# London,Home Counties and Thames Valley Population



## Day Release (Jul 5, 2005)

Greater London 7,465,000

Berkshire 803,657

Bedfordshire 388,600

Buckinghamshire 958,000

Essex 1,318,400

Hertfordshire 1,033,977

Hampshire 1,600,000

Kent 1,329,718

Surrey 1,200,000

Sussex 1,100,00

Oxfordshire 605,488

Total Population 17,809,932

These are just the nearest counties surrounding London, but there are other counties with in easy communting distance such as Cambridge which have been excluded.


----------



## Brett (Oct 26, 2004)

What percentage of Britian's population is in the greater London area?


----------



## Mr_ed2 (Jul 18, 2003)

Greater London is the county in the centre of the above map. It's 2001 population was 7,172,091 according to the ONS http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D6555.xls. It will no doubt be higher now.

The total population of England and wales in 2001 was 52,041,916, and the total population of Great Britain is 58124600. (Great Britain excludes Northern Ireland)

The total population of the UK is 59834900.

Therefore, in answer to your question, the percentage of the population of great britain/englan/uk that is London is given here:

*Greater London population as a percentage of:*
England and Wales----------------------13.8%
Great Britain----------------------------12.3%
United Kingdom-------------------------12.0%

However, the population of London is a hotly contested subject on this site, in fact I am currently in the process of defining conclusively London's population according to certain standards such as population density.

The county of Greater London certainly does not contain all of London's continuous Urban area, this spills out into other counties, especially Surrey, Hertsfordshire and Berkshire; the M25 - London's ring round goes through these counties and others outside of greater London.

What is less clear is the definition of London's metro area - that is the area which is inextricably linked to London in an economic and commuting sense. This certainly includes a high percentage of the counties given in the map above, but it is difficult to pin down.


----------



## london-b (Jul 31, 2004)

Cool, my county Bedfordhire has a small population.


----------



## Day Release (Jul 5, 2005)

Nearly 18 million population in the London area (and that's with a much smaller metro than New York), and the population is still growing rapidly.


----------



## Day Release (Jul 5, 2005)

The purple counties on this map represent London's metro area in which 18 million people reside :wink2:


----------



## Tubeman (Sep 12, 2002)

First person to mention New York gets shot (other than me, of course  )


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

This is off topic, but why are Wales just seen as a region of England. The banknotes, ministries, etc. Wales uses English equivalents, unlike Scotland or Northern Ireland. It's interesting how 100 years extra of being absorbed into Britain has made them so much less independent. If it wasn't for the Welsh language, it'd just be another big county!


----------



## ROCguy (Aug 15, 2005)

lol.... is it true that the area known as "the city of London"... the original city limits from 2000 years ago...only has 4000 people living in it?


----------



## Mr_ed2 (Jul 18, 2003)

It's up to just over 7,000 now


----------



## Day Release (Jul 5, 2005)

The City of is the London's CBD, wiith hundreds of thousands of people work in the financial industry in the area.

There is a low population in this area becuase the corporation encourages office development and the expansion of financial services in the area rather than residential developments.

Btw the City population has expanded in recent years and now stands at 26,923, occupying an area of 668 statute acres, little more than one square mile. 

I wouldn't say that 26,923 living in one square mile is particuarly low, given that the average US Figure of population per square mile is something like 78.

As for Wales it is a nation state and part of the United Kingdom, Wales even has it's own laungauge and assembly.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

Tubeman said:


> First person to mention New York gets shot (other than me, of course  )


Wouldn't that be Day Release; whom mentioned the-city-that-shall-not-be named in the post right before yours?


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

Day Release said:


> Nearly 18 million population in the London area (and that's with a much smaller metro than New York), and the population is still growing rapidly.


The area with 18M people is way bigger than metro NY.  As I stated in another thread the distance from Central London to the edges of many of the counties in that area is greater than the distance from NY to Philadelphia. Moreover, the area surrounding London that has 18M people has a lot of empty farm land. By contrast, the area between NY and Philly is continuously populated.

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


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Tubeman, will this do?










Somehow we all knew it would be him, right?
Trolls never dissappoint.


----------



## Day Release (Jul 5, 2005)

Mike Hunt said:


> The area with 18M people is way bigger than metro NY. As I stated in another thread the distance from Central London to the edges of many of the counties in that area is greater than the distance from NY to Philadelphia. Moreover, the area surrounding London that has 18M people has a lot of empty farm land. By contrast, the area between NY and Philly is continuously populated.
> 
> Consider these figures:
> Population (Approx) Square Kilometers (Approx)
> ...


Firstly England is a tiny country to start with, and the areas included are the London suburbs of Thames Valley and the Home Counties, I can't do a fairer analysis than that.

If you don't like it tough, as for NY I couldn't care less to be honest, this threads about London :laugh:

The Home Counties and Thames Valley are recognised as the London suburbs, and British forumers must be pissing themselves laughing at you mate.

Paris is only 212 miles from London and nearer to the distance between many of your east coast cities such as New York and Boston 210 Miles :lol:


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

SHiRO said:


> Somehow we all knew it would be him, right?
> Trolls never dissappoint.


I don't know the situation like some of you do; but how isn't MikeHunt's post relevant?



Day Release said:


> Nearly 18 million population in the London area (and that's with a much smaller metro than New York)


^^

Nothing against you, though, Day Release--you've put a lot of work into this thread. Some mods just need a 'lil reminder to atleast _try_ to be impartial.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

pottebaum said:


> I don't know the situation like some of you do; but how isn't MikeHunt's post relevant?


MikeHunt is doing the exact opposite of what we should be doing on this site. Looking at cities in new ways, finding and sharing information and learning.

MikeHunts post isn't relevant, because:

1. This thread was about London, not New York.

2. He purposely posts irrelevant information. The total area of the SE isn't what is claimed to be the London metro AT ALL. This was explained to him in 3 different threads by a dozen people already.
He's just here to troll.

If I were you, I wouldn't align myself to much with MikeHunt just because it seems he's "defending New York" (he isn't, he's making an ass out of himself).
Noone ever claimed anything about New York through the course of this 3 thread spanning debate with Mike...we are just interested in establishing a metro area for London.
It turns out it's 18 million people in an area smaller than the area of New York metro (CSA). Now tell me, how does London having a 18 million metro take anything away from New York?





> Nothing against you, though, Day Release--you've put a lot of work into this thread. Some mods just need a 'lil reminder to atleast _try_ to be impartial.


And what the hell is that supposed to mean?
If someone is purposely posting false and misleading information and trolling every thread on the subject do you expect me to do nothing?
Actually, I didn't do anything in this thread, other mods took care of MikeHunt.


----------



## Day Release (Jul 5, 2005)

Cheers Pottebaum, but I have just given the figures for what are universally recognised as the London Suburbs, ie Thames Valley and the Home Counties, you can even take parts of the Thames Valley such as Oxfordshire or the more remote less densely populated counties such as Bedfordshire off the list and it would still be near the 17 million mark and growing rapidly.

Btw good post Shiro :applause: 

Just noticed it after I posted this kay:


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

I was just saying, SHiRO, that New York was mentioned before MikeHunt entered the thread; perhaps you should investiage that instead?  I'm not trying to align myself to anyone--I just get sick of favoritism and bias. I don't want to hurt any feelings, but it becomes pretty evident once you spend enough time here.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

Day Release said:


> Cheers Pottebaum


Right back at ya, man!


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

More maps:

if I'm correct this map was made by the SSC forummer Manuel some time ago.
It shows a possible london metro area calculated according to INSEE methods.


----------



## Day Release (Jul 5, 2005)

That's basically the Home counties/Thames Valley Shiro kay:

Any way here's a map and bear in mind that even if I no longer go as far out as Oxforshire or Bedfordshire, there are still 17 million people in the Home Counties and London Surburbs.

Remember Luton (Home of London Luton Airport) is in Bedfordshire and Oxford in Oxfordshire and these are no longer part of the metro.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

pottebaum said:


> I was just saying, SHiRO, that New York was mentioned before MikeHunt entered the thread; perhaps you should investiage that instead?  I'm not trying to align myself to anyone--I just get sick of favoritism and bias. I don't want to hurt any feelings, but it becomes pretty evident once you spend enough time here.


Yeah, you're right we mods are biased.
I for one am extremely biased against TROLLS.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

The "What is the financial capital of the world thread" is a perfect example of what I'm talking about; check it out, but let's not discuss it here(respond by PM if this is bothering you). Oh, and I'm not talking about all the mods--most of 'em usually do a great job, and the ones I do sometimes have a problem with usually seem like pretty good people.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Another one.
This one I made myself some years ago, when I first started to take an interest in metro areas.
As you can see, some areas are included which probably would not belong to the London metro (most notably the Isle of Wight) and some areas are exclude which definately are metro London (Swindon, some cities in Cambridgeshire).

!! this is an amateur map made by me some years ago !!


----------



## Day Release (Jul 5, 2005)

Yes that was the area I included Shiro which was 17,809,932 and even if you just use the counties which physically border London ie. Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Surrey and Kent the metro figure is still 14,115,874.

Although it's ridiculous not to include places like Luton, Aldershot or Horsham etc as being part of London's suburbs or her metro.

Btw great map Shiro kay:


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

Excellent thread Day Release!

As mentioned by yourself and SHiRO, one doesn't have to include places like the Ile of Wight or even Portsmouth and Southampton in London's metro, as they are not part of it to reach the 18million population that the GLA describes as their metro, as they use other area's within the commuter catchment and the latest 2004 population estimates/figures.

Manuel has done some amazing work on London's metropolitan area using the INSEE standard. From what I understand, he has spent time in the last couple of years for a university paper calculating exact commuter percentages and basing the formula on the French INSEE method for metropolitan area's. Using this different criteria, his area is smaller but contains approx 17million people. Brilliant work.

Natually, different country's use different methods, and looking myself using the American MSA + CMSA definitions, the result comes to around 18million. As mentioned before, this doesn't need to use the a great deal of Hampshire or even the end part of Kent but does include small parts of Cambridgeshire, Suffolk, Swindon etc. It just has to be remembered that entire counties don't have to be used - and shouldn't - as not all of the county may have the required commuter percentages into the allocated subregions.

Again, well done.


----------



## Day Release (Jul 5, 2005)

Just me said:


> Excellent thread Day Release!
> 
> As mentioned by yourself and SHiRO, one doesn't have to include places like the Ile of Wight or even Portsmouth and Southampton in London's metro, as they are not part of it to reach the 18million population that the GLA describes as their metro, as they use other area's within the commuter catchment and the latest 2004 population estimates/figures.
> 
> ...


Your absoloutely spot on Just me, just like you were in the other thread kay:

Using areas like the Isle of Wight is ridiculous, however using Luton in Bedfordshire or North of Hampshire and most of Kent, Essex, Herts, Bucks, Berks as well as parts of Sussex are completley sensible and you find for the most part that the nearest areas to London within these counties are where the majority of population are usually centered.

I hope Manuel gets the excellent grade he deserves for his research and I totally agree with his analysis 17 million sounds spot on to me kay:


----------



## Day Release (Jul 5, 2005)

If you look at NY's Metropolitan Area, Putnam shown on the map is 58 miles from New York :doh:










Just look at the size of the NY Metro area :lol:


----------



## Day Release (Jul 5, 2005)

The total population of the New York Metropolitan Area is 21,361,797 (CSA as of April 1, 2000) over a land area of 11,840 square miles (30,670 square kilometers). The land are does cover New Jersey and Cities such as Newark (2 million population), Jersey CIty and parts of Conneticut and Pennsylviana.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_metropolitan_area

Londons Metro is slightly less populated but not by much.

Berkshire 487 Square Miles

Bedfordshire 476 Square miles

Buckinghamshire 723 Square miles

Essex 1416 Square miles

Hertfordshire 841 Square miles

Hampshire 1455 Square miles

Kent 1422 Square miles

Oxfordshire 1005 Square Miles

Surrey 642 Square Miles

W.Sussex 768 Square Miles

E.Sussex 691 Square Miles

London 610 Square Miles


Total Square Miles 10,536 (sq miles) and total population 17,809,932

Compared to New York's Metro of 11,840 (sq miles) with a population of 21,361,797


----------



## mad_nick (May 13, 2004)

^ The New York CMSA is 27,065,013,700 sq meters, that's 27,065 sq km, 10,450 sq miles.
http://factfinder.census.gov/servle...ults=01000US&-format=&-_lang=en&-show_geoid=Y


----------



## Day Release (Jul 5, 2005)

Not according to this mate and this details every city and area in the Metro area in great detail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_metropolitan_area


----------



## mad_nick (May 13, 2004)

^ The data I posted is directly from the census bureau website.

EDIT: Also the population you posted for New York is from 2000, whereas the data you posted for London is the latest estimate.


----------



## Day Release (Jul 5, 2005)

mad nick said:


> ^ The data I posted is directly from the census bureau website.
> 
> EDIT: Also the population you posted for New York is from 2000, whereas the data you posted for London is the latest estimate.


No it's not most of it relates to the 2001 Census.

As for the exact size of the metro I am not going to argue as to whether the encyclopedia has it right or wrong (there not my figures), I will simply take the furthest county Oxfordshire off the UK metro.

Oxfordshire 1005 square miles and population 605,488

Which now gives London a metro area of 9,531 Square miles and a population of 17,204,444 

Not as big as NY's Metro but then again there are no major cities such as Jersey City or Newark in the London Metro area.

London has a Metro area of around 17 million, as for this petty New York V
London stuff I couldn't care. NY probably does have slightly a bigger metro, but no massively bigger and given that cities like Newark (within the metro area) have populations of 2 million this is hardly surprising.


----------



## mad_nick (May 13, 2004)

^ I don't know about the rest of the counties, but Greater London did not have 7,465,000 in 2001, it had 7,172,091.
http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov...=60_61_62&CurrentPageId=62&Next.x=15&Next.y=9

I do agree however that the New York Metro isn't vastly larger than London.
New York's size doesn't really have anything to do with other cities in the metro though. Those cities largely grew because of New York and are dependent upon the city. Also, if NYC was the same size geographically as Greater London, both Newark, Jersey City and their surrounding areas would be included within the 600 square mile city. (for a total of about 10.8 million using 2000 data)


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Let's not make this into a LDN vs NY thing again.

Day Release...of course US Census figures are more accurate then Wikipedia and you have to use the latest available data, not 2000 figures.
NY CSA did exeed 22 million already.

That's a cool map you posted btw. Shame it doesn't have a scale on it, otherwise we could have made a comparison. Maybe that would have convinced any doubters.

mad nick, your right, if NY was as large in area as Greater London it would have almost 11 million. There's no question the core of NY is much denser than the core of London metro, but it evens out after the Green Belt and I believe London's metro turns out slightly denser than NY's.


----------



## spxy (Apr 9, 2003)

Day Release said:


> Greater London 7,465,000
> 
> Berkshire 803,657
> 
> ...




Do these figures include the many districts that are seperate from the main counties?
For example Southend-on-sea and Thurrock became seperated from Essex in 1998.Southend has a 160,000 odd population and Thurrock 140,000.
I believe almost all those counties listed contain within their areas seperate districts (cities and towns)which are not included in those population figures.
If so, we need to add them all on.
This may take the south east figure up to the 22 million suggested in other threads.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

btw, the US Census doesn't use the terms PMSA and CSMA anymore.
They now have MSA's and CSA's (Metropolitan Statistical Area and Combined Statistical Area).


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

This is exactly how the United States Census Bureau currently defines the New York Metropolitan Area:


```
New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA                   21,361,797
|
|---New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA MSA    18,323,002
|  |---New York-White Plains-Wayne, NY-NJ MD    11,296,377    
|  |---Newark-Union, NJ-PA MD                    2,098,843    
|  |---Nassau-Suffolk, NY MD                     2,753,913    
|  |---Edison, NJ MD                             2,173,869    
|                                                             
|---Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT MSA                          882,567
|
|---New Haven-Milford, CT MSA                                    824,008
|
|---Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY MSA                     621,517
|
|---Trenton-Ewing, NJ MSA                                        350,761
|
|---Torrington, CT MSA                                           182,193
|
|---Kingston, NY MSA                                             177,749
```
As you can see the New York CSA has a population of 21,361,797 in an area of 11,844.42 sq. mi. with a density of 1,803.5 ppsm.

However, you also have the New York MSA with a population of 18,323,002 in an area of 6,724.07 sq. mi. with a density of 2,725.0 ppsm.


Here is a map of the CSA. The yellow area is the New York MSA, and the blue area the CSA. I've individually numbered the MDs for the New York MSA as well as the additional MSAs in the CSA.










1. New York
2. Newark
3. Nassau-Suffolk
4. Edison
5. Bridgeport
6. New Haven
7. Poughkeepsie
8. Trenton
9. Torrington
10. Kingston


----------



## spxy (Apr 9, 2003)

spxy said:


> Do these figures include the many districts that are seperate from the main counties?
> For example Southend-on-sea and Thurrock became seperated from Essex in 1998.Southend has a 160,000 odd population and Thurrock 140,000.
> I believe almost all those counties listed contain within their areas seperate districts (cities and towns)which are not included in those population figures.
> If so, we need to add them all on.
> This may take the south east figure up to the 22 million suggested in other threads.


these towns are called Unitary aurthorities "A unitary authority is a type of local authority, which has a single-tier and is responsible for all local government functions within its area. This is opposed to a two-tier system where local government functions are divided between different authorities.

Typically unitary authorities cover large towns or cities, which are large enough to be independent of county or regional administration. Or sometimes they consist of counties which have no lower level of administration."

for example wikipedia.org list Essex as 1,324,092 but says this does not include southend or Thurrock which would add a further 300,000.


----------



## spxy (Apr 9, 2003)

On further research to get the proper total population you need to look at ceremonial counties , these include the towns and city councils in their figures

Essesx 1,629,647
Bedfordshire 573,765
Hertfordshire 1,040,925
buckinghamshire 693,675
Kent 1,599,912
surrey 1,064,575
w sussex 758,647
e sussex 747,540
Hampshire 1,660,818
oxfordshire 615,204
isle of wight 136,252
berkshire 803,657
London 7,387,900

total 18,172,517


----------



## Day Release (Jul 5, 2005)

I wouldn't include the IoW but otherwise, it seems plausible, I may have missed some areas of population. kay:


----------



## Day Release (Jul 5, 2005)

Bedfordshire 476 Square Miles
Berkshire 487 Square Miles
Buckinghamshire 723 Square Miles
Essex 1416 Square Miles
Hampshire 1455 Square Miles
Hertfordshire 841 Square Miles
Kent 1422 Square Miles
Surrey 642 Square Miles
Sussex (West) 768 Square Miles
Sussex (East) 691 Square Miles
Oxfordshire 1005 Square Miles
London 610 Square Miles

Total Square Miles 10,536 (sq miles) and 18,172,517 total population


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

Here's what I have for this area that you guys have deamed the London Metro:

1. Greater London - 7,172,091 - 606.98 sq. mi. - 11,816.0 ppsm
2. Kent County - 1,329,718 - 1,368.14 sq. mi. - 971.9 ppsm
3. Essex County - 1,310,835 - 1,337.59 sq. mi. - 980.0 ppsm
4. Hampshire County - 1,240,103 - 1,420.45 sq. mi. - 873.0 ppsm
5. Surrey County - 1,059,015 - 641.89 sq. mi. - 1,649.8 ppsm
6. Herfordshire County - 1,033,977 - 634.39 sq. mi. - 1629.9 ppsm
7. West Sussex County - 753,614 - 768.68 sq. mi. - 980.4 ppsm
8. Oxfordshire County - 605,488 - 1,005.77 sq. mi. - 602.0 ppsm
9. East Sussex County - 492,324 - 604.23 sq. mi. - 792.8 ppsm
10. Buckinghamshire County - 479,026 - 604.23 sq. mi. - 792.8 ppsm
11. Bedfordshire County - 381,572 - 460.26 sq. mi. - 829.0 ppsm
12. Luton - 184,371 - 16.74 sq. mi. - 11,015.42 ppsm
13. Southend-on-Sea - 160,257 - 16.12 sq. mi. - 9,939.26 ppsm
14. Thurrock - 143,128 - 63.08 sq. mi. - 2,268.94 ppsm
15. Bracknell Forest - 109,617 - 42.24 sq. mi. - 2,595.36 ppsm
16. Brighton and Hove - 247,817 - 31.92 sq. mi. - 7,763.92 ppsm
17. Isle of Wight - 132,731 - 146.78 sq. mi. - 904.28 ppsm
18. Medway - 249,488 - 74.14 sq. mi. - 3,364.95 ppsm
19. Milton Keynes - 207,057 - 119.16 sq. mi. - 1,737.60 ppsm
20. Portsmouth - 186,701 - 15.54 sq. mi. - 12,013.75 ppsm
21. Reading - 143,096 - 15.60 sq. mi. - 9,173.69 ppsm
22. Slough - 119,067 - 12.56 sq. mi. - 9,477.02 ppsm
23. Southampton - 217,445 - 19.24 sq. mi. -11,299.76 ppsm
24. West Berkshire - 144,483 - 271.88 sq. mi. - 531.42 ppsm
25. Windsor and Maidenhead - 133,626 - 75.87 sq. mi. - 1,761.18 ppsm
26. Workingham - 150,229 - 69.10 sq. mi. - 2,173.94 ppsm


And so to create a comparison:

*London*
_Total Population:_ 18,386,876
_Total Area:_ 10,498.03 sq. mi.
_Density:_ 1,751.5 ppsm

*New York MSA*
_Total Population:_ 18,323,002
_Total Area:_ 6,724.07 sq. mi.
_Density:_ 2,725.0 ppsm

*New York CSA*
_Total Population:_ 21,367,797
_Total Area:_ 11,844.42 sq. mi.
_Density:_ 1,803.5 ppsm


----------



## Day Release (Jul 5, 2005)

hudkina said:


> New York MSA
> Total Population: 18,323,002
> Total Area: 6,724.07 sq. mi.
> Density: 2,725.0 ppsm
> ...


How come 18,323,002 live in 6,724.07 Sq Miles whilst in nearly double the area 11,844.42 Sq Miles the population is 21,367,797.

Otherwise sounds about right kay:


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Actually, probably not all of Kent, East Sussex, West Sussex, Hampshire and Essex belong to the London metro (the official GLA one). Neither does IoW.
And hudkina's list omits some areas in Cambridgeshire and Swindon.


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

BTW, it should be noted that New York's "core" counties regardless of CSA or MSA have a population of 19,972,136 in an area of 6,452.22 sq. mi.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

This is what hudkina lists as the London metro:











This is probably more accurate (according to the GLA or INSEE definitions):


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

Day Release said:


> How come 18,323,002 live in 6,724.07 Sq Miles whilst in nearly double the area 11,844.42 Sq Miles the population is 21,367,797.
> 
> Otherwise sounds about right kay:



Because the United States was only settled a few hundred years ago, so there's not much population outside of the major urban areas. Also, the U.S. bases metropolitan areas on commuter rates, so a lot of rural counties are added to the "core" counties if a certain amount of residents commute to the core.


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

I'm only basing my counts on the map that other Londoners have provided. I have absolutely no idea how England categorizes its metropolitan areas.


----------



## Day Release (Jul 5, 2005)

Shiro it's difficult to define a London Metro exactly as historicaly the traditional suburbs were always the Home counties (those counties which border London). However the London Metro is now more diverse touching on other areas besides the Home Counties and even within the Home Counties there are areas which could not be defined as part of the London Metro. 

I suppose if you just use these counties you get a similar picture to the New York MSA.

Home Counties and London

Berkshire - 487 Square Miles - population- 803,657

Hertfordshire - 841 Square Miles - population- 1,040,925

Essex - 1416 Square Miles - population- 1,629,427

Surrey - 642 Square Miles - population- 1,064,575

Kent - 1422 Square Miles - population- 1,599,912

Buckinghamshire - 723 Square Miles - population- 693,675

Greater London - 610 Square Miles - population- 7,387,900

Total Area Square Miles 6,141 and Total population 14,220,071


----------



## Tubeman (Sep 12, 2002)

Oh for Christs sakes :bash:

There's been some great posts here, highly relevant to the topic, but some people are insistent in turning this into the 3 millionth London vs NYC population thread.

ENOUGH!!!!!!!

I apologise to everyone who made a valid contribution to discussing THE THREAD TITLE

Anyone who wishes to have a London vs NYC debate please create a separate thread in City vs City.

I'd encourage the sane forumers on ssc to re-create this thread and keep it to the point; unfortunately I've been on 36k dial-up for over a month and do not have the time to weed out all of the posts comparing dick sizes.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Tubeman, noone is even disagreeing in this thread let alone this is a flamewar.
We're all friends here exchanging information.

What's the problem?

This finally turned out to be a decent thread.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

@ SHiRO, one of the main reasons this has been so civil, is because the main culprit who always (and I really mean always) tries to screw things up with his fantasy obsessions, MikeHunt, is in the Brig. When he isn't around, real and friendly discussions can be made.

Anyway, of note, an American MSA is made up of the core counties surrounding the central county These core counties are called the CBSA. These are based on what the U.S. determains as connecting urban counties, i.e. where the urban core expands from the core county into a neighbouring county. Using the American definition of Urban Area (http://www.demographia.com/db-lonlanypar.htm) These would be the 6 counties Day Release published just a few posts ago, including Thurrock. This means, using the American MSA measurement criteria, the CBSA (Core Based Statistical Area) of London would be at 14.35million. To define the true MSA using the current U.S. formula, one would then add any extra neighbouring county with a commuting percentage into the CBSA (defined above) of 25%. This 25% is bi-direction - i.e. a total of commuter traffic either into the CBSA, or from the CBSA. I do have quite a bit of data lying around but not on me, but I do know that some additional counties surrounding the CBSA do qualify, so effectively, the MSA of London is higher than the 14.35million.

However, I don't have that information with me (I'm still at work at the moment, and it will take a while to dig the stuff up as I have a new computer now for the last month, and loads of data is still on my old hard disks, but I will try to locate it)

Now, even when all this is added up, the MSA is still short of the 18million that the GLA claim is the metropolitan area (or region as they say). However, the U.S. uses another level of adjustment called the CMSA. And for an outside county to joing the CBSA (as part of the CMSA) it must have between 15% and 25% connection to any point of the CBSA. By adding counties or area's that do qualify it is clear how the 18million figure can be reached, and it implys many simularities to the CMSA the U.S. uses.

A full understanding of how the American system works can be found here http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04758.pdf. Try it out for yourself on London if you have commuting percentages. Look at outlying counties outside the CNSA as described above and it all fits together.


----------



## Day Release (Jul 5, 2005)

I see what your saying Just me, I was just using the Home Counties with it's 6,000 odd Square Miles and over 14 million population to respresent just how densely populated the areas round London are.

It's difficult to define a London Metro exactly as historicaly the traditional suburbs were always the Home counties (those counties which border London). However the London Metro is now more diverse touching on other areas besides the Home Counties and even within the Home Counties there are areas which could not be defined as part of the London Metro.

However the London Metro area does not end at the traditional Home Counties it has now grown in to a massive commutter belt and metro area covering a large part of South East England :wink2:

As for Mike Hunt, I miss him like a hole in the head :lol:


----------



## Tubeman (Sep 12, 2002)

Can someone explain to me why defining a city's metro area or metro populations are a necessity, from a Geographer's point of view?

I know several people at work who commute from beyond the Metro area as defined on this thread (Corby / Northants, Wellingborough / Northants, Holbeach / Lincs, Spalding / Lincs)... so as from my experience its not unusual for commuters to live well beyond the Metro boundary, likewise there are innumerable communities well within the metro with negligable commuter populations. By the way, I'm not talking about Oil Company execs here, I'm talking about Tube Drivers and Junior Managers travelling hundreds of miles per day.

My personal feeling is that defining the reach of a city's metro becomes so tangled, espcially when somewhere like Milton keynes has commuters travelling North to Birmingham as well as South to London, that really the only way to draw a line without going bonkers is to use the administrative boundary.

London has a neat administrative boundary roughly coinciding with the Green belt... Nice and simple I think. Not all people within this boundary consider themselves Londoners let alone anyone outside of it.

I can appreciate the statistical analysis behind these maps and metro definitions, and of course London exerts _some_ influence over the wider region, but England is such a small area that it could easily be argued to exert a degree of influence over all of England and thus it is nigh on impossible to know where the line should be drawn.

It sounds all impressive to assert that London has 18 million people in its metro area, but I'm curious as to what that actually means in reality, when most of the people in the metro area don't even know they're in it?


----------



## Day Release (Jul 5, 2005)

Good post Tubey :applause:


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

Tubeman said:


> Can someone explain to me why defining a city's metro area or metro populations are a necessity, from a Geographer's point of view?
> 
> I know several people at work who commute from beyond the Metro area as defined on this thread (Corby / Northants, Wellingborough / Northants, Holbeach / Lincs, Spalding / Lincs)... so as from my experience its not unusual for commuters to live well beyond the Metro boundary, likewise there are innumerable communities well within the metro with negligable commuter populations. By the way, I'm not talking about Oil Company execs here, I'm talking about Tube Drivers and Junior Managers travelling hundreds of miles per day.
> 
> ...



What your saying is quite true, and the last statement especially. In fact, most people, anywhere in the world have no idea what a metropolitan area really is let alone if they are in it. I know loads of people in Sydney's metro area that have no idea they're in it, and would argue over several tinnie's that they arn't. I'm sure the same is for people on the outskirts of most if not all American metropolitan area's.

One also has to keep in mind that because Metropolitan Area's are such a new concept in Britain, very few people have ever heard of them, and even fewer actually know's what it means.

For most people, a city is it's urban area and nothing more. It's pretty clear why, as it's a visual reference point and the average person likes things such as visual reference points.

However, the simplest method is not always the best for all circumstances.

Metropolitan area's are useful references in many ways. Usually it defines a market area for corporations. Their potential labour market and their customer market (Both B2B or B2P) - this of cause depends on the business, a metropolitan area is as useful to a small fish&chip shop as bicycle is to a fish, but medium to large companies make great use of this demographic. It is also of vast importance to local governments through infrastructure needs and cordination between different & seperate LGA's. The London Underground is not such an organization that has much use of metro's other than knowing the potential number of passengers that may come from the metro to use their network. But the suburban and commuter trains around London are, and this can be reflected by the London connections and SoutheEast Rail maps.

There are area's where other methods of calculation are more useful. Urban Area for instance is better for reflecting on environmental issues and quality of life. The U.N. for this reason is particulary interested in Urban Area's.

Real Estate is an example of one sector where both Urban Area and Metropolitan Area demographics are useful. London-by-the-Sea is a great marketing slogon for selling a house, just as "right in the heart of London".

The other form of demographic, the city proper is really only useful for LGA's, afterall, it is their area of revenue and expenditure. But city proper demographics have little use for business, and although people in most country's (except Australia & NZ who only think in metro terms) think mainly in respect to their city proper, they don't always consider this when choosing property, jobs, shopping or other activities. What concerns them is how far "a" is from "b" and how easy it is to get there. That is, aside from the natural "city pride"

However, none of these things really involve most of us here. Well, at least speaking for myself. My interest in metropolitan area's is purely a sad passion I have for statistics. To understand London's metropolitan area, is simply a way to have an accurate comparison to another cities M.A. i.e. the London, New York comparison.

We can all compare New York's city proper with London's. That's fine and fully acceptable. However, if another city also has a metropolitan area statistic, we can't very well compare that with London's city proper - it's simply like comparing two completely unrelated topics - i.e. comparing a branch office of one company to the entire global headquarters of another...

And good credit goes to America here. Because that country has an excellent method of calculating metropolitan area's which is well documented - there is no real need for discussion about American cities, other than stating and publishing the widely available facts. Unfortunately Britain has no such national standards and we are left to working out how the GLA came up with their figure.

As for the question often asked "Do we really need metropolitan figures in England, because a) we are so small, b) we have so much history and c) we have never used them before", the answer to all this is really no. Nothing like this information is really needed. Do we really need Pizza's? But it's always nice to have such information, and many people can make use of them. And yes, such demographics are fully valid in the U.K. Afterall, France has used them at a National level for many years and they are as comprehensive (although slightly different) as the American version.


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

Here's NYC Metro's growth:
2000 Census, April 1--21.102

Census Bureau July Estimates
2000--21.148
2001--21.308
2002--21.429
2003--21.537
2004--21.598

How much has London's Metro grown since 2001?


----------



## london-b (Jul 31, 2004)

Ah, not lond before NY came into the thread then. God bless America!


----------



## thx-rvg (Oct 9, 2005)

Just as a sidenote: during Shakespeare's time, the population of England was a grand total of around 4-6 million. London had a population of around 120,000 in the mid-16th century and 250k by the end of it.


How times have changed :hi: 



Cheers


----------



## streetscapeer (Apr 30, 2004)

Justme said:


> What your saying is quite true, and the last statement especially. In fact, most people, anywhere in the world have no idea what a metropolitan area really is let alone if they are in it. I know loads of people in Sydney's metro area that have no idea they're in it, and would argue over several tinnie's that they arn't. I'm sure the same is for people on the outskirts of most if not all American metropolitan area's.
> 
> One also has to keep in mind that because Metropolitan Area's are such a new concept in Britain, very few people have ever heard of them, and even fewer actually know's what it means.
> 
> ...



immaculate post! certainly cleared alot of things up!


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

What type of data does the official UK census provide? Does it calculate urban areas or commuter patterns? If so, you can come up with a rough comparison to the US model. I tried surfing through the official census site, but couldn't find much of anything. I think it would be cool to see all of england's "metros" mapped out.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

hudkina said:


> What type of data does the official UK census provide? Does it calculate urban areas or commuter patterns? If so, you can come up with a rough comparison to the US model. I tried surfing through the official census site, but couldn't find much of anything. I think it would be cool to see all of england's "metros" mapped out.


The national statistics for the U.K. which defines the census looks primarily at city proper area's (LGA's), counties and to some extent urban area's. Natually, within these area's they have multiple sub-catagory's relating to demographic data such as deaths, births, employment etc. They don't deal with metropolitan area's (at least not yet)

Some things to keep in mind

* They do look at metropolitan counties, but it is important that the only relationship this has with metropolitan area's is the same word. They are not based on commuter percentages at all, but were a static border defined in the 1960's and since abandoned, but still used today as a statistical area.

* Although they use Urban Area's, it is defined entirely differently to the American method and is so vastly different they cannot really be comparable. As an example, the U.K. formula defines London's urban area as 8.6million (it has very strict cut-off points) but using the American method as shown from a link I previously posted in this thread, the same urban area for London exceeds 12.2million people. I believe to get a more comparable comparison, the U.N. figures for urban area are better as they tend to use the same criteria for all cities.

* I don't know how much they deal with commuting. When looking for these figures I went to the official websites of the counties surrounding London. I'm sure they must have some figures though as I do remember some other forumers posting data from there.

I also find the official site rather lame. It is very hard to find information, and could learn a lot from the French or American site (it's really a shame that I can find more information on France from the French site despite not speaking French than I can from the U.K. site)


----------



## mickvr (Oct 18, 2005)

Please have a look at 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

you will see for 2001 Census:

Area	Area	
Square Km	Square Miles	2001
SOUTH - EAST UK	27.224	10.512 18.387.505
Average density People / Square Km 675
Average density People / Square Mi 1.749

Local Authority	Area	Area	
Square Km	Square Miles	2001

GREATER LONDON 
London 1.579	610 7.172.091

If you want, you can see a forecast about the population of England from 2003 to 2028 on the site:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=8666&More=Y


----------



## JDRS (Feb 8, 2004)

I live in Buckinghamshire :banana:

Interesting thread by the way


----------



## Minato ku (Aug 9, 2005)

London Metro is bigger but Oxford, Dover... in London metro :weird:


----------



## Day Release (Jul 5, 2005)

When taking about the South East region statistics often mean only the following mapped counties, ie only the Southern Counties below London and the Thames Valley, the counties bordering London to the North and East are usually grouped with Eastern England (East Anglia) with Bedfordshire which is very near London and is home to London's Luton Airport totally excluded.



















The Thames Valley is shown in this map.










As oppossed to the Home Counties (those counties which border London), the Home Counties are usually considered to be Essex, Kent, Surrey, Berkshire, Buckhamshire and Hertfordshire, however the South Home Counties are often referred to as the South East, while Hertfordshire and Essex to the North and East of London are often referred to as part of East Anglia, whilst those counties to the West including Buckhamshire and Berkshire are often known as the Thames Valley.










Here's what most people aknowledge to be the South East eg The Thames Valley, Home Counties with the inclusion of Hampshire, Bedfordshire and East and West Sussex (which aren't home counties because they don't share a border with London)










Also Hertfordshire and Essex are often deemed to be part of East Anglia (East England) even though they border London.










Complicated and misaleading yes but also historical and traditional.

Btw as for Oxfordshire it's part of the Thames Valley and is as close to London as parts of the NY Metro are too New York. 

And here's a population map


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

minato ku said:


> London Metro is bigger but Oxford, Dover... in London metro :weird:


Oxford, yes. Dover, of cause not. Where did you get Dover from?


----------



## Day Release (Jul 5, 2005)

Population Map of the South East Region
(ie South of London and the Thames Valley), 
Hertfordshire, Essex and Bedfordshire are
not deemed part of the South East but are
part of the East of England so are excluded
from the map. :doh:


----------



## Tubeman (Sep 12, 2002)

Justme said:


> What your saying is quite true, and the last statement especially. In fact, most people, anywhere in the world have no idea what a metropolitan area really is let alone if they are in it. I know loads of people in Sydney's metro area that have no idea they're in it, and would argue over several tinnie's that they arn't. I'm sure the same is for people on the outskirts of most if not all American metropolitan area's.
> 
> One also has to keep in mind that because Metropolitan Area's are such a new concept in Britain, very few people have ever heard of them, and even fewer actually know's what it means.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the detailed and informative reply!


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

JDRS said:


> I live in Buckinghamshire :banana:
> 
> Interesting thread by the way


Then why does your location say "Greater London"? 

Metro London maybe?


----------



## JDRS (Feb 8, 2004)

Because it's kind of boundary. I consider anywhere on the London underground part of greater london and where i live is on the metropolitan line.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

No, JDRS, you're just a poser.


----------



## London (Jun 12, 2005)

But Greater London is in the ''greater'' parts of London! No matter where the hell the tube line is.


----------



## london-b (Jul 31, 2004)

So is Bedfordshire in the Metro or not??


----------



## London (Jun 12, 2005)

hardley!


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Sure it is! At least parts of it.


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

If there are commuter lines connecting you to the heart of London then you're probably in the metro.


----------



## JDRS (Feb 8, 2004)

London said:


> But Greater London is in the ''greater'' parts of London! No matter where the hell the tube line is.


Well I'm right on the edge of greater london.


----------

