What urban area (as in a figures for an entire metropolitan area or consolidated metropolitan area) has the most number of registered land vehicles as in (cars, SUVs, trucks, motorcycles, etc.) on its boundaries?

The places that pops on my head are Los Angeles, San Francisco, Houston, Atlanta, and Toronto? But I'm not sure though. I'm also in big doubt about Toronto since not many people say that it is a "car haven".

Anyway, what do you guys think is the urban area with the largest number of registered land vehicles? :) :) :)

Toronto? No, this city is as transit dependant as NYC.

Los Angeles byfar.

I think Tokyo, if they are 40 milion people, they must have, at least, 20 million cars!
:eek2:

I think Tokyo, if they are 40 milion people, they must have, at least, 20 million cars!
:eek2:

false, think of the urban transport there its top of the notch, families dont have 3 cars in their family like the US!

LA, according to Emporis more vehicles are registered in metro LA than in all of Russia

The first place that pops on my head are Los Angeles, San Francisco, Houston, Atlanta, and Toronto?

Dallas-Fort Worth is bigger then Atlanta and Houston(metro wise) so it probably has more cars then those two(possibly Toronto too). Los Angeles is clearly the winner though.

How many land vehicles are registered in Los Angeles then? :)

I want to see the numbers!!!!...how many cars???....sometimes i see pics from cities worldwide, mainly in usa, and this cities are not so big, for example seattle, minneapolis and many other smaller cities, but its have many freeways full of cars all the time, and i always had curiosity in knowing how many cars this cities have. Could you forumers post the population of the city and the numbers of car???
for example:
Sao Paulo - 10 milion people - 5 milion cars

Use per capita statistics.

Old statistic (1999) says Italy has 0.57 cars per capita (only private vehicles: not trucks, taxi cabs, busses, etc...)

The leading cities of this statistic were:
Rome, with 0.67 vehicles per capita
Milan, with 0.66 vehicles per capita

Data are reffering to municipality population: while Rome metro can't change so much data(Rome municipality is 1400 skm: there is a very little increase of population in its metro), Milan metro surely can
In hinterland the number of per capita cars surely increases

A datus in the same research says, infact, that during the day the number of vehicles per capita in Milan rises to 1.2 (referring on official population of the municipality: during the day inner Milan population doubble and more for commuters coming from metro)

Those are data of 6 years ago

Today situation is still worse: per capita cars number rase again, and in a research of last years I read Milan had the highest one in the world!
Sorry, I wasn't able to find report of 2004 on the web... :(

Could you forumers post the population of the city and the numbers of car???
for example:
Sao Paulo - 10 milion people - 5 milion cars

do your own homework!

LA. Including commercial vehicles it probably has more than its metro population of 17.5 million. My guess is around 25 million vehicles in the 5-County region.

:eek2: Greater Los Angeles (the five-county area), has 25 million cars!!!
OMG!!! No wonder that place still has bumper to bumper traffic even though it has the most extensive freeway network of any urban area in the world. And the smog's terrible, too. :runaway:

I wouldn't be surprised if there were in fact more cars than people.

This is the car capital of the world, but it's not necessarily a good thing. Congested freeways, rush hour, scarcity of parking space, hellish roads - and I am ashamed of the public transportation situation here.

I have never riden on the Los Angeles Metro before. Is it really that bad? :?

Beijing by far... The government warns IOC that itll be alot of traffic during the 2008 olympic games..

Pre, hindi ganon karami ang mga sasakyan sa Beijing. Mga 2.47 million vehicles lang. In the year 2008, there would be 3.2 million vehicles on Beijing roads but that's still a far cry from what I heard L.A. has (25 million!!!OMG) But, anyway, thanks for your comments :) .

I have never riden on the Los Angeles Metro before. Is it really that bad? :?

the problem is that the L.A. metro doesnt really go anywhere other than downtown and Hollywood. For example it doesnt go all the way out to Ventura Country, not even the San Fernando Valley, heck it doesnt even go out to Pasedena. They don't even have an airport rail link so your only hope is to (a) catch an airport shuttle, (b) park your car at LAX and go, or (c) rent a car. There is also a severe shortage of taxis, although you see them at the airport, you dont see tons of them plying the streets like you do in some other cities. You jus tsee them every now and then. However, the ones in Santa Monica are not onlyu relatively common, but also ultra fancy-they use Mercedes S500 (W140) vehicles as cabs in Santa Monica (but not anywhere else in the area). Buses aren't too common either. So if you want to get anywhere in LA, your only real hope is to head out to your local car dealer and pick up a car that you like. (and believe me, SoCal car lots are HUGE)

Well, at least they have an extensive freeway network (that's congested half the time). For example, when going from Ventura to LAX, it is often faster to take the PCH than to take the 101 and 405. Besides, the PCH route is a lot more scenic. (it winds through Malibu and all, and it also goes by a bunch of car lots close to LAX.

LA I'd think.

I heard a number of around 12.5million registered vehicles in the LA area.

i'd say the mexico city area. theres almost 28 million people here, most people have a car. almost all middle class people have two or more cars too, because until a few years ago you couldnt drive ur car on a certain day of the week. you should see the traffic here, theres a freeway through the city thats two levels with 6 lanes going each way on each level during rush hour its complete grid lock for 10+ km...it can take like 3 hours to get to the airport, when theres less traffic it usually takes 30-45 minutes.

São Paulo, Brazil. One of the biggest cities of the world.

the problem is that the L.A. metro doesnt really go anywhere other than downtown and Hollywood. For example it doesnt go all the way out to Ventura Country, not even the San Fernando Valley, heck it doesnt even go out to Pasedena. They don't even have an airport rail link so your only hope is to (a) catch an airport shuttle, (b) park your car at LAX and go, or (c) rent a car.

actually, the LA Metro does go to the San Fernando Valley and Pasadena. Also, you can take the green line to Aviation and take a free tram a few blocks to LAX. Here's a Metro Rail map to refresh your memory ;)
http://www.mta.net/riding_metro/rail_destinations/images/rail_destinations_map.gif

actually, the LA Metro does go to the San Fernando Valley and Pasadena. Also, you can take the green line to Aviation and take a free tram a few blocks to LAX. Here's a Metro Rail map to refresh your memory ;)
http://www.mta.net/riding_metro/rail_destinations/images/rail_destinations_map.gif

THX for the map, I just hope they'll introduce MRTS in Ventura.

You know what's messed up? A lot of people in LA don't know too much about the metro system. I guess it's cause all we do is drive on our overcrowded freeways. (thankfully there's the PCH, most of the time it's faster to go to LAX from Ventura/Oxnard via the PCH as opposed to the 101. Remember, the PCH has at-grade intersections and stuff, yet it's generally not as congested as the 101/405)

But yay they finally have an airport rail linkup! (sort of)

The problem with LA is that it's awfully hard to give evry last suburb a metro rail linkup when there are a godzillion of them.

THX for the map, I just hope they'll introduce MRTS in Ventura.

You know what's messed up? A lot of people in LA don't know too much about the metro system. I guess it's cause all we do is drive on our overcrowded freeways. (thankfully there's the PCH, most of the time it's faster to go to LAX from Ventura/Oxnard via the PCH as opposed to the 101. Remember, the PCH has at-grade intersections and stuff, yet it's generally not as congested as the 101/405)

But yay they finally have an airport rail linkup! (sort of)

The problem with LA is that it's awfully hard to give evry last suburb a metro rail linkup when there are a godzillion of them.


Yeah a lot of people here in LA have no idea where the stops are for the rail lines. Especially younger people.

Yeah a lot of people here in LA have no idea where the stops are for the rail lines. Especially younger people.

namely me :D

Definitely the city with more cars in the world is LA, which has around 12 million in the metropolitan area. The second is Mexico City, whose program "Don't drive today" that says if you have a determinate number in your car, you can't drive a determinate day, that made the people buy more cars than they needed. There are around 9 million cars in the metropolitan area. Maybe the third is Sao Paulo, but I'm not sure.

Tokyo isn't there because families there use to buy 1 or maybe two cars. And New York has the biggest parking problem in the world and most of them use public transport, so people do not depend on the cars as much as in LA, Mexico City or Houston.

Alejandro...can you clarify what you said about Tokyo please... Thanks :)

Where I live in south central London, all of the roads in the captial is are narrow and shit.
There no 8 or 10 lanes of roads or any highways in London. If you are diving to central london by car what is madness, in a rush hour triffic jam, it's takes about 40 minutes. (That is from Croydon ton central london, for example the City or Westmister.
Over 7 million live in London and there about roughty over 2 million vehicles by day.
From Croydon in South London to Heathrow airport it's take 1 hour and sometime 90 mins.
:runaway: :runaway: :runaway: :bash: :cheers: :cheers:

Tokyo, 38 milion inhabitants in metropolitan area.
:yes:

The topic says the most _land_ vehicles, so I would assume that means bicycles too? If so, could you consider cities such as Bangkok, Mumbai or Beijing, whos primary mode of transport for its population is bikes? Add to that a significant number of cars and freight.. I'm sure you'd be looking at a competitive figure.

A few European cities, alone tourisms (not motorcycles, not trucks, not vans ...)


http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/5516/cotxes6ti.jpg


Cities............................................inhabitants........cars...surface (sq.meters)....cars/1000 inh......inh/tourism.....cars/squ meters

I have never riden on the Los Angeles Metro before. Is it really that bad? :?

Yes. Out of the half dozen times I rode the Gold Line between Pasadena and downtown, not ONLY have I concluded that it chugs along slower than a Disney ride, but also it broke down once and we were stranded for about 45 minutes. Good thing I wasn't commuting anywhere...