Essex to the end of Sussex or Kent is much further than NY to Philly. London is much smaller than NY. Anyone who knows both cities well knows that. How much time have you even spent in NY? How many times have you been to NJ and Long Island?


London Pop'n 7387900 Area 1580 km^2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_London
South East pop'n(excl London) 8,000,550 Area 19,096 km^2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_East_England

Add Essex and Herts which are well and truly in london's metro but officially in the administrative region of east england (they border london, you can get to CENTRAL london by train in one hour or less from all of herts and most of essex, and many, many people do so every day - hence commuter metro) Much of herts is and some of essex is within the M25

Essex pop'n 1629647 Area 3670 km^2
Herts pop'n 1040925 Area 1643 km^2 {same source}

For further confirmation of these numbers check out 
http://www.london.gov.uk/gla/publications/factsandfigures/DMAG-Briefing-20.pdf
http://www.london.gov.uk/gla/publications/factsandfigures.jsp
south east :http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pyramids/pages/j.asp
London http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pyramids/pages/h.asp
Essex http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pyramids/pages/22.asp
Herts http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pyramids/pages/26.asp

Anyone who wants to argue the inclusion of essex and herts in the london metro area please take peace in the fact that by including only these, I am doing london's metro size a DISSERVICE! (There should be more but this way keeps it simple)

*Now the calculations:*
Size of london metro (area) = *25989*
Pop'n = *18059022*

*Density = 695 ppl p sq km*

Or, just for greater london itself = *4675*
And prob about double that for inner london alone.

New york metro.
21199865 pop'n
20191.5 sq km
*= 895.8 ppl p sq km*

Conclusion - yes new york is a slightly larger density overall, but not by the huge voids that you seem to think. Don't forget that england is one of the most dense countries in the world pop'n wise - because the island is so bloody small! 

And I have been to new york, many times, I have driven there from philly on more than one occasion and it is a trek, it takes the same time to drive from manchester to London. Shall I include Manchester, or for that matter the rest of England in London's metro??


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

SHiRO said:


> Density has nothing to do with the size of a metro area.
> 
> You are a bit confused I think.
> 
> ...


SHiRO, show me the link where does GLA do it? Since you can't - it's your private estimates, as I should assume relates on economic and political relations, commuter public transport network etc.

So I say - such definition cannot be applyed to London. Even like to Moscow because becoming too radical - big city with low dense area around. When London is 18mln, Moscow with same definition is almost 20mln, Paris is over 12mln.


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

Oh god not this again. Coth - don't start claiming that Moscow's metro goes out so far that people spend 8hrs going from their home to Moscow or blabbering on about Moscow region and yet you never actually provided a source.

Also the 18mn figure is official - look in the London Plan, its been posted enough times already.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

Mr_ed2 said:


> London Pop'n 7387900 Area 1580 km^2
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_London
> South East pop'n(excl London) 8,000,550 Area 19,096 km^2
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_East_England
> ...


Manchester is nearly two hundred miles from London. Philadelphia is 90 miles from Manhattan (and about 70 miles from the southernmost point of NYC).


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

London - Manchester: 162miles
New York - Philadelphia: 81miles


London's metro is indeed 18mn and thats being conservative. Over two times as many people commute into London via commuter rail than they do in New York. This makes sense due to the greater coverage trains offer (London's commuter rail network is around double that of New York's by line, ridership and station count) over longer distances than New York where there is a lack of a Green Belt and subsequent urban sprawl making the use of a car more valid.

London is also more connected to the regional and international level than New York in part because of the far larger rail network (as large as New York and Chicago's combined) and an air hub which is 35% larger than New York's.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

coth said:


> SHiRO, show me the link where does GLA do it? Since you can't - it's your private estimates, as I should assume relates on economic and political relations, commuter public transport network etc.
> 
> So I say - such definition cannot be applyed to London. Even like to Moscow because becoming too radical - big city with low dense area around. When London is 18mln, Moscow with same definition is almost 20mln, Paris is over 12mln.


no, we are not going through this with you again.
Moscow doesn't even have 20 million people around it in a commutable area, how is it ever going to reach that kind of number with transit links WAY inferior to London's?

Even if you don't take the GLA on their word. What about INSEE and their 17 million number?

Either way, London is larger than Moscow.


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

Nick, I provided you source to official population of province and city plus nearest middle cities around Moscow provice that catched by commuter rail and bus network (nevertheless I should provide population of entire districts, but i don't know where to find such data). I provided you link to commuter rail network map. So you could calculate population yourself - 20,2mln or 50thous sq km or 20mln and 20thous sq km if take off less populated districts of Moscow provice.

And please don't start again that metro area depend on phisical area and on high speed rails.

And as far as I remember you didn't provided any links where GLA define metro area of London.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

GLA 18 million

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/london_plan/lon_plan_all.pdf

page 18


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

SHiRO said:


> Moscow doesn't even have 20 million people around it in a commutable area.


it does
this is map of only local service (without express, i will not mention them, you will not understand)


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

SHiRO said:


> GLA 18 million
> 
> http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/london_plan/lon_plan_all.pdf


there is no any mentions on metro area. even on page 18th.


----------



## Mr_ed2 (Jul 18, 2003)

coth said:


> there is no any mentions on metro area. even on page 18th.


Did you get bored after the first line of page 18?
Or just the first couple of words.

It's on page 18, SECOND LINE


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

coth said:


> it does
> this is map of only local service (without express, i will not mention them, you will not understand)


Real nice, a source noone else can read...:|

Anyway, that doesn't look like the commuter network, but rather the national raillines.

Do you at least admit that 20 million people for Moscow covers an area at least twice the size of the London 18 million area.


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

Mr_ed2, there is mentioning about metro region.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

MikeHunt said:


> There are some limited areas that include the 21M that are more than 80 miles from Manhattan. However, there are very few. Nonetheless, if a 50 mile radius was drawn from midtown Manhattan and one was drawn from Trafalgar Square, there would be about 18M people in the New York area and 13M in the London area.


In what way does that have anything to do with calculating metro areas?

NYC 27,000 sq km 21 million

LDN 22,000 sq km 18 million

London has a green belt.

Any other bright ideas?


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

coth said:


> Because suburban network goes out of province only and covers some district of bordering provinces. Middle cities in such districts makes about 1,8mln in sum. How much make entire such districts i don't know.
> 
> Less populated areas of Moscow province is over 2/3 of its area with total population 200-300 thousands. So without them part of metro in provice is about 6,8mln of 7,1mln of total population in provice.
> 
> Map hosted on imageshack.us shows borders of City of Moscow and Moscow province.


Your numbers don't add up coth.

Are we to believe that people commute to Moscow from provinces that are beyond Moscow Oblast? Sorry, but you are going to have to prove that first.


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

coth said:


> Nick, I provided you source to official population of province and city plus nearest middle cities around Moscow provice that catched by commuter rail and bus network (nevertheless I should provide population of entire districts, but i don't know where to find such data). I provided you link to commuter rail network map. So you could calculate population yourself - 20,2mln or 50thous sq km or 20mln and 20thous sq km if take off less populated districts of Moscow provice.
> 
> And please don't start again that metro area depend on phisical area and on high speed rails.
> 
> And as far as I remember you didn't provided any links where GLA define metro area of London.


No you provided population figures for areas that you thought were metro areas. I believe one of the areas you believed was Moscow's metro was larger than Tokyo's in population and covered an area larger than the UK and Japan *combined*. You also went on about how many people commuted 16hrs each working day in and out of Moscow on railway and bus lines....even though they are far slower and more antiquated than the transport infrastructure in London.






MikeHunt said:


> Please... Londoners on this board make absurd comments about London being nearly as large as NY, yet no one outside of London recognizes that fallacy (and fantasy). It's absurd. 35 miles outside of London, one finds rural areas. By contrast, there are dense suburbs 35 miles outside of NY.


Wrong *once* again. London is larger than New York, it is by land area and it will soon be by population count.

I think if you did some reading into London, you would find out that there is a certain thing called the Green Belt around London. This belt acts to stop urban sprawl which has pretty much destroyed most North American cities. New York suffers to a degree from this overspill but its of a high density. Green Belt land in the UK equals around 14% which is more than all developed urban land (which is around 10%). What you have to understand is that development and growth developed around the old market towns that are as old (if not older) than London itself. My hometown of Bishop's Stortford has ballooned in growth in what is literally London commuter growth. Half the town leaves every morning to go into London. Tokyo doesn't so happen to have a large rail network for no reason - its for catchment and because the car is an unlikely alternative.

This is what a metro is - a central hub with radiating influence. London acts as a large magnet to its surrounding areas, just like New York does to its surroundings. Quite simply while New York has continual growth radiating out, London has something close to a concentric ring approach with gaps inbetween where development is not allowed. This is the main reason why there are over 2x as many people commuting into London by heavy rail than there are in New York. I would assume that car commuting is higher into New York than it is London simply because the road infrastructure is better designed for the automobile than it is in London which still has areas following Roman Roads.


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

SHiRO said:


> Your numbers don't add up coth.
> 
> Are we to believe that people commute to Moscow from provinces that are beyond Moscow Oblast? Sorry, but you are going to have to prove that first.


http://www.mzd.ru - here is prove to you i posted already. If you want something also - tell me what for example.

Nick, don't start again. Metro area does not depend on area, but on economic, political and trasnsportation dependencies.


ps. and we were talking about 4-5 hours, not 16. and Moscow metro and commuter network are much faster of London's


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

I don't read Russian coth.

And noone commutes 5 hours each way, not in Russia either.
Certainly not enough people to justify the addition of 3 million people to Moscow's "metro".


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

not each way, but both ways. 2,5 hours in average for 180-200km on suburban train (up to 3,5 hours if stops on most of stations).
there are only few lines that goes farther. but on official site you can calculate time of riding between station. 

problem with russian is not mine. official language in moscow is russian.


----------



## PhillyPhilly90 (Aug 12, 2005)

Well in the near future, New York-Philadelphia will be one metro once they touch each other. That's a whopping 28,000,000 people. But that will take time. 

I think the Los Angeles metro is growing really fast for its size. In 1990, L.A. metro was in the 14 million range...now it's reaching 18 million. I have my eyes wary of that metro.


----------



## spxy (Apr 9, 2003)

MikeHunt said:


> The density of areas 35 miles outside of a city's downtown core is indicative of its size. You randomly include areas 80 miles from London and claim that they're part of the metro area despite the fact that there are farms between those towns and London! That makes no sense!!
> 
> 
> > What a stupid statment , is statent island not part of New york because its seperated by water?What happenes if you go 35 miles south of New york, you'd be in the ocean!Splosh!
> ...


----------



## lakegz (Oct 23, 2003)

world biggest metro? 
NY? London?
irrelevant!


----------



## unoh (Aug 13, 2005)

Tokyo Metro. no doubt.


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

^yes, Tokyo


----------



## Shawn (Nov 12, 2002)

If you were to apply US Census commuter standards to Japanese metros, the Tokyo-Yokohama CMA would have around 45 million people and the Osaka-Kyoto-Kobe metro would top 22 million.


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

^very possible


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

And if we were to apply US Census standards to Moscow, it still wouldn't have 20 million...


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

The inability of Brits on this board to acknowledge that NY is much larger than London is astounding. Basically every listing produced by various organizations shows NY at 21m and London at about 13m. Traveling outside these cities corroborates these figures, as rural areas exist much closer to Central London than they do to NY.

Is the Brits' inability to grasp this simple fact based upon misplaced pride, poor education or the lingering effects of Mad Cow Disease?


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

is it based on your own feel. 

facts is different.
all Moscow Province and other that catched by Moscow commuter network economicaly are highly depend on Moscow.

here is link to official site.
in right-bottom of page
in narrow translation says - map of service of suburban electric trains
http://www.mzd.ru/raspis/index.html?he_id=78

this one is map made by someone (Moscow Railways does not making official map)
map of lines of suburban railway service of city of moscow. near every station you can see kilometer from central station of line.


btw yesterday provicial authorities decided to build onground metro network in province. first phase is 6 lines - 270 kilometers between satellite cities.

i can tell you example. if you will see on Piter's line (to northwest of moscow) you can see station Chupriyanovka [Чуприяновка] in just 2 stations to Tver'. my suburban house in 3 km from this station. there are several suburban towns with most of people from Moscow.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

MikeHunt said:


> The inability of Brits on this board to acknowledge that NY is much larger than London is astounding. Basically every listing produced by various organizations shows NY at 21m and London at about 13m. Traveling outside these cities corroborates these figures, as rural areas exist much closer to Central London than they do to NY.
> 
> Is the Brits' inability to grasp this simple fact based upon misplaced pride, poor education or the lingering effects of Mad Cow Disease?


I actually retract this statement. Some of my best friends are English, and the Brits whom I know are superb. The existence of a few goons on this forum has lead me to make sweeping statements about a great group of people who are not properly represented on this forum (with exceptions, of course).


----------



## spxy (Apr 9, 2003)

MikeHunt said:


> The inability of Brits on this board to acknowledge that NY is much larger than London is astounding. Basically every listing produced by various organizations shows NY at 21m and London at about 13m. Traveling outside these cities corroborates these figures, as rural areas exist much closer to Central London than they do to NY.
> 
> Is the Brits' inability to grasp this simple fact based upon misplaced pride, poor education or the lingering effects of Mad Cow Disease?


That is pure straw man fallacy.No one is saying that the direct urban area around New York is not more spread out than London.And if you only count direct urbanisation than New york is bigger (this would be ignoring the fact that much of New york is seperated by large bodies of water).
The area around London is not a continueous suburb, that is why there are lots of gaps with fields, but it is massivley developed and covered with smaller towns and villages, with gaps inbetween, but is just as highly populated and just as connected as the continous urban sprawl around New York.
The simple fact is almost as many people live in the towns and villages around in and London (18 million) as live in the more continous urban sprawl in and around New York(21 million) and they inhabit a similar sized area.
It is just a different lay out.Dont you understand that suburban sprawl is not the only way a land can be populated?
50 million people live in England, 22 million in the south east if only 13 million people live around London just where exactly do you think the other 5 million (to make up the 18 million)live?


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

spxy said:


> That is pure straw man fallacy.No one is saying that the direct urban area around New York is not more spread out than London.And if you only count direct urbanisation than New york is bigger (this would be ignoring the fact that much of New york is seperated by large bodies of water).
> The area around London is not a continueous suburb, that is why there are lots of gaps with fields, but it is massivley developed and covered with smaller towns and villages, with gaps inbetween, but is just as highly populated and just as connected as the continous urban sprawl around New York.
> The simple fact is almost as many people live in the towns and villages around in and London (18 million) as live in the more continous urban sprawl in and around New York(21 million) and they inhabit a similar sized area.
> It is just a different lay out.Dont you understand that suburban sprawl is not the only way a land can be populated?
> 50 million people live in England, 22 million in the south east if only 13 million people live around London just where exactly do you think the other 5 million (to make up the 18 million)live?


Most sites that I have seen state that 18 M people live in Southeast England -- not 22. Moreover, with respect to the other 5m about whom you inquire, they don't live in the London metro. If they live 80 miles from London, and there are empty fields between their towns and London, it's not part of the metro. There are no empty fields in the 90 mile stretch between NY and Philadelphia, yet these cities with 30M people between them are not considered one metro area.


----------



## Mr_ed2 (Jul 18, 2003)

MikeHunt said:


> I actually retract this statement. Some of my best friends are English, and the Brits whom I know are superb. The existence of a few goons on this forum has lead me to make sweeping statements about a great group of people who are not properly represented on this forum (with exceptions, of course).


Nobody here is trying to say that London's metro is bigger than New York's. 
Nobody included towns that were 80 miles away from London in any metro calculations. If you think they did either of these - let's see the proof.

Why do you have such an inability to simply accept the facts that people have carefully researched? Does it really hurt that much to think that London might be similar in size to NY?

I would personally say that a city of 2,000,000 is similar in size to a city of 3,000,000 - and that's 150% bigger. I would also say that NY and LDN are similar in size - and on any level you choose to measure, NY is NOT 150% bigger than LDN - no way. Not nearly. No


----------



## Mosaic (Feb 18, 2005)

JayeTheOnly said:


> I always thought Mexico City was ahead of NYC.


How could that be? Well, what term do you mean?


----------



## Mosaic (Feb 18, 2005)

silly thing said:


> dun forget pearl delta metro that is hong kong + shenzhen + guangzhou + fuzhan


They are all seperated to each other, aren't they? How can they form a metro?


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

@ MikeHunt
What the hell are you doing in a debate about METROPOLITAN AREAS, if you are unable to comprehend the concept?

The fact that there are rural areas between London and its suburbs/satellite cities has NOTHING to do with the subject!!
So stop trying to dilute the discussion! This is about METROPOLITAN AREAS, not urban areas.

Also, stop it with your ever present offensive comments, otherwise we will be forced to take action against you. It doesn't matter if you "retract" your statements, you are out of line with your comments on poor education and Mad Cow disease...


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

Shiro,

How many times have you been to New Jersey, Long Island, etc.? My guess is never. I lived in London and return regularly. I am probably more familiar with both cities than anyone on this forum and know for a fact that London is much smaller. Once again, if a town is 80 miles from London, and there are farms between it and Central London, it is not part of the metro area. Your position that Southeast England (and its 18M people) are the equivalent of the London metro is untenable and absurd. It's more plausible to argue that NY and Philly, which have no undeveloped areas between them (but rather continuous towns), are one metro area with 30M people.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

When are you going to get it into your thick head that developed or undeveloped has NOTHING to do with how a metro area is calculated.
I don't care how familiar you are with NY or London (obviously not very much).
You sure as hell are not familiar with the concept of metro areas and the different methods of calculating them and how that affects the ability to compare them.

You do realize that if we use US Census criteria for calculating metro areas, we come to a figure of over 18 million, don't you?
The GLA calculates with their method and comes to 18 million.
INSEE calculates with their (stricter than US Census) method and comes to 17 million.

To even suggest NY and Philly might be a single metro area and at the same time not recogning London as 18 million is a JOKE.

It's like talking to a brick wall with you!

Where on earth do you find the audacity to disagree with the GLA, INSEE and the US Census on this? 

Unbelievable.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

Your statement that I'm not familiar with London is absurd when I make reference in many posts to little towns that one would not know unless one was intimately familiar with the place. Moreover, why would I lie about living there for two years? 

If you want to adopt a method for calculating metro populaltions that equates London with Southeast England, then applying that same method to NY would yield an area with 30m people -- still much larger than London's (or should I say S.E. England's 18 m).


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

No, didn't I just tell you that using the same method the US Census uses, leaves London with a 18 million+ metro?

Why don't you just give it up, it's very obvious to everyone you have no clue what you are talking about...


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

SHiRO said:


> No, didn't I just tell you that using the same method the US Census uses, leaves London with a 18 million+ metro?
> 
> Why don't you just give it up, it's very obvious to everyone you have no clue what you are talking about...


Why don't you give it up? Only you and certain Brits on this forum contend that the London metro area has 18m people. Every list published everywhere states that NY has over 20M and London has about 13M. These facts are demonstrated by the fact that one finds rural areas 30 to 40 miles outside of London and one finds dense suburbs 30 to 40 miles outside of NY.

Rank Metropolitan area name Country Population estimate 
1 Tokyo-Yokohama-Kawasaki-Chiba (Greater Tokyo Area) Japan 36,510,000 
2 New York City, New York-Newark, New Jersey-Paterson, New Jersey (New York Metropolitan Area) United States 22,310,000 
3 Mexico City-Nezahualcóyotl-Ecatepec-Naucalpan(Greater Mexico City) Mexico 22,090,000 
4 Seoul-Incheon-Bucheon-Goyang-Seongnam-Suweon (Capital Metropolitan Area) South Korea 21,740,000 
5 Mumbai-Navi Mumbai-Kalyan-Thane-Ulhasnagar, Maharashtra (Brihanmumbai/Greater Mumbai) India 19,470,000 
6 São Paulo-Guarulhos-Santo André-Osasco (Greater São Paulo Area) Brazil 19,090,000 
7 Jakarta-Bekasi-Bogor-Depok-Tangerang (Jabodetabek Metropolitan Area) Indonesia 17,590,000 
8 Los Angeles-Riverside-Anaheim (Southern California) California, United States 17,540,000 
9 Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto (Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto or Keihanshin) Japan 17,510,000 
10 Delhi, National Capital Territory-Faridabad, Haryana, Gurgaon, Haryana-Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-Noida, Uttar Pradesh India 17,480,000 
11 Manila-Quezon City-Makati City-Caloocan City (Metropolitan Manila) Philippines 16,610,000 
12 Greater Cairo, Al Qahirah-Al Jizah-Al Qalyubiyah Governorates Egypt 15,500,000 
13 Shanghai Municipality People's Republic of China 14,610,000 
14 Kolkata-Howrah, West Bengal India 14,450,000 
15 Moscow Russia 14,440,000 
16 Buenos Aires (Gran Buenos Aires) Argentina 13,330,000 
17 London (Greater London-Surrey-East Berkshire-Buckinghamshire-Hertfordshire-
South Essex-West Kent) United Kingdom 12,420,000 
18 Tehran-Karaj Iran 11,890,000 
19 Cologne-Bonn-Ruhr Area (Essen-Duisburg- Bochum-Dortmund-Düsseldorf-Wuppertal) Germany 11,780,000 
20 Rio De Janeiro-Nova Iguaçu-São Gonçalo-Niterói Brazil 11,720,000

*Furthermore, consider these figures:

Population (Approx) Square Kilometers (Approx)
NYC 8M 780
Hudson Cty/NJ 610,000 162 
Essex Cty/NJ 796,000 336
Union Cty/NJ 530,000 273
Bergen Cty/NJ 897,000 606
Passaic Cty, NJ 498,000 510
Nassau Cty, NY 1.3M 1,200 
Westchester, NY950,00 1,300 

By contrast, in London:

Greater London 7M 1,600
Kent 1.3M 3,700
Essex 1.3M 3,700
Herts 1M 1,600
Buckinghamshire 479,000 1,900
Surrey 1M 1,670*


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

New York isn't the world's largest metro. London isn't, either. Tokyo is. 
Read the title of the thread; what are you arguing about?


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Obviously, all those other "sources" are wrong.
If the GLA puts London at 18 million.
INSEE puts it at 17 million.
And if you use US Census criteria you also get a 18 million+ figure, then indeed those other sources are wrong.

London 18 million 22,000 sq km
New York 21 million 28,000 sq km

There are no "dense" suburbs 40 miles outside New York (not that it has anything to do with this discussion, so stop bringing it up).

For once explain to me why you dismiss the GLA, INSEE and the US Census and think you know better?

Pathetic...


----------



## mad_nick (May 13, 2004)

SHiRO said:


> If the GLA puts London at 18 million.
> INSEE puts it at 17 million.
> And if you use US Census criteria you also get a 18 million+ figure, then indeed those other sources are wrong.


The GLA figure is provided with no indication as to what area is included in the metro area, and I still haven't seen anyone publish a detailed breakdown of the metro as defined by the GLA.
Where is the INSEE number from? I doubt the INSEE would bother defining London's metro area.
The US census criteria and the INSEE criteria both use commuting as a criteria for what should and should not be included in the metro area, does the UK ONS even provide data on commuting? If so, where?

And to answer the original thread question, Tokyo is, by far, the largest metro area in the world, and I fail to see what London, NYC or Moscow has to do with the topic of thread.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

SHiRO said:


> Obviously, all those other "sources" are wrong.
> If the GLA puts London at 18 million.
> INSEE puts it at 17 million.
> And if you use US Census criteria you also get a 18 million+ figure, then indeed those other sources are wrong.
> ...


To borrow your choice of words, you certainly are "pathetic," and you are like speaking to a brick wall. :bash: :bash: 

As usual, you're also wrong about numerous facts (like with the financial capital of the world issue). For example, according to demographia.com, S.E. England has 18m people in an area that is 
27,485 sq km -- not 22,000 sq. km.

Here are the accurate facts:

1 Tokyo-Yokohama-Kawasaki-Chiba (Greater Tokyo Area) Japan 36,510,000 
2 New York City, New York-Newark, New Jersey-Paterson, New Jersey (New York Metropolitan Area) United States 22,310,000 
3 Mexico City-Nezahualcóyotl-Ecatepec-Naucalpan(Greater Mexico City) Mexico 22,090,000 
4 Seoul-Incheon-Bucheon-Goyang-Seongnam-Suweon (Capital Metropolitan Area) South Korea 21,740,000 
5 Mumbai-Navi Mumbai-Kalyan-Thane-Ulhasnagar, Maharashtra (Brihanmumbai/Greater Mumbai) India 19,470,000 
6 São Paulo-Guarulhos-Santo André-Osasco (Greater São Paulo Area) Brazil 19,090,000 
7 Jakarta-Bekasi-Bogor-Depok-Tangerang (Jabodetabek Metropolitan Area) Indonesia 17,590,000 
8 Los Angeles-Riverside-Anaheim (Southern California) California, United States 17,540,000 
9 Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto (Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto or Keihanshin) Japan 17,510,000 
10 Delhi, National Capital Territory-Faridabad, Haryana, Gurgaon, Haryana-Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-Noida, Uttar Pradesh India 17,480,000 
11 Manila-Quezon City-Makati City-Caloocan City (Metropolitan Manila) Philippines 16,610,000 
12 Greater Cairo, Al Qahirah-Al Jizah-Al Qalyubiyah Governorates Egypt 15,500,000 
13 Shanghai Municipality People's Republic of China 14,610,000 
14 Kolkata-Howrah, West Bengal India 14,450,000 
15 Moscow Russia 14,440,000 
16 Buenos Aires (Gran Buenos Aires) Argentina 13,330,000 
17 London (Greater London-Surrey-East Berkshire-Buckinghamshire-Hertfordshire-
South Essex-West Kent) United Kingdom 12,420,000 
18 Tehran-Karaj Iran 11,890,000 
19 Cologne-Bonn-Ruhr Area (Essen-Duisburg- Bochum-Dortmund-Düsseldorf-Wuppertal) Germany 11,780,000 
20 Rio De Janeiro-Nova Iguaçu-São Gonçalo-Niterói Brazil 11,720,000

Furthermore, consider these figures:

Population (Approx) Square Kilometers (Approx)
NYC 8M 780
Hudson Cty/NJ 610,000 162 
Essex Cty/NJ 796,000 336
Union Cty/NJ 530,000 273
Bergen Cty/NJ 897,000 606
Passaic Cty, NJ 498,000 510
Middlesex, NJ 750,000 835
Nassau Cty, NY 1.3M 1,200 
Westchester, NY950,00 1,300 

By contrast, in London:

Greater London 7M 1,600
Kent 1.3M 3,700
Essex 1.3M 3,700
Herts 1M 1,600
Buckinghamshire 479,000 1,900
Surrey 1M 1,670

*London has only 12M people in an area that has over 14,000 square km! That's the same size as the entire state of Connecticut!*

Most importantly, you and most Brits on this board are the only people that will arbitrarily draw a 90 mile radius of a city and say that everything inside of that radius is the metro area despite the fact that there are farms and rural areas between the urban/suburban core and the villages 90 miles away. It doesn't matter if some people commute from there. Thousands of people commute to NY from places 100 miles away. That does not make those places part of the NY metro. By your thinking, Philly is part of the NY metro and that area has 30m people. Indeed, the distance from NY to Philly is less than the distance across Connecticut (whether one is going east/west or north/south), and yet there are only 12M people in an area surrounding London that is the size of the entire state of Connecticut.


----------



## mad_nick (May 13, 2004)

^ Some of your NY land area figures are off:
NYC:786
Hudson: 121
Essex: 327
Bergen: 601
Passaic: 480
Union: 268
Nassau: 743
Westchester: 1,121

The New York CMSA as defined in the 2000 Census is 27,065,013,700 sq meters, about 27,065 sq km. (factfinder.census.gov)


----------



## lakegz (Oct 23, 2003)

Why not add another 1,400,000 people to Mexico City's metro because Cuernavaca and Toluca are merely 35 and 50 miles away from Mexico City's core.


----------



## spxy (Apr 9, 2003)

MikeHunt said:


> Shiro,
> 
> Once again, if a town is 80 miles from London, and there are farms between it and Central London, it is not part of the metro area. Your position that Southeast England (and its 18M people) are the equivalent of the London metro is untenable and absurd. .


No one is counting towns 80 miles from London.
Your facts are wrong if you add up the population of London and all adjoining counties including the town and city counties within them (that you have missed out) you get 16 million plus people, add on the south coast (which does not have 80 mile gap between it and london, it is 20 miles from brighton to crawley which is connected to London by a string of settlements) and you get 18 million.
This is in a smaller area than new yorks 21 million.
Simple as that.


----------



## staff (Oct 23, 2004)

MikeHunt said:


> I am probably more familiar with both cities than anyone on this forum and know for a fact that London is much smaller.


Really... :|


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

And I did my diploma work in the university on London (urban studies) and was also in contact with now-mayor Ken Livingstone for that. I don't know if Mike knows the situation nowadays better or not - but "Once again, if a town is 80 miles from London, and there are farms between it and Central London, it is not part of the metro area." is definitly wrong - although the 80 miles are exagorated. The green Belt (with farms if you want so) is a planned region as the green core in the Randstad. The New Towns were constructed around that belt to put the pressure away from the city and even that fact proves that they are part of the metro.

The second thing: SE England is NOT the metro area! It includes parts that are outside of the metro but for example Calais in France is included. SE England has some 22mio pop while the metro has 18. But this is more the economical region and not the urban metro that is still Greater London, the Green Belt and the New Towns with about 12mio. BUT: after US statistics you have to compare the first with metro NYC and then I have to agree with Shiro's numbers, that's adequate: 
London 18 million 22,000 sq km
New York 21 million 28,000 sq km


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

MikeHunt said:


> Most sites that I have seen state that 18 M people live in Southeast England -- not 22. Moreover, with respect to the other 5m about whom you inquire, they don't live in the London metro. If they live 80 miles from London, and there are empty fields between their towns and London, it's not part of the metro. There are no empty fields in the 90 mile stretch between NY and Philadelphia, yet these cities with 30M people between them are not considered one metro area.


The combined population of the South-East and East of England and London is around 20,560,726 (21mn - 2001). Once growth is factored in, the combined region has a population of between 21-22mn for 2005. 


*8,000,550 live in South-East of England (2001)










5,388,140 live in East of England (2001)










7,172,036 live in London (2001)







*


The combined area is around 39,795km², but around half of this area is taken up by areas not part of the London metro and hence where the 3-4mn reside - in areas not connected well to London, eg The Fens, New Forest, etc. It's not that hard to tell the difference between an urban area and a metropolitan area you know.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

1 Tokyo-Yokohama-Kawasaki-Chiba (Greater Tokyo Area) Japan 36,510,000 
2 New York City, New York-Newark, New Jersey-Paterson, New Jersey (New York Metropolitan Area) United States 22,310,000 
3 Mexico City-Nezahualcóyotl-Ecatepec-Naucalpan(Greater Mexico City) Mexico 22,090,000 
4 Seoul-Incheon-Bucheon-Goyang-Seongnam-Suweon (Capital Metropolitan Area) South Korea 21,740,000 
5 Mumbai-Navi Mumbai-Kalyan-Thane-Ulhasnagar, Maharashtra (Brihanmumbai/Greater Mumbai) India 19,470,000 
6 São Paulo-Guarulhos-Santo André-Osasco (Greater São Paulo Area) Brazil 19,090,000 
7 Jakarta-Bekasi-Bogor-Depok-Tangerang (Jabodetabek Metropolitan Area) Indonesia 17,590,000 
8 Los Angeles-Riverside-Anaheim (Southern California) California, United States 17,540,000 
9 Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto (Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto or Keihanshin) Japan 17,510,000 
10 Delhi, National Capital Territory-Faridabad, Haryana, Gurgaon, Haryana-Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-Noida, Uttar Pradesh India 17,480,000 
11 Manila-Quezon City-Makati City-Caloocan City (Metropolitan Manila) Philippines 16,610,000 
12 Greater Cairo, Al Qahirah-Al Jizah-Al Qalyubiyah Governorates Egypt 15,500,000 
13 Shanghai Municipality People's Republic of China 14,610,000 
14 Kolkata-Howrah, West Bengal India 14,450,000 
15 Moscow Russia 14,440,000 
16 Buenos Aires (Gran Buenos Aires) Argentina 13,330,000 
17 London (Greater London-Surrey-East Berkshire-Buckinghamshire-Hertfordshire-
South Essex-West Kent) United Kingdom 12,420,000 
18 Tehran-Karaj Iran 11,890,000 
19 Cologne-Bonn-Ruhr Area (Essen-Duisburg- Bochum-Dortmund-Düsseldorf-Wuppertal) Germany 11,780,000 
20 Rio De Janeiro-Nova Iguaçu-São Gonçalo-Niterói Brazil 11,720,000

Furthermore, consider these figures:

Population (Approx) Square Kilometers (Approx)
NYC 8M 780
Hudson Cty/NJ 610,000 162 
Essex Cty/NJ 796,000 336
Union Cty/NJ 530,000 273
Bergen Cty/NJ 897,000 606
Passaic Cty, NJ 498,000 510
Middlesex, NJ 750,000 835
Nassau Cty, NY 1.3M 1,200 
Westchester, NY950,00 1,300 

By contrast, in London:

Greater London 7M 1,600
Kent 1.3M 3,700
Essex 1.3M 3,700
Herts 1M 1,600
Buckinghamshire 479,000 1,900
Surrey 1M 1,670

Southest England: Pop = 18,387,000 in an area covering 10,612 sq km.
Greater London: Pop = 13,945,000 in an area covering 6,279 sq km.


----------



## Shawn (Nov 12, 2002)

Mike, from one American to another, why do you care about this so much? Do you know how often some dipshit European or American says, "Tokyo is nothing but neon lights and no history" on this forum? All I can do is shrug such idiocy off and find satisfaction in knowing that they are wrong, even though in reality it would make no difference if they were right. 18 million, 17 million, 12 million, who seriously cares? The population of metro London has zero affect on New York City or on you. You seem to enjoy fighting over this trivial statistic for the sole sake of fighting. Right now, you're coming off just as bad as some of the anal-retentive Londoners and Toronto forumers who actively look for things to bicker about.

Give it a rest, man.


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

SHiRO said:


> coth...
> 
> Noone here exept you reads Russian. Don't you think it is a little weak to give a link to a Russian site and use it as proof for your claims?
> 
> ...


First of all Moscow metro and commuter network one of fastest in the World. 

Second - commuter belt of Moscow covers area with population of 20mln. You personal dislike to this figure doesn't make it wrong.

Third - next time if you try to prove me something do it in Russian. Since you can't - stop trolling.


----------



## staff (Oct 23, 2004)

What's the problem here? We have the official metropolitan area numbers for both New York (~21 million) and London (18 million). However, those numbers may not be comparable since they're calculated out of different measuring methods - *but*, that's all we have for now, as long as no one cares to re-calculate the metropolitan areas with the same measuring standards.

New York is bigger than london (citywise, urban areawise and metropolitan areawise) - but it's obviously pretty close, until proven otherwise (which hasn't been done as of yet). 

This has nothing to do with the topic though, so I suggest you start a new NYC vs. London thread (or split the thread, SHiRO) if you want to continue the bashing. 

Or I'll have you all reported (including you, SHiRO).  :runaway: 

It would have been so easy if the same standards were used for all cities in the world - then there wouldn't be an argument between Copenhagen- and Stockholm forumers (Copenhagen would be much larger). But then again, what's a forum without arguments?


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

I'm at a complete loss as to why this thread hasn't been locked yet; either start a "What is London's metro population" thread, or get over it.

Holy crap!


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

MikeHunt said:


> I know very few people who commute to London from the most remote parts of Essex and Kent. Therefore, based upon your method only portions of those (and other counties) are part of the London metro, and the figure, therefore, is well below 18M. There are thousands of people who commute to NY from Philadelphia. Thus, by your method, the NY metro has over 30M people.


Again..., metro areas aren't calculated according to your perceptions, they are calculated by commuter patterns.
As you can see, on the INSEE map, the most remote parts of Essex and Kent aren't included in the LDN metro.
The same thing is probably true for the GLA figure.
Is that so hard to understand?

And no "my" method (actually 3 different methods of 3 respectable agencies) does not make NY and Philly one metro area (the fact that it isn't according to the US Census should have clued you in...






> In answer to your question, the figures that I noted are from demographia.com.


Demographia is not a reliable source.
I already showed you a Demographia page where they state 12 million for just the Urban Area of London. How is the Metro Area going to be smaller than that according to the same source?


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

mad_nick said:


> @Shiro, the official New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA MSA has 18,323,002 people in 17,419.88 sq km. The MSA is a bit weird though, it includes Pike County, PA, a relatively rural county in Northeastern PA, but not Fairfield County, CT, a county that has long been considred to be part of the New York area.


OK, I though 16 million from memory, thanks for correcting me.
According to Demographia LDN has 12 million in 4,147 sq km and 
NY 16 million in 7,690 sq km. This is what they call the Urban Area of these cities.

http://www.demographia.com/db-lonlanypar.htm





> Do you have a link to the INSEE definition? I might be able to put together a similar area for New York, they don't publish anything more detailed than county commuting data though, so it would be somewhat less detailed, but still probably more comparable to the INSEE figure than the MSA or CSA figures.


Sorry I don't. I do read French a bit, but not enough to browse the INSEE site looking for their definition.
I do know that there method is more strict than the US Census method. A larger % of commuters (40%?) is needed to include certain areas and not whole counties are included.
The forumers Justme and Manuel know more about this than me.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

coth said:


> First of all Moscow metro and commuter network one of fastest in the World.


If you say so...





> Second - commuter belt of Moscow covers area with population of 20mln. You personal dislike to this figure doesn't make it wrong.


And that area is like 80,000 sq km...
And has no official definition...

Absurd.




> Third - next time if you try to prove me something do it in Russian. Since you can't - stop trolling.


:|


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

pottebaum said:


> I'm at a complete loss as to why this thread hasn't been locked yet; either start a "What is London's metro population" thread, or get over it.
> 
> Holy crap!


This thread hasn't been closed because:

1. If I did, I would be accused of power abuse...

2. This is a thread about metro populations isn't it?

I know it is called "world's biggest metro", but it would make for an awfully short thread if we were only to discus the nr 1 in this category...

Post 1:
"what is the world's biggest metro?"

Post 2:
"Tokyo"

-End of thread...

Anyway...I'm just hoping MikeHunt will finally see the light and perhaps learn something about civil debating techniques along the way...


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

I am civil, Shiro. I do not institute rude comments, but I do respond accordingly.


----------



## shibuya_suki (Apr 24, 2005)

tokyo without any doubts
and no any metro of hong kong pls.
the coming up is nyc vs mexico city


----------



## coth (Oct 16, 2003)

SHiRO said:


> If you say so...
> 
> And that area is like 80,000 sq km...
> And has no official definition...
> ...


Moscow metro commercial speed is 42kmph. Comparing to 33 of London Underground. Average commercial speed of suburban rails is 65kmph.

area is rough

there was official source i posted you


----------



## Klas (May 16, 2005)

*NYC*

it must be NYC from New jersy to brigdeport /stamford , from Hudson valley to Atlantic city with 21 million peopl :runaway: e


----------



## Tubeman (Sep 12, 2002)

Klas, what is it with you dragging up ancient threads?

Read the Citytalk rules before doing so in future, its becoming irritating. A lot of these threads contravene the now established rules.


----------

