http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v473/kamloon/01288883.jpg

I've only been to four of those airports, i'd better start travelling some more :)

I think the statistic is pretty old, since I didn't see the citation and the date of releasing. I am thinking if you made it by yourself

I think the list is correct, but it doesn't refer to the overall airport traffic (transiting), but to the people visiting the cities.

Dubai had 5 milion visitors last year, exactly what the chart shows. If the chart would have been about the overall airport traffic, then Dubai Airport had more then 23 million, but most of them transit.

I thought Dallas/Fort Worth was the one with the highest passenger number? A figure somewhat over 100 million per year, way more than Chicago, London or New York.

^ As explained this is not about the passanger traffic, but about people who actually visit the place. Those who pass transit on a way to another city, doesn't count.

I thought Dallas/Fort Worth was the one with the highest passenger number? A figure somewhat over 100 million per year, way more than Chicago, London or New York.

These are not individual airports, they are cities as a whole.

London is by far the busiest airport hub in the world; it has 5 international airports.

If it was based on passenger traffic then London would still have a lead of around 30 million, with Chicago and LA 2nd/3rd.

The chart is outdated.

I dont understand this... how is possible if Mexico City's main airport has a traffic about 20 million a year?

Guys, you don't get it. This is based on the number whose final destination or starting point is London, etc. Usually, when Mexico City says they have 20 million passengers in the airport, it's true, but that's also including those tho fly from Toronto to Acupulco but have to change planes in Mexico. At least that's what I understand. Am I right here?

I've been to 18!

Where is Tokyo?

Could you expand your list more to include more cities?

SOURCES?!?!?!

Where is Tokyo?

In Japan mate! ;)

Where is Tokyo?
It's one the list, but surprisingly low...

I'm not sure about what these numbers represent. Some cities are suspiciously low if this chart is meant to show end destination passengers as some claim...

I'd be curious as to the average distance of each of those international flights. Also, how many of those flights out of London are European? I ask that because the distances to other international cities in Europe are shockingly much shorter than the cities in Texas are to each other.

Not on that list is Philly International, I find this peculiar....its a friggin' city within a city. Even though its the 17th busiest it is quite monstrous.

Where is Tokyo?
in 23th

Could you expand your list more to include more cities?

SOURCES?!?!?!
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb157.html

It's one the list, but surprisingly low...

I'm not sure about what these numbers represent. Some cities are suspiciously low if this chart is meant to show end destination passengers as some claim...
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb157.html

‘Tokyo is not the dominant regional hub in East Asia (…), but Singapore and Hong Kong are the most important centres of Asian regional traffic (…).’. Later, Rimmer (2000, p. 84) came to similar conclusions.

the overseas tourists in hong kong per year is more than that in the whole japan

find ! where is tokyo

Table 6: Intra-Pacific Asia flows

Rank
Between
And
Number of passengers

1
Hong Kong
Taipei
2 138 608

2
Bangkok
Hong Kong
1 141 063

3
Bangkok
Singapore
1 024 818

4
Hong Kong
Singapore
827 739

5
Jakarta
Singapore
816 980

6
Kuala Lumpur
Singapore
711 309

7
Hong Kong
Manila
653 307

8
Hong Kong
Shanghai
636 547

9
Seoul
Tokyo
617 900

10
Macau
Taipei
576 682

When comparing tables 5 and 6, it can be noted that the first two intra-Pacific Asian connections (Hong Kong-Taipei and Bangkok-Hong Kong) are part of the top 10 of the largest worldwide connections. Note that the amount of passengers travelling on the 10 largest intra-Pacific Asian connections represents 44% of the total intra-Pacific Asian travellers (see table 2). The connection Hong Kong-Taipei is quite a dominant connection; the passenger flow on this link is almost twice as large as on the second most important intra-Pacific Asia connection. The dominant city in Pacific Asia is clearly Hong Kong. This comes however not as a surprise. Hong Kong, as pointed out by O’Connor (1995, p. 278), is strategically the best placed airport in Pacific Asia. It can exploit its centrality between the northern economies of Korea and Japan, and the fast growing south, as well as the central and southern part of China. As an international hub airport, Hong Kong also remains one of the few Asian cities with non-stop daily services to Europe and the United States of America.

Table 5: Top 10 of the largest relations

Rank
Between
And
Number of passengers

1
Hong Kong
Taipei
2 138 608

2
London
New York
1 610 404

3
Melbourne
Sydney
1 563 106

4
Los Angeles
New York
1 534 285

5
Milan
Rome
1 534 156

6
Cape Town
Johannesburg
1 406 897

7
Amsterdam
London
1 242 822

8
Chicago
New York
1 161 181

9
Bangkok
Hong Kong
1 141 063

10
London
Paris
1 064 510

I'd be curious as to the average distance of each of those international flights. Also, how many of those flights out of London are European? I ask that because the distances to other international cities in Europe are shockingly much shorter than the cities in Texas are to each other.I estimate the European figure to be around 30mppa....but that includes all of Europe. That would mean London's air hub would be 100mppa - still larger than any other city air hub on the planet. When you factor this in for other cities, such as the 2nd largest air hub on the planet: New York City for locality to Canada and other countries within a 2,000km radius of the city (similar to that of London and Europe), the 90mppa of NYC falls down to 80mppa.

However the majority of journeys from London to Europe aren't short-haul flights, they are either via Eurostar (10mn journeys each year) and Le Shuttle through the Channel Tunnel or cross-channel ferries.

Then again France is a totally different country from Britain, unlike say New York state to Ohio State, with different political, cultural, economic and social patterns. Either way, London remains the world's largest, most connected city on the planet with more flights, more destinations and a larger selection of tickets than any other city air hub in the world.

When you consider how many flights to/from London are from nearby countries in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece, etc., New York's figures are amazing. It's interesting too to see how many flights there are between NY and London. Anyway, these figures demonstrate that NY, London and Paris are really in a separate league from the rest of the world.

the geographical position is important.
the UK is an island, while paris is on the continent.

something is strange here or maybe undated
in Tel Aviv int. number of arrivals and departures is 10 million ayear.
there are no transit or connection passengers.
but on that site the airport is located between 2-4 million?

When you consider how many flights to/from London are from nearby countries in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece, etc., New York's figures are amazing. It's interesting too to see how many flights there are between NY and London. Anyway, these figures demonstrate that NY, London and Paris are really in a separate league from the rest of the world.
Eh?, perhaps you didn't read the rest of the thread, particularly nick taylor's post?

Eh?, perhaps you didn't read the rest of the thread, particularly nick taylor's post?

I did read Taylor's post, but I don't agree with it. People take the train from London to Paris, but they also fly. People from London also fly to other parts of France. Ever heard of Easy Jet, Ryan Air, etc.? Moreover, if all of the 50 states were independent countries, NY's numbers would dwarf every other city's.

Table 5: Top 10 of the largest relations

Rank
Between
And
Number of passengers

1
Hong Kong
Taipei
2 138 608

2
London
New York
1 610 404

3
Melbourne
Sydney
1 563 106

4
Los Angeles
New York
1 534 285

5
Milan
Rome
1 534 156

6
Cape Town
Johannesburg
1 406 897

7
Amsterdam
London
1 242 822

8
Chicago
New York
1 161 181

9
Bangkok
Hong Kong
1 141 063

10
London
Paris
1 064 510

I don't know where did you get that list from, but it's *very* outdated and misses the busiest routes;

Madrid - Barcelona and Tokyo - Osaka are about 4 million a year; Seoul - Jeju something around 5 million; Tokyo - Sapporo and Tokyo - Fukuoka over 8 million.

I did read Taylor's post, but I don't agree with it. People take the train from London to Paris, but they also fly. People from London also fly to other parts of France. Ever heard of Easy Jet, Ryan Air, etc.? Moreover, if all of the 50 states were independent countries, NY's numbers would dwarf every other city's.I don't think you did read my post, because I actually took European travel into account, hence the deducted total for London which is 100mppa, instead of the 130mppa it is. New York in comparison has a total air hub of 90mppa which is still smaller than the subtracted London European flights (even though it is a serious and big chunk). Then again you have to factor in the same again for New York - Canada would for example be exempt, as would large swathes of the Caribbean (New York-Havana is 1,309miles; compared to London-Kiev of 1,323miles or even London-Istanbul at 1,551miles) which could be considered 'neighbours' and the mppa of New York falls down to around 80mppa. A difference compared to the current London (130mppa) and New York (90mppa) air hubs indeed, but still a difference. What is interesting though is that more and more people are looking further abroad; eco-tourism for example is becoming ironically one of the strongest choices for international holiday flights and this is mostly centered around countries along the equator!

Also I will also bring up the fact that is New York State so different from Ohio State? Is the difference as radical as say the UK to France? As radical as different culture, politics, economy, military, social models, etc...? Answer to that question is simply that France is radically different from the UK to a far larger extent than New York state is to Ohio state, even though geography might say otherwise. Geo-politics tells us also that New York and Ohio are states, while the UK and France are countries, meaning one is domestic, the other international. Then again, even if the states of the US were seperate countries, like France is from the UK, the New York air hub is still only 90mppa! London as a comparison would still be at 130mppa as you would be comparing different "countries/states", so you are incorrect in thinking that it would "dewarf every other city's". On top of that it would still be smaller even if you were trying to argue that each and every state in the US was a different country, but argued at the same time that Europe was somehow one country by 10mppa! :laugh:

Either way, London is by the largest air hub in existence on the planet with a whole 40mppa difference between itself and the next largest city air hub (New York). Were quite fortunate enough to have such a well connected city on our doorstep!

I shall also highlight that connectivity between say London and Paris is greater than say New York and Toronto with dedicated HSR lines. North America for instance totally lacks a HSR network other than the Acela (and even then its not like Eurostar, ICE or TGV). More people for instance take Eurostar from London to Paris than the London-Paris air route by a ratio of roughly 1:6. The figure increases further when you factor in Le Shuttle and car journies via ferries.

...
Also I will also bring up the fact that is New York State so different from Ohio State? Is the difference as radical as say the UK to France? As radical as different culture, politics, economy, military, social models, etc...?...

Hi, amigo.

I don't have time to respond to your whole post, but the answer to your question of NY v. Ohio is a resounding yes! NYC is more different than Ohio than the UK is to France. Unlike the UK and France, NYC and Ohio have nothing whatsoever in common (except for a common language of course).

He said New York state.
How much do you think London has in comon with the French countryside?
Or Paris for that matter...

What about Beijing <> Shanghai, Chongqing <> Chengdu, Beijing <> Hong Kong

He said New York state.
How much do you think London has in comon with the French countryside?
Or Paris for that matter...

I realize what he said, but I'm addressing what was inferred.

Whatever... New York is not a bigger airhub than London, no matter how you want to calculate it...

Whatever... New York is not a bigger airhub than London, no matter how you want to calculate it...

Whatever you say, Shi...

NY is a much bigger city than London is, and therefore, it makes sense that it would have more international flights.

The fact that in an area the size of the US (i.e., Europe), there are about 25 nations rather than one will yield far more "international" flights. If going from NY to Pennsylvania were international....

New York isn't a "much bigger city" than London either.
Citywise they are pretty close, 7.3 million vs 8.1 million and also metrowise 18 million vs 21 million. New York metro takes up more area and is less dense though. Also, England is more populated then any similar sized area around NYC.

btw why are we still discussing this? READ NICK TAYLOR'S POST. NYC is not a bigger airhub than London, NO MATTER HOW YOU COUNT.
Even if you pretend the rest of Europe is not international, London still beats New York!

NY is way bigger than London. London does not have 18M people. If you fly into Heathrow, Gatwick or Stanstead, you see open fields all over. That is not the case with NY. If one travels due East onto Long Island, after 70 miles from Manhattan, there are very dense suburbs the whole way. This is not the case with London. I've lived in both cities for several years, and therefore, I am more qualified to know than someone who has not.

Also, in the 500 mile stretch from Boston to Washington, there are about 60,000,000 people, which is the same population as the UK, but in a smaller area.

Greenbelt

I'm well aware of the Greenbelt, but the whole notion of a metro area is one consistent area that is thoroughly populated (like the 90 mile stretch between NY and Philly) -- not city, then fields, then suburbs, then fields, etc.

In fact, Kent is enormous, and the distance from London to the end of Kent is at least as far as NY to Philly. Combining NY and Philly (which are an hour and eight minutes apart via high speed rail) gives a metro are with about 30 million people.

I'm not knocking London. I love it, but anyone who thinks that it's almost as big as NY is delusional.

Sigh...that is not the definition of metro area...

London's metro is 18 million, if you disagree, take it up with the London government.
Also that 18 million area is smaller than NY 21 million metro.

Sigh...that is not the definition of metro area...

London's metro is 18 million, if you disagree, take it up with the London government.
Also that 18 million area is smaller than NY 21 million metro.

How long have you lived in London?

How long have you lived in NY?

I'm not being argumentative. I'm just curious as to your familiarity with the two cities. Anyone who has lived in both knows that NY is much bigger. Even forgetting suburbs, there are very dense urban areas in any direction from Manhattan for 15 to 20 miles (e.g., Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Newark/Jersey City). That's not true with London. My friend lives in Chislehurst in Kent which is 10 miles from the City, and it's extremely suburban.

By the way, I'm not saying that just because NY is bigger than London that it's better. Sao Paolo is bigger than London too, but is not as good.

Living somewhere doesn't mean you can correctely guess the metro population.
Metro populations are calculated and London's is 18 million. End of story, that's a fact, no debate possible. Maybe you are of opinion that New York feels bigger than London, fine. That doesn't change anything about the fact that London's metropopulation is 18 million vs NY 21 million.

btw Sao Paulo is bigger than NY too...

I'm well aware of the Greenbelt, but the whole notion of a metro area is one consistent area that is thoroughly populated (like the 90 mile stretch between NY and Philly) -- not city, then fields, then suburbs, then fields, etc.


No, this is totally untrue. A metropolitan area is the city, it's urban area, the countryside surrounding the city, and the satellite cities, as long as they are part of the commuter belt. link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_area)
Metropolitan area's, in their defition, almost always include vast area's of countryside, usually far larger than the combined urban area's. This is why New York's C.M.S.A. area is 27,000km², and Los Angeles has 88,000km² most of which is desert. London's 18million area covers approx 22,000km², smaller than New York's. (link - page 27) (http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/draft_london_plan/dlp_ch1.pdf)

The urban area of London when using the British method is about 8.2million people. The British method is very limiting. When using the U.S. method, it is much larger: see here: http://www.demographia.com/db-lonlanypar.htm


In fact, Kent is enormous, and the distance from London to the end of Kent is at least as far as NY to Philly. Combining NY and Philly (which are an hour and eight minutes apart via high speed rail) gives a metro are with about 30 million people.

Not all of Kent is considered. Only a 22,000km² area around London. With New York's 21million in 27,000km² this is clearly a larger area.


I'm not knocking London. I love it, but anyone who thinks that it's almost as big as NY is delusional.

London's official government body recognizes a metropolitan region around the city of approx 18million. When using the French INSEE method which takes into account 40% of population commuting into the core city or adjoining centers connected to the metropolitan area, the population is just above 17million. Considering that the U.S. defines a metropolitan area of 25% of workforce (compared to 40% of population) which is needed to commute, and this 25% of workforce is what creates the 21million C.M.S.A. of the 27,000km² New York combined metropolitan region, then I can see that London is not that much smaller than New York.

New York certainly has a larger urban area, which is mainly a product of the green belt surrounding London, and the different zoning laws, but as far as metropolitan area's goes, New York isn't that much bigger.

Now, if the governing body of London is delusional because they disagree with you, then you are entitled to your opinion. If the French INSEE definition, which uses a stricter formular for defining metropolitan area's than the U.S. can still work out to 17million, then I suppose the French are delusional as well.

I suppose, because I choose to accept the government definition accepted by London, then I also am delusional.

We all seem to have lost the plot here....

Whatever you say, Shi...

NY is a much bigger city than London is, and therefore, it makes sense that it would have more international flights.

The fact that in an area the size of the US (i.e., Europe), there are about 25 nations rather than one will yield far more "international" flights. If going from NY to Pennsylvania were international....

??? I don't understand the reference to international passengers with SHiRO's figures. They are total passangers through either London or NY. Regardless of being International or domestic. London's airports handle more passengers than any other city in the world, including New York. You can check that up for yourself by visiting all the airport websites from London and add up their total passenger count, and do the same with New York. The information is public access

Whatever you say, Shi...

NY is a much bigger city than London is, and therefore, it makes sense that it would have more international flights.

The fact that in an area the size of the US (i.e., Europe), there are about 25 nations rather than one will yield far more "international" flights. If going from NY to Pennsylvania were international....Tokyo is a much bigger city than either London or New York, so your theory of 'because A is bigger than B that it must have more international flights' is infact wrong, because Tokyo lags behind both London and New York when it comes to international flights (although Tokyo comes in close to New York). The more you keep posting, the more likely I begin to believe that you did not actually read my original post, as you would have actually noted by now that I had factored in the European effect. Even then there is still a gap in mppa between New York and London and that if your considering each US state to be totally seperate countries and the EU as one united country the gap remains.

Also I suspect your basing your argument on travel around Europe to that of the US. For a start the US is decades behind in terms of public transport and lacks a nation-wide network of HSR that can effectively compete against planes on quite a few major routes (eg Paris - London). On top of that the only semi-HSR rail line in the US: Acela is currently disabled thanks to idiotic US train regulations that increase the weight and problems with US trainstock. The current result is that Acela is in effect disabled and only running at minimal service, quite simply there is not the dependency in Europe as there in the US on flights, hence your argument will fall on deaf ears.



How long have you lived in London?

How long have you lived in NY?

I'm not being argumentative. I'm just curious as to your familiarity with the two cities. Anyone who has lived in both knows that NY is much bigger. Even forgetting suburbs, there are very dense urban areas in any direction from Manhattan for 15 to 20 miles (e.g., Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Newark/Jersey City). That's not true with London. My friend lives in Chislehurst in Kent which is 10 miles from the City, and it's extremely suburban.

By the way, I'm not saying that just because NY is bigger than London that it's better. Sao Paolo is bigger than London too, but is not as good.I don't believe you have to live in either city to know simple stats to prove the other side wrong. I for example have lived in Singapore for longer than I have in London....does that mean my knowledge of London is less. Reality would state otherwise!

I also believe your confusing metropolitan area and urban area which are two seperate things. All that matters is how many and much of those people from those surrounding areas commute into London. For instance far more people commute via train into London (about 1.8bn at last count I do believe) than into New York, but its vice versa for the car. These people don't appear from nowhere might I add.

Overall I think your failing to see the tremendous difference between London and New York's air hubs. London's is far larger, while it also has a far larger array of alternative transport arrangements other than the car. No matter how you word or massage the descriptions, New York still lags behind London on this front.

Living somewhere doesn't mean you can correctely guess the metro population.....

I disagree. If you live in a place and get to know it, you get a very good idea of its size. When you see that in 20 miles in any direction from the center of London there are empty fields, you know immediately how much smaller London is than NY. As for the 18M figure, as I said, one can calculate metro areas in any manner that one wants... Therefore, I could say NY and Philly, which are 90 miles apart, are 1 metro area with 30M people.

Also, I find it hard to believe that the population of Kent, Surrey, Essex, Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, etc. equals 10 m people.

I disagree. If you live in a place and get to know it, you get a very good idea of its size. When you see that in 20 miles in any direction from the center of London there are empty fields, you know immediately how much smaller London is than NY. As for the 18M figure, as I said, one can calculate metro areas in any manner that one wants... Therefore, I could say NY and Philly, which are 90 miles apart, are 1 metro area with 30M people.

Also, I find it hard to believe that the population of Kent, Surrey, Essex, Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, etc. equals 10 m people.For a start that isn't the metro area as it doesn't cover all those areas, it does cover other areas and principally around the main centres of population. The South East and East have a population of around 13.3mn, yet not all of this is counted towards the metro figure of London.

Justme has gone through this for you in more detail above.

maybe this will help all concerned

The core cities in a polycentric metropolitan area need not be physically connected by continuous built-up development, distinguishing the concept from conurbation, which requires urban contiguity. In a metropolitan area, it is sufficient that central cities together constitute a large population nucleus with which other constituent parts have a high degree of integration.

I thought Dallas/Fort Worth was the one with the highest passenger number? A figure somewhat over 100 million per year, way more than Chicago, London or New York.

You thought wrong. Dallas is nowhere near as busy as Chicago or New York let alone London.

DFW as a metro is up there in flights, not passengers. Huge cargo numbers that will continue to increase as a region.

As I said before, London should lead in international numbers as there isn't much to fly to in the UK compared to domestic flights in the US and their distances in comparison. ie, the distances one would fly to other Texas cities from Love Field would be international coming out of London. Its a very unfair comparison and still shocking that so many U.S. airports are on the list considering how far other nations are from the average U.S. airports and even the major cities.

Oh dear lord does nobody actually read what I post :|

Even if you were to argue that each US state was an individual state and that the EU was one country, New York still has the smaller air hub! London quite simply has not just a slightly larger air hub, it has without a doubt the largest air hub on the planet. The difference between London and New York's air hub is now 40mppa - thats more than any single airport that New York actually handles. I've been through this already - read my previous posts before actually commenting. The difference though would really be highlighted when you look at cities like Chicago and Atlanta which are dominated by domestic traffic.

The following UK govenrment link shows greater London's population as just over 7,000,000, and it includes areas in Kent like Bexly and Bromley. It's not just the city: www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pyramids/pages/1c.asphows.

According to this link, the population of Inner London is just 2.7 M.

In addition, according to the following UK links, the populations of surrounding counties are as follows:

Kent 1.6 M (and this overlaps, obviously with the "Greater London" figure above)

Essex: 1.3 M

Surrey: 1.06M

Oxfordshire: 605,000

Bedforshire 381,000

Cambridgeshire 552,000

Sussex 753,000

Hertsfordshire 1,030,000

This totals about 14,000,000, which is way smaller than NY's 21,000,000.

Here are the links:

http://www.kent.gov.uk/sp/lutp/spig/population.html

http://www.essexcc.gov.uk/vip8/ecc/ECCWebsite/dis/faq.jsp?channelOid=13563&guideOid=16027&oid=17262

http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/unit_page.jsp?u_id=10099250

http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/unit_page.jsp?u_id=10084738

http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/unit_page.jsp?u_id=10076857



http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/unit_page.jsp?u_id=10105316


Lastly, Kent and Essex are huge. From the center of London to the end of Kent is the distance between NY and Philly, which cities have a combined metro population of over 30,000,000.

Is it realy a bad thing that London has fields 20 miles from it's centre? I think it's quite an achievement in a country as heavily populated as the UK and a city as big as London. If it wernt for the countries planning restrictions London could easily sprawl it's way into every corner of the South East, thankfully minimum density restrictions, zoning laws and the greenbelt system have prevented that. I don't think any city should be proud of 70 miles of low density sprawl. Alot of towns surrounding London have managed to retain an identity despite being heavy commuter territory, whereas they'd jsut be another stretch of suburb in New York.

Is it realy a bad thing that London has fields 20 miles from it's centre?...

No. It's quite nice. My point is that London is way smaller than NY. Having been to Sao Paulo and Tokyo, Tokyo is the only city that I have ever seen that is clearly bigger than NY. Extremely dense areas exist continuously 50 miles from the center of the city.

By the way, Sao Paulo's figure of 19 million is for an area that's 100 miles wide. Thus, not only is it smaller than NY's 21M, but if one were to consider a similar sized area for NY, it would incl. Philly and yield an area with over 30 M people.

The following UK govenrment link shows greater London's population as just over 7,000,000, and it includes areas in Kent like Bexly and Bromley. It's not just the city: www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pyramids/pages/1c.asphows.


Greater London is the city proper of London. This area is the equivilent of New York City, in that it has political boundary's, a mayor etc. It currently sits somewhere between 7.2 and 7.3million.

The point that it has the word "greater" in it, does not mean the same thing as say "Greater Los Angeles". it is simply the name for the amalgamated cities that now forms the council (GLA)


According to this link, the population of Inner London is just 2.7 M.


And Manhatten has 1.5million people, what's your point? Yes, Manhatten is denser than central London, I don't think anyone is debating that.


In addition, according to the following UK links, the populations of surrounding counties are as follows:

Kent 1.6 M (and this overlaps, obviously with the "Greater London" figure above)

Essex: 1.3 M

Surrey: 1.06M

Oxfordshire: 605,000

Bedforshire 381,000

Cambridgeshire 552,000

Sussex 753,000

Hertsfordshire 1,030,000

This totals about 14,000,000, which is way smaller than NY's 21,000,000.

Here are the links:

http://www.kent.gov.uk/sp/lutp/spig/population.html

http://www.essexcc.gov.uk/vip8/ecc/ECCWebsite/dis/faq.jsp?channelOid=13563&guideOid=16027&oid=17262

http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/unit_page.jsp?u_id=10099250

http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/unit_page.jsp?u_id=10084738

http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/unit_page.jsp?u_id=10076857



http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/unit_page.jsp?u_id=10105316


:lol: And the 21million area population of New York covers 27,000km².

THE AREA YOU DEFINED ABOVE WITH APPROX 14million, COVERS 17,800km²~

Why are you comparing New York's Combined Metropolitan Statistical Area of 27,000km² with an area smaller in London that is not considered the official metropolitan area. (It includes far too much of Kent anyway, the distant area's which do not have a big population).

!!!!

Let's see now, add Bucks, Luton, Petersburough, Suffolk, The other Sussex (West), Southend-upon-Sea, Berks, a small part of Hampshire and you have....

lo and behold, approx 18million, in approx 22,000km²

That is then, New York Combined Metropolitan area covering 27,000km²~ and a London Metropolitan area covering approx 22,000km²

Funny how the London Government agree with this: http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/london_plan/lon_plan_all.pdf

Sure, New York is bigger at 21million in it's Combined Metropolitan Area, but London isn't far behind with 18million people in it's official metropolitan area, an area, I might add, which is smaller than New York's in area as well.



Lastly, Kent and Essex are huge. From the center of London to the end of Kent is the distance between NY and Philly, which cities have a combined metro population of over 30,000,000.

Lastly, not all of Kent's area and population is included in the 18million metro of London. The bulk of the population is close to London, and only part of the area is included.

oh, and I would like to ask how Philly has 9million, to bring the total up to 30million people. According to wikipedia, it has 5.7million.

Funny enough, Birmingham is closer to London than Philadelphia is to New York, so we could all be silly and start including Birmingham's metropolitan area as well, hell, then we may as well include the West Midlands and a whole pile of other area's.

Fact is, London officially defines it's metropolitan area as 18million, and this covers about 22,000km²~. New York officially defines theirs as 21million over 27,000km².

Now, you can debate this to the end of your life, but the official facts will still remain the same.

^
Wrong, Birmingham is further from London than Philly is from NY. This portion of your argument is nonsense. No person on earth considers Birmingham part of London and its greater Southeast region.

^
Wrong, Birmingham is further from London than Philly is from NY. This portion of your argument is nonsense. No person on earth considers Birmingham part of London and its greater Southeast region.

Sorry, your right, there is a 38km difference. I appologize.

I thought Dallas/Fort Worth was the one with the highest passenger number? A figure somewhat over 100 million per year, way more than Chicago, London or New York.
This post is meant to be a joke, for those of you who keep responding...

London does have a metro population of 18M

In 2004, the Government of Greater London officially defined a metropolitan region centered on London with a population of approximately 18 million people

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


EDIT:

Gee during my reply there as been 4 others....man im slow

Los Angeles 4th? Interesting cuz they seem to be so far away from everything!