# Paris metro area, 16.7 million people ??



## Metropolitan (Sep 21, 2004)

Polako said:


> Isn't Ile-de-France the Paris Metro???


Wow, that's a nice map Polako ! A bit huge but still nice. 

Anyway you're indeed right. The Paris metropolitan area represents somehow the Ile-de-France region. It's actually what is inside the blue dots in the map you've posted so the South East of Ile-de-France is not in the metro area but the metro area is extended outside of Ile-de-France in the Northwest.

In orange you see what are effectively the builtup zones and the red dots circle represent the official limit of the urban area as determined by the INSEE (it follows the limits of the municipalities involved).

Just to make it sure (in case you've just read the title and not the initial post), the Paris metropolitan area represents indeed 11.5 million people and certainly not 16.7 million people.


----------



## Dr. Phalange (Sep 27, 2005)

Metropolitan said:


> To give you an example, that's exactly the reason why San Francisco and San José are not part of the same 'metropolitan area' (to any layperson). Indeed there are certainly more than 40% commuters between both places, but San José is an enough big and densely populated area to be considered as being on its own an urban core.


But San Francisco and San Jose _are_ part of the same metropolitan area on almost any list you can find.

The US Census bureau uses consolidated census metropolitan areas, such as the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose CMSA. 

(CMSA terminology is outdated by now, I think they call them CSA's?)

This is why 'metro' populations is a stupid moot point. So many different criteria, so much variation between regions and census methods...literally endless ways to measure.

And since we are arguing stupid moot points, that population list is wrong- Toronto-Hamilton-Oshawa is easily ~7 million. But who cares anyway. When living downtown Toronto, whether or not Hamilton is included into my city's metro population will never affect my life.


----------



## Metropolitan (Sep 21, 2004)

Dr. Phalange said:


> But San Francisco and San Jose _are_ part of the same metropolitan area on almost any list you can find.
> 
> The US Census bureau uses consolidated census metropolitan areas, such as the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose CMSA.
> 
> (CMSA terminology is outdated by now, I think they call them CSA's?)


Indeed, they are included in the same CSA (combined statistical area), but not in the same MSA (metropolitan statistical area). Once again, the purpose of a metro area is not to group together cities which are close to each others, the point is simply to determine a periurban belt around an urban area. If there's a second urban area few miles away, it will have its own metro area, unless if its metro area is totally encompassed by the metro area of the neighbouring larger city. It's sounds complicate I know but it's not so much.



> This is why 'metro' populations is a stupid moot point. So many different criteria, so much variation between regions and census methods...literally endless ways to measure.
> 
> And since we are arguing stupid moot points, that population list is wrong- Toronto-Hamilton-Oshawa is easily ~7 million. But who cares anyway. When living downtown Toronto, whether or not Hamilton is included into my city's metro population will never affect my life.


I agree with this. Those kinds of purely statistical considerations are rather irrelevant on the reality of cities, which have all very specific structure that we have to accept as such.

The only thing which is really annoying me is when people start to use exagerated figures to make comparisons which are irrelevant... such as considering New York City and London as cities of similar size, when it's obvious NYC is far more populated than London. What next ? Comparing London with Tokyo ? That's getting totally laughable.


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

^^ Nobody is arguing that, but the makeup of these cities is remarkably different. There isn't for example the urban cotinuation as found in New York around London, but then again there isn't the rings of former market towns, turned commuter settlements. Tokyo is a completely different matter altogether.


----------



## Skabbymuff (Mar 4, 2006)

> I agree that London is generally over-inflated in terms of population.


well i feel all cities and nations tend to overstate things. london is also not as small as some on this forum would like to make out.


----------



## Metropolitan (Sep 21, 2004)

Skabbymuff said:


> well i feel all cities and nations tend to overstate things. london is also not as small as some on this forum would like to make out.


Overstatements about London are a lot more common in this forum then understatements about it. If I would believe Wjfox, Nick Taylor or Manuel, London would have a more vibrant History than Rome or Istanbul, it would be more populous than New York, more powerful economically than Tokyo, sunnier than Ibiza, denser than Hong Kong, it would have the best skyscrapers on earth and would dominate the world also politically and socially.

Besides that, those considering London as a small town are not that numerous. A good way to see which cities are despised in Skyscrapercity is to check the "3 or less" ratings of their skylines. London City has 24 (4%) of such votes and London Canary Wharf has 17 (6%) of such votes.

As a matter of comparison, Frankfurt has 81 (14%) of such votes, New York City has 130 (9%) of such votes and Paris La Défense has 117 (18%) of such votes. I don't know why, but I have some kind of feeling which is telling me that those voting "3 or less" for those last three cities are all the same people.


----------



## Skabbymuff (Mar 4, 2006)

i disagree, i feel that as soon as somebody tries to defend london, everyone pounces on them. its not the biggest, but it is not a small city either, by no means at all. its very underrated i think in its size. plenty of other cities are just as over-hyped, this is so obvious, yet the hype is allowed to continue. its certianly bigger than paris, but then i guess by saying that i will get pounced on? i think like i said earlier, its just another great city. there are so many, so many....


----------



## Metropolitan (Sep 21, 2004)

Skabbymuff said:


> i disagree, i feel that as soon as somebody tries to defend london, everyone pounces on them. its not the biggest, but it is not a small city either, by no means at all. its very underrated i think in its size. plenty of other cities are just as over-hyped, this is so obvious, yet the hype is allowed to continue. its certianly bigger than paris, but then i guess by saying that i will get pounced on? i think like i said earlier, its just another great city. there are so many, so many....


London has certainly a larger metro area than Paris, but just slightly. Demographically both cities are very comparable.

Check the figures by yourself. Actually, Paris has a larger urban area than London (10.1 million for Paris and 8.5 million for London). Granted the Greater London had a population of 7.3 million people in 2001 when Paris had a population of 2.1 million people in 1999, but in comparing those figures, you're comparing apples and oranges since Paris is 87 km² when London lies on 1579 km², the administrative boundaries of London are nothing less than 18 times larger than those of Paris. However, if you take a similar area of 1579 km² around the center of Paris, you'll get 8.3 million people at 1999 official census, which means 1 million more than the Greater London.

The London metro area is around 12.5 million people when the Paris metro area is around 11.5 million people. Both cities are really very comparable in size. London is simply more spread out when Paris is denser in its core. All in all, there are simply no valid argument to consider London as being far bigger than Paris. When you compare both cities to New York or Tokyo, you see that it's obvious they don't play in the same league.

Saying this is certainly not about undervaluing London, it's simply about facing the facts. Some passionated British people tend to have such a jingoist bias that they actually genuinely believe their myths are true. As such, it's very hard for them to accept the truth afterwards.


----------



## LLoydGeorge (Jan 14, 2006)

I've always found London and Paris to be roughly the same size, and this list corroborates my impression:
Rank Metropolitan Area Nation Population 

1 Tokyo-Yokohama Japan 33,190,000 
2 New York United States 21,362,000 
3 Seoul-Inchon South Korea 19,920,000 
4 Mexico City Mexico 19,620,000 
5 Sao Paulo Brazil 17,720,000 
6 Mumbai (Bombay) India 17,580,000 
7 Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto Japan 16,930,000 
8 Los Angeles United States 16,374,000 
9 Manila Phillipines 14,140,000 
10 Cairo Egypt 14,000,000 
11 Calcutta India 13,940,000 
12 Delhi India 13,720,000 
13 Shanghai China 13,580,000 
14 Buenos Aires Argentina 13,390,000 
15 Jakarta Indonesia 13,330,000 
16 Beijing China 13,160,000 
17 Moscow Russia 13,100,000 
18 London United Kingdom 12,130,000 
19 Karachi Pakistan 11,020,000 
20 Rio de Janeiro Brazil 10,810,000 
21 Teheran Iran 10,740,000 
22 Paris France 10,600,000 
23 Istanbul Turkey 10,430,000 
24 Lagos Nigeria 10,030,000 
25 Tianjin China 9,920,000


----------



## staff (Oct 23, 2004)

elkram said:


> A friend of mine got himself a new atlas a few years ago, and I remember studying its gazetteer where it listed cities and their populations. I summed 38 Chinese cities that outranked Detroit, which at the time had just under 5 million people in its greater area. At least one of the Chinese cities' populations outranked Shanghai with more than 15 million -- I can't remember its name other than the fact that it begins with our letter C.


You're probably referring to the city of Chongqing, which boast well over 30 million people (33 something, if I recall correctly) in it's municipality. The 'problem' is that the municipality of Chongqing is huge and doesn't reflect the actual population of the city (or metropolitan area) at all. The same thing goes for Beijing, Tianjin and Shanghai. 
Shanghai is the largest city in China, and it's metro, by American standards, boasts over 20 million people quite easily. If including neighbouring cities like Suzhou (over 6 million people), it's even larger.

But it's the same problem as always with these forums. You can't compare cities from different continents (or even countries) to each other - since most nations use their different standards of measuring a metropolitan area for example.

If European cities were measured by the American standard, then many would be a lot larger than they actually are on paper today. China has many cities that boasts over 10 million people today, and many more that has more than 5 million. By American standards, it would be even more.


----------



## liat91 (Apr 11, 2005)

O.K. so go by the american standards which of course would give us larger metropolitan areas. Let's do it : London 18m american standard, Paris 16.7 million by american standard, so how about Tokyo, Shanghai, Moscow, Sao Paolo? Simplifies this with one facet and point of view anyway.


----------



## Riton (Feb 8, 2006)

liat91 said:


> O.K. so go by the american standards which of course would give us larger metropolitan areas. Let's do it : London 18m american standard, Paris 16.7 million by american standard, so how about Tokyo, Shanghai, Moscow, Sao Paolo? Simplifies this with one facet and point of view anyway.


US Census Bureau standards for metropolitan statistical areas are actually very generous compared to the standards used in some other countries that tabulate metropolitan areas like France, Canada, and Brazil. A better way to make figures more comparable is to use urbanized area figures for US cities instead. The US standard doesn't really work in dense areas like Europe and Japan. You would just get inflated figures that don't make sense.


----------



## LLoydGeorge (Jan 14, 2006)

liat91 said:


> O.K. so go by the american standards which of course would give us larger metropolitan areas. Let's do it : London 18m american standard, Paris 16.7 million by american standard, so how about Tokyo, Shanghai, Moscow, Sao Paolo? Simplifies this with one facet and point of view anyway.


I don't know what you mean by the American standard, but I assume that NY is not limited to 21M if London, by your analysis has 18M. NY's figure would be closer to 30M -- not 21M-- by any analysis which derives 18M for London.


----------



## mickvr (Oct 18, 2005)

I believe only figures on official sites:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pyramids/pages/h.asp
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pyramids/pages/j.asp
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pyramids/pages/g.asp

for London & South East
27,227 Sq Kms / 10,512 Sq Miles - Pop. 18.387.505

For New York Metropolitan Area please see:

http://factfinder.census.gov/servle...-PH1-R&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-format=US-10S

You can see that the population of New York--Northern New Jersey--Long Island, NY--NJ--CT--PA CMSA is 21,199,865 on a total area of 13,117.93 square miles or 33,960.76 square kms, the land area is 10,449.86 square kms or 27,053.44 square kms, almost equal to the SE of England.

These are official sites, the only sources I consider.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

mickvr said:


> These are official sites, the only sources I consider.


These are official websites, but YOU added up the figures according to your liking. Nowhere on the UK National Statistics website it says that the South-East of England and East of England regions are entirely contained within the London metropolitan area. The only official data on the UK National Statisticals website is this one, which clearly states that the London urban area had 8,278,251 inhabitants at the 2001 UK census. Any other claim is only personal cooked-up claim.


----------



## Riton (Feb 8, 2006)

mickvr said:


> You can see that the population of New York--Northern New Jersey--Long Island, NY--NJ--CT--PA CMSA is 21,199,865 on a total area of 13,117.93 square miles or 33,960.76 square kms, the land area is 10,449.86 square kms or 27,053.44 square kms, almost equal to the SE of England.


Not all metropolitan areas have to be the same size. Tokyo metropolitan area is only 15,000 sq. km. and Sao Paulo is only 8,000 sq. km. As I mentioned, US MSAs are not a good statistical concept since they use county boundaries (which can be huge) and very lenient requirements for inclusion. The New York-Newark urbanized area has 18 million people in an 8,000 sq. km area.


----------



## tigerboy (Jun 7, 2006)

sarflonlad said:


> Dare I say some people will even cite the north east of France as part of the London commuter belt (because there are people who live there and work in London)!
> 
> I wouldnt get too worked up by Metros. I refuse to believe that those in a metro (not urban core) such as school children, the elderly, the unemployed, those who work within a metro (but not in the urban core) etc... can actually contribute to either London or Paris in any significant way.
> 
> ...


I agree. Paris's importance and place in the world lies in the fact - I argue it is a fact at any rate - that nowhere so great is so beautiful and nowhere so beautiful is so great. Nowhere is world city greatness allied to savoir vivre human scale so well as in La ville Lumiere. However many satellite towns it has is immaterial.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

LLoydGeorge said:


> I don't know what you mean by the American standard, but I assume that NY is not limited to 21M if London, by your analysis has 18M. NY's figure would be closer to 30M -- not 21M-- by any analysis which derives 18M for London.


How many times does it have to be said?!

Using the same method that gives New York 21 million, London has 18 million. So no, none of this 30 million crap.

Metropolitan (the poster) also doesn't seem to understand this, why isn't he attacking New York and all other American cities? Either he has it in for London particularly or is comfortable measuring with two (or more) different methods.

London 18 million is a CSA, just like San Fransisco and San Jose are part of the same CSA btw.
Now, the way INSEE defines metro areas is indeed a bit stricter then the American method, but that method would still give London *17 million*, vs Paris 11,7 million (right Manuel?). 
There you have it, London is indeed significantly larger using this method. 

Now I'm sure Paris would be larger then 12 million if we equally use the US Census CSA definition on it, but I doubt the outcome would be something like that first map.
I think Metropolitan doesn't understand the definitions and applied them wrong. no biggy, he's no statician or anything like that, but it does destroy the whole purpose of this thread.

Some people just weren't meant to understand the concept of "metro area", the different methods and in what context you need to see the figures...


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Another thing on what you can see that Metropolitan doesn't understand the method and applied it wrong, is that the red line of his "metro area" doesn't follow departement lines.
If he truly applied the US Census method on CSA to Paris, it would follow departemental lines.

It's a wonderful map, but he screwed up.


----------



## tigerboy (Jun 7, 2006)

brisavoine said:


> These are official websites, but YOU added up the figures according to your liking. Nowhere on the UK National Statistics website it says that the South-East of England and East of England regions are entirely contained within the London metropolitan area. The only official data on the UK National Statisticals website is this one, which clearly states that the London urban area had 8,278,251 inhabitants at the 2001 UK census. Any other claim is only personal cooked-up claim.



I think what mickvr is saying and he is correct in my opinion is that if we ignore the differing methods of analysis (restrictive in UK, liberal in US) we find that in the c.10,000sq.miles around London the population density is similar and thus is as urban as that in a similar area around NYC. NYC is the larger metropole but no way on similar methods of analysis would the gap be as wide as you seem to suggest. Let's put it this way ANY analysis which gives LA 16.4 million would if applied to london or Paris or for that mattter NW England or the ruhr see gigantic figures.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Be my guest, you will find a metro area of 18 million (it has been done before).

But exactely! These are the types of threads we need, not how this thread was originally made...:tup:


----------



## Riton (Feb 8, 2006)

I don't have commuting/employment data so I'm just arbitrarily making up the groupings below to try to see how we can get the 18 million figure for London. If anyone has or can point me to the data, we can make this more quantitative.

London CSA (17.6 million) --> should be about 18.1 million in 2005
-London MSA: 13.5 million
-Brighton MSA: 1.5 million (includes East Sussex and West Sussex)
-Southampton-Portsmouth MSA: 1.6 million (includes Hampshire)
-Milton Keynes MSA: 0.2 million
-Reading MSA: 0.8 million (Berkshire NUTS-3 region)

Adjacent MSAs not in London CSA:
-Oxford MSA: 0.6 million
-Cambridge MSA: 0.6 million
-Ipswich MSA: 0.7 million


----------



## bileduct (Sep 11, 2002)

The Office for National Statistics will send you a copy of the travel to work origin-destination matrices from the 2001 census if you ask them nicely (details here - http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/op23.asp). If you take the data out of the CSV they come in and put them into a database, you can script a bit of SQL to work out the proportion of the workforce in a given area that commutes into another given area. Looping through all of the possible combinations, you can see which meet whatever threshold you decide makes them part of the same 'metro'.

Using the urban areas defined by the ONS (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D8271.xls) and using UK local authorities in place of US counties, this is what popped out for London, following the US 2000 standards (http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/00-32997.pdf) as closely as possible (you have to make a few assumptions along the way, but you can make a pretty good stab at it).

As Riton says, the first step is to establish the Core-Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs). These are based around urban areas, and made up of "Central Counties" and "Outlying Counties". The "Central Counties" of a CBSA are those that have more of their population falling within the core urban area than within any other urban area - essentially they're the urban area approximated to county boundaries. The "Outlying Counties" are those for which over 25% of the employed residents commute into the CBSA's Central Counties. If the Central Counties of one CBSA would collectively qualify as outlying counties of another CBSA, then the CBSAs merge (The Aldershot and Reigate/Crawley CBSAs become part of the London CBSA on that basis). 

These are the areas included for London, with the commuting figures that justify the inclusion of outlying counties...


```
London Core-Based Statistical Area

    Barking and Dagenham (Central County)
    Barnet (Central County)
    Bexley (Central County)
    Brent (Central County)
    Bromley (Central County)
    Broxbourne (Central County)
    Camden (Central County)
    City of London (Central County)
    Croydon (Central County)
    Dacorum (Central County)
    Dartford (Central County)
    Ealing (Central County)
    Elmbridge (Central County)
    Enfield (Central County)
    Epping Forest (Central County)
    Epsom and Ewell (Central County)
    Gravesham (Central County)
    Greenwich (Central County)
    Hackney (Central County)
    Hammersmith and Fulham (Central County)
    Haringey (Central County)
    Harrow (Central County)
    Havering (Central County)
    Hillingdon (Central County)
    Hounslow (Central County)
    Islington (Central County)
    Kensington and Chelsea (Central County)
    Kingston upon Thames (Central County)
    Lambeth (Central County)
    Lewisham (Central County)
    Merton (Central County)
    Mole Valley (Central County)
    Newham (Central County)
    Redbridge (Central County)
    Richmond upon Thames (Central County)
    Runnymede (Central County)
    Southwark (Central County)
    Spelthorne (Central County)
    Sutton (Central County)
    Tandridge (Central County)
    Three Rivers (Central County)
    Thurrock (Central County)
    Tower Hamlets (Central County)
    Waltham Forest (Central County)
    Wandsworth (Central County)
    Watford (Central County)
    Westminster (Central County)
    Woking (Central County)

Outlying Counties

    South Bucks (Resident workforce 22,886 of whom 7,690 commute to London Central Counties = 33.6%)
    Brentwood (Resident workforce 24,771 of whom 11,585 commute to London Central Counties = 46.8%)
    Harlow (Resident workforce 29,863 of whom 7,985 commute to London Central Counties = 26.7%)
    Chiltern (Resident workforce 31,470 of whom 10,259 commute to London Central Counties = 32.6%)
    Welwyn Hatfield (Resident workforce 34,019 of whom 8,589 commute to London Central Counties = 25.2%)
    Hertsmere (Resident workforce 34,702 of whom 18,068 commute to London Central Counties = 52.1%)
    Sevenoaks (Resident workforce 38,750 of whom 18,749 commute to London Central Counties = 48.4%)
    St. Albans (Resident workforce 50,033 of whom 18,254 commute to London Central Counties = 36.5%)
    Guildford (Resident workforce 50,366 of whom 13,886 commute to London Central Counties = 27.6%)
    East Hertfordshire (Resident workforce 51,528 of whom 14,630 commute to London Central Counties = 28.4%)
    Basildon (Resident workforce 59,559 of whom 20,505 commute to London Central Counties = 34.4%)

+ Aldershot CBSA, Population: 286,966

    Rushmoor (Central County)
    Surrey Heath (Central County)
    Waverley (Central County)
    
+ Reigate/Crawley CBSA, Population: 226,267

    Crawley (Central County)
    Reigate and Banstead (Central County)
```
*Total London CBSA Population in 2001: 10,278,213*


CBSAs are then combined with adjacent CBSAs to form Combined Statistical Areas (CSAs). These are calculated by working out the proportion of the smaller CBSA's resident workforce that commutes _into_ the larger CBSA, the proportion of the workplace-based workforce of the smaller CBSA that commutes _from_ the larger CBSA, and adding them together to make what's called the Employee Interchange Measure(EIM). CBSAs combine to make a CSA if their EIM is over 25, or if it's over 15 and local opinion supports combining. As we've no way of judging local opinion I've assumed that all areas that qualify to combine will combine, and that places that qualify to combine with two different CBSAs will combine with the one they have the closest connection to. For London this gives us...


```
[b]London CSA[/b]

   London CBSA
    3601947 of 3793162 commute into London CBSA = 95.0%
    3601947 of 4144907 commute in from London CBSA = 86.9%
    Employment Interchange Measure = 95.0 + 86.9 = 181.9
    Population = 10,278,213

   Southend CBSA
    41738 of 111033 commute into London CBSA = 37.6%
    6276 of 73365 commute in from London CBSA = 8.6%
    Employment Interchange Measure = 37.6 + 8.6 = 46.1
    Population = 325,354

   Reading CBSA
    13914 of 119412 commute into London CBSA = 11.7%
    9434 of 122866 commute in from London CBSA = 7.7%
    Employment Interchange Measure = 11.7 + 7.7 = 19.3
    Population = 293,325

   Medway CBSA
    24184 of 90937 commute into London CBSA = 26.6%
    4336 of 64188 commute in from London CBSA = 6.8%
    Employment Interchange Measure = 26.6 + 6.8 = 33.3
    Population = 249,488

   Luton CBSA
    12248 of 63203 commute into London CBSA = 19.4%
    5091 of 64276 commute in from London CBSA = 7.9%
    Employment Interchange Measure = 19.4 + 7.9 = 27.3
    Population = 184,371

   Aylesbury Vale CBSA
    11672 of 66062 commute into London CBSA = 17.7%
    2908 of 50427 commute in from London CBSA = 5.8%
    Employment Interchange Measure = 17.7 + 5.8 = 23.4
    Population = 165,748

   Wycombe CBSA
    14671 of 62192 commute into London CBSA = 23.6%
    8713 of 60013 commute in from London CBSA = 14.5%
    Employment Interchange Measure = 23.6 + 14.5 = 38.1
    Population = 162,105

   Chelmsford CBSA
    21738 of 60254 commute into London CBSA = 36.1%
    6305 of 54224 commute in from London CBSA = 11.6%
    Employment Interchange Measure = 36.1 + 11.6 = 47.7
    Population = 157,072

   Basingstoke and Deane CBSA
    6500 of 64372 commute into London CBSA = 10.1%
    4640 of 62053 commute in from London CBSA = 7.5%
    Employment Interchange Measure = 10.1 + 7.5 = 17.6
    Population = 152,573

   Wealden CBSA
    7074 of 45861 commute into London CBSA = 15.4%
    905 of 32365 commute in from London CBSA = 2.8%
    Employment Interchange Measure = 15.4 + 2.8 = 18.2
    Population = 140,023

   Maidstone CBSA
    9409 of 52166 commute into London CBSA = 18.0%
    2737 of 51518 commute in from London CBSA = 5.3%
    Employment Interchange Measure = 18.0 + 5.3 = 23.3
    Population = 138,948

   Windsor and Maidenhead CBSA
    14595 of 52960 commute into London CBSA = 27.6%
    9973 of 54073 commute in from London CBSA = 18.4%
    Employment Interchange Measure = 27.6 + 18.4 = 46.0
    Population = 133,626

   Braintree CBSA
    9102 of 50144 commute into London CBSA = 18.2%
    1048 of 36534 commute in from London CBSA = 2.9%
    Employment Interchange Measure = 18.2 + 2.9 = 21.0
    Population = 132,179

   Mid Sussex CBSA
    17689 of 47524 commute into London CBSA = 37.2%
    4143 of 38216 commute in from London CBSA = 10.8%
    Employment Interchange Measure = 37.2 + 10.8 = 48.1
    Population = 127,378

   Swale CBSA
    5747 of 41606 commute into London CBSA = 13.8%
    792 of 33452 commute in from London CBSA = 2.4%
    Employment Interchange Measure = 13.8 + 2.4 = 16.2
    Population = 122,801

   Horsham CBSA
    14562 of 45186 commute into London CBSA = 32.2%
    3679 of 36215 commute in from London CBSA = 10.2%
    Employment Interchange Measure = 32.2 + 10.2 = 42.4
    Population = 122,088

   Mid Bedfordshire CBSA
    7395 of 49356 commute into London CBSA = 15.0%
    859 of 33718 commute in from London CBSA = 2.5%
    Employment Interchange Measure = 15.0 + 2.5 = 17.5
    Population = 121,024

   Slough CBSA
    14537 of 47162 commute into London CBSA = 30.8%
    18153 of 60206 commute in from London CBSA = 30.2%
    Employment Interchange Measure = 30.8 + 30.2 = 61.0
    Population = 119,067

   North Hertfordshire CBSA
    12179 of 44552 commute into London CBSA = 27.3%
    2678 of 34136 commute in from London CBSA = 7.8%
    Employment Interchange Measure = 27.3 + 7.8 = 35.2
    Population = 116,908

   South Bedfordshire CBSA
    9881 of 44050 commute into London CBSA = 22.4%
    2129 of 32782 commute in from London CBSA = 6.5%
    Employment Interchange Measure = 22.4 + 6.5 = 28.9
    Population = 112,637

   Bracknell Forest CBSA
    11095 of 47189 commute into London CBSA = 23.5%
    7892 of 49039 commute in from London CBSA = 16.1%
    Employment Interchange Measure = 23.5 + 16.1 = 39.6
    Population = 109,617

   East Hampshire CBSA
    9858 of 40694 commute into London CBSA = 24.2%
    2463 of 30604 commute in from London CBSA = 8.0%
    Employment Interchange Measure = 24.2 + 8.0 = 32.3
    Population = 109,274

   Tonbridge and Malling CBSA
    12404 of 39416 commute into London CBSA = 31.5%
    4673 of 40174 commute in from London CBSA = 11.6%
    Employment Interchange Measure = 31.5 + 11.6 = 43.1
    Population = 107,561

   Tunbridge Wells CBSA
    9491 of 37711 commute into London CBSA = 25.2%
    2229 of 35565 commute in from London CBSA = 6.3%
    Employment Interchange Measure = 25.2 + 6.3 = 31.4
    Population = 104,030

   Hart CBSA
    13902 of 34649 commute into London CBSA = 40.1%
    6667 of 27993 commute in from London CBSA = 23.8%
    Employment Interchange Measure = 40.1 + 23.8 = 63.9
    Population = 83,505

   Stevenage CBSA
    9723 of 30077 commute into London CBSA = 32.3%
    5128 of 31447 commute in from London CBSA = 16.3%
    Employment Interchange Measure = 32.3 + 16.3 = 48.6
    Population = 79,715

   Uttlesford CBSA
    8782 of 26094 commute into London CBSA = 33.7%
    5187 of 26094 commute in from London CBSA = 19.9%
    Employment Interchange Measure = 33.7 + 19.9 = 53.5
    Population = 68,946

   Maldon CBSA
    5268 of 21539 commute into London CBSA = 24.5%
    539 of 14433 commute in from London CBSA = 3.7%
    Employment Interchange Measure = 24.5 + 3.7 = 28.2
    Population = 59,418
```
*Population of London CSA = 14,076,994*

Mid Bedfordshire has a closer connection to the Bedford CBSA than to the London one, however, so should probably be excluded on the "local opinion will combine with the most closely linked CBSA" assumption. That gives London's final CSA population by this method as *13,955,970*.

On that basis, if you accept the assumptions that I've used to make this calculation, the final figure for the size of London's Metro using US standards in 2001 is essentially 14m, including quite a lot of the South East and East of England regions but by no means all of them.


----------



## Riton (Feb 8, 2006)

bileduct said:


> These are the areas included for London, with the commuting figures that justify the inclusion of outlying counties...


That's very informative. I actually assumed the London urban area is a bit larger by treating urban areas that are almost touching as continuous. (People here have indicated that the ONS urban area is underestimated). Also, if you have time, it might be interesting to see what you get if you use counties (NUTS-3) instead of local authorities (which are more like minor civil divisions in the U.S.) so that it more closely approximates the U.S. method. Anyway, great work.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Bileduct, great work! At last we seem to get a worthwhile thread afterall!

Just so that nobody misinterpret this, the above is if you use the UK definition of Urban Area and local authorities not counties.

You'll see that if you use the US Census definition of Urban Area and counties you'll get 18 million. 

But this is truly great! Hopefully everyone who reads this will now at least open their mind a bit.


----------



## tigerboy (Jun 7, 2006)

liat91 said:


> Don't the U.K. or France have official commuting data? I believe the U.S. census uses 25% commuting threshold. So if somebody has the will you can figure out what London or Paris's CSA's really are.


Only if we accept the American model as "really" telling us anything of real worth. IMO and I do not claim to be expert any method which comes up with a metropolitan area whose population density is as low as that NY has is flawed in some way.

Simple logic suggests that large areas of low population density and hence not really urban in any laymans understanding are included and puff up the figure.

I defer to others who are more expert on stats here but as an educated layman any method which makes NY nearly three times London in population and some 5 times bigger in area is simply nonsensical. Shiro's link posted at 4.10 am is a useful reminder that we are simply talking of applying a similar analysis - and analysis which IMO is too liberal but which at least treats both the NYLON twins equally.


----------



## Riton (Feb 8, 2006)

tigerboy said:


> Only if we accept the American model as "really" telling us anything of real worth. IMO and I do not claim to be expert any method which comes up with a metropolitan area whose population density is as low as that NY has is flawed in some way.
> 
> Simple logic suggests that large areas of low population density and hence not really urban in any laymans understanding are included and puff up the figure.


I think it is clear that in order to get 18 million for London, one must use a definition that consists of multiple metropolitan areas that strongly exchange commuters. The same is true for New York to get 22 million (New York is only 18.5 million if a single-core metropolitan area definition is used). I guess one point of the original thread is that if the model of interacting metropolitan areas is used, then Paris would have a population figure of 16 million (espace urbain) instead of the 11 million for a single-core metropolitan area.

The CSA was not designed to be used for metropolitan areas (I think one reason why "metropolitan" was removed from its name) but just to show which areas interact strongly enough that, in presenting statistics for certain topics (particularly economics and housing), the combined areas provide a better indicator than the metropolitan area alone.


----------



## tigerboy (Jun 7, 2006)

Riton said:


> I think it is clear that in order to get 18 million for London, one must use a definition that consists of multiple metropolitan areas that strongly exchange commuters. The same is true for New York to get 22 million (New York is only 18.5 million if a single-core metropolitan area definition is used). I guess one point of the original thread is that if the model of interacting metropolitan areas is used, then Paris would have a population figure of 16 million (espace urbain) instead of the 11 million for a single-core metropolitan area.
> 
> The CSA was not designed to be used for metropolitan areas (I think one reason why "metropolitan" was removed from its name) but just to show which areas interact strongly enough that, in presenting statistics for certain topics (particularly economics and housing), the combined areas provide a better indicator than the metropolitan area alone.


Thank you for clarifying but doesn't the logic of what you say, which I accept as accurate, imply that the figures arrived at in no really understandable way are to be termed "London's population" or "NYC's population" and are thus of little use if arguing which is bigger or by how much?


----------



## edubejar (Mar 16, 2003)

I say that contiguousness should be the primary way to determine the greater metropolitan area of a city. I'm very tempted to say "the only way to determine...," but I know that will face more opposition. Just look at a city like a living entity. You must be attached to your extremities (legs, arms, heads, and for y-chromosomed earthlings...a *****) so that it's part of you. Same for a city. In my view, an extended train and highway may be a link to a detached subway so long as there is a strip of development on either side. Who agrees?


----------



## edubejar (Mar 16, 2003)

^correction..."detached SUBURB/MUNICIPALITY"


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

edubejar said:


> I say that contiguousness should be the primary way to determine the greater metropolitan area of a city. I'm very tempted to say "the only way to determine...," but I know that will face more opposition. Just look at a city like a living entity. You must be attached to your extremities (legs, arms, heads, and for y-chromosomed earthlings...a *****) so that it's part of you. Same for a city. In my view, an extended train and highway may be a link to a detached subway so long as there is a strip of development on either side. Who agrees?


There is a term for this already. It's called "Urban Area". Why also define the metropolitan area as the same as the Urban Area?


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

edubejar said:


> I say that contiguousness should be the primary way to determine the greater metropolitan area of a city. I'm very tempted to say "the only way to determine...," but I know that will face more opposition. Just look at a city like a living entity. You must be attached to your extremities (legs, arms, heads, and for y-chromosomed earthlings...a *****) so that it's part of you. Same for a city. In my view, an extended train and highway may be a link to a detached subway so long as there is a strip of development on either side. Who agrees?



Yeah...but on the other hand a lot of metro residents (outside the main urban core) work in the city and contribute to it's life and soul.


If a city is like a body, make it a rayman


----------



## Tubeman (Sep 12, 2002)

Not this shite again hno:


----------

