hi all , here i will try to figure the top metro regions of europe out iwhat you think asbout my stats are they realistc ; : hre the are

1.) London metro ( includes the southwest of england , southend on sea and reading ) 13 mill +
2.) rhein ruhr metro ( includes the ruhrgebiet , cologne , bonn , hamm , leverkusen , wesel , mönchengladbach ; 12 mill+
3 .) Paris metro (includes marne la valle , evry , cwry pontoise , st quentin en yvelines 11 mill +

4 .)Moscow area 10 mill+
5.) Saint petersburg 6 mill +
6.) madrid metro 6 mill+
7 ) the sclesian vally polad 6 mill+
8.) barcelona metro 4 mill +
7.) athens metro (incl. kifisia , pireaus ) 4 mill+
8.) berlin metro( incl oranienburg , strausberg , potsdam .. ) 4 mill+
9.) Milano metro ( incl . monza , rho .. 5 mill +
10.) Randstad incl amsterdam haarlem , rotterdam , den haag utrecht 8 mill
+
11.) frankfurt etro ( incl hanau , offenbach, russelsheim , mainz wiesbaden ) 3 mil+
12) the swiss midands ( incl , st louis , basel , zurich , bern , olten .. 3 mill+
13 .) rome etro 3 mill+
14 .) stuttgart metro 3 mill+
15 hamburg metro 2 mill +
16 ) brussls metro 2 mill +
17) Copenhagen - malmö 2 mill +
18) Stockholm metro 2 mill +
17 :9 oslo metro 1 mill+
18.) lisbon metro 1mill+
19 warsaw metro 1 mill +
20.) munich metrop 1 mill +

what u think about it are my facts accurate ?

no

A coupple of observations on Italy metros...

Milan metro (reffering to a radium of about 50 kms from city center) has over 7 mio
Milan region (Lombardy) has officialy more than 9 mio inhabitants: for any parameters on calculating metro areas, Milan metro overcomes its regional bounderies and even Italy borders including Southern Part of Canton Ticino in "Italian" Switzerland (Lugano is only 70 kms from Milan)
With this parameter Milan metro area would have 10+ mio inhabitants
But I think a good choice to size Milan metro area is to consider its province and neighbourg provinces (above all in Northern Milan, where praticcally the territory is all conurbated as far as Chiasso in Switzerland...): as I said it is an area with a radium of 50/60 kms where there are about 7.3/7.5 mio people living in

Second metro area in Italy is not Rome one: it's Naples one
It has about between 4 and 5 mio inhabitants

Rome metro data seem correct: it has 3.5/4 mio (max.) inhabitants... :)

Lisbon metro has about 3,5 millions ;)

Swiss Midlands is bigger:
3.2mio is alone Greater Zurich Area (Aarau to Frauenfeld), 1mio is Basel (international), 1.1mio is Geneva-Lausanne (international), 0.7 is Bern (with Fribourg, Thun and Biel). Also included are Ostschweiz with center St.Gallen with about 0.5mio. That's 6-7mio (also parts of France and Germany) on approx. 15'000km2.

As Genius says: Agglomeration Ticino (Lugano, Bellinzona, Locarno, Chiasso) with 0.3mio is part of Greater Milano. 60% of the country are high mountains... that's why we have a spacial and urban sprawl problem...

Valencia metropolitan area has 1.450.000 inhabitants

We had an excellent thread about this, with most of the research done by justme. It should have been stickied (wasn't a mod back then yet).

Sevilla and Bilbao have around ~1.000.000 inh.

17 oslo metro 1 mill+

Oslo metro as defined by Statistics Norway, had 1.293.938 people 1'st of april this year. The population increases by around 15.000 people each year.

Looking forward to seeing the complete list :okay:

I would say for Bigger Metropolitan Areas:

London 18mio
Moscow 13.5mio
Rhein-Ruhr 12.5mio
Istanbul 12mio
Paris 11mio
Randstad 8mio
Milano 7mio
St.Petersburg 6mio
Swiss Midlands 6mio
Madrid 5.5mio
North England 5.2mio
South Poland 5mio
Barcelona 4.8mio
Berlin 4.5mio
Rhein-Main 4.3mio
Athens 4mio

Others close to and over 3mio: Copenhagen-Malmö, Rome, Napoli, Lisboa, Lille-Wallonie, Marseilles-Cote d'Azur

Flanders & Brussel should be up there perhaps at 4 or 5mln
Maastricht/Aachen/Liege is another, once read it's about 3mln

a london 'metro' at 18mln is really large:
Oxfordshire
Buckinghamshire
Bedfordshire
Hertfordshire
Essex
Berkshire
Greater London
Surrey
Kent
Hampshire
West Sussex
East Sussex
and would for example include Southhampton and The Isle of Wight ...

such a wider region for Paris would include cities like Amiens, Orleans and Reims

Randstad is 6+mln btw (N-Hol:2,5mln,Z-Hol:3,4,Utrecht:1,1 + Almere 180k) and those are the figures for the entire provinces, 'de Randstad' is smaller)

:D
Utrecht 11mln!

no kidding you can reach so many cities from utrecht in less than an hour

I think we should make a difference between polycentric and monocentric urban areas. Randstad or Rheinland are more urban regions than real agglomerations. Ruhr is a real conglommeration but you can't compare those 6 million with Paris' 10 million.

Flanders & Brussel should be up there perhaps at 4 or 5mln
Maastricht/Aachen/Liege is another, once read it's about 3mln



This region Maastricht/Aachen/Liège is silly I think. Thats not an urban area but just an industrialized region with high density.

As for Brussels, it's a very dominant city and it's metropolitan area is huge for a city of 1,3 million.(2,5million or more)
The 'Vlaamse Ruit' is the triangle Brussels-Gent-Antwerp. But only Antwerp-Brussels+ satellite towns is really clear.

Leeds-Bradford-Sheffield urban area has nearly 4 million people.

This region Maastricht/Aachen/Liège is silly I think. Thats not an urban area but just an industrialized region with high density.




"Zum grenzüberschreitenden Verbund der Euregio Maas-Rhein gehören folgende Regionen:

die Deutschsprachige Gemeinschaft,
die Provinz Lüttich,
die Provinz Belgisch-Limburg,
die Provinz Niederländisch-Limburg
und die Regio Aachen.
Die Euregio umfasst insgesamt etwa 3,8 Millionen "

So the whole region counts only 3,8 million people, but than you count vast area's of Ardennes (not really a very populated region :sleepy: ), two entire Belgium provinces and an entire Dutch province+ a vast region around Aachen.

Sad to see some people still don't know the definition of metro area, like eusebius and snot...

17) Copenhagen - malmö 2 mill +
what u think about it are my facts accurate ?

No. ;)

As of January 1st 2004, the Copenhagen-Malmö metro had 3,583,302 inhabitants.
That was 1½ year ago, it probably has well over 3.6 million inhabitants today.

Sad to see some people still don't know the definition of metro area, like eusebius and snot...
I know what a metro area is, and I think Aachen-Maastricht-Liège is nothing more than a dense region.

It's a combined metro area.
You said it wasn't an urban area but that has nothing to do with it being a metro area or not...

In that logic, the whole region between London, Lille, Köln, Dortmund and Amsterdam is a 'combined metro area'.

I think Frankfurt and Berlin are both around 5 million
and Hamburgs metro is around 4 million since the city alone has 2 million

Where are the other large UK metros in that list?

Birmingham/West Mids metro probably c3.5m
Manchester Metro c3m
Glasgow metro c2.25m
Leeds/Bradford c2m
Liverpool metro c1.75m
Sheffield metro c1.25m

There are no official figures but these are reasonable estimates imo.

I've seen some figures that put Manchester and Liverpool in the same metro with about 5.5-6.5m depending on the definition.

how can polycentric randstad count as a metro and polycentric euregion aachen/liege/maastricht not
well?

Arnhem Metro is some 1,3mln

(now just wait for our modetoddler shiro... :D)

Rhein-Ruhr: 12
Berlin: 4.5
Frankfurt: 4.2
Hamburg: 4.0
Stuttgart: 3.1 (according to emporis)
Munich: 2.5

how can polycentric randstad count as a metro and polycentric euregion aachen/liege/maastricht not
well?

Arnhem Metro is some 1,3mln

(now just wait for our modetoddler shiro... :D)
For me Randstad is not a metro neither. But Randstad is way denser and more connected than this region of Aachen/Liège/Maastricht

Aachen/Liège/Maastricht is a Euregion, not a metro area.

That doesn't mean a metropolitan area consisting of Maastricht, Aachen and Liège is not possible but not one covering all of Belgian Limburg, Dutch Limburg and the province of Liège. That is just ridiculous.

I would say drop Belgian Limburg (except for maybe a few towns in the south and east it doesn't have much to do with Maastricht or Liège) and include only the southern part of Dutch Limburg (Sittard and everything below). Also forget about the rural parts of Liége and Aachen.

Now you have a more realistic metro area. One that still has a population well over 2.5 million BTW. :)

Of course Maastricht-Aachen-Liege also form a combined metro area.

"Maastricht-Aachen airport" <---

I never said it included whole provinces, although measured the American way it probably does.

Old numbers, but also a bigger metro region: the trinational Regio Basiliensis:
http://socio.ch/demo/images/Imaged9.gif

Katowice metro area is 3.5 m, the biggest in Poland.

have these been mentioned:

Newcastle/Tyneside?
Lyon/St Etienne?
South-Walkes?

Maas Rhine region, well going by US numbers, it could easily be named 'metro'

http://www.euregio-mr.org/N/N-Imports/Illu-OK/ID04b.Gif

http://www.euregio-mr.org/N/N-Imports/Illu-OK/ID05b.Gif

3,8mln

I was going to say that list is way of, no Birmingham and West Midlands metro, No Liverpool-Manchester Metro ... quite a shock ;)

Glad to see it was only someones attempt and not a proper statistical paper.

2 stats I once found on the web:

1. Tokyo, Japan - 28,025,000
2. Mexico City, Mexico - 18,131,000
3. Mumbai, India - 18,042,000
4. Sáo Paulo, Brazil - 17, 711,000
5. New York City, USA - 16,626,000
6. Shanghai, China - 14,173,000
7. Lagos, Nigeria - 13,488,000
8. Los Angeles, USA - 13,129,000
9. Calcutta, India - 12,900,000
10. Buenos Aires, Argentina - 12,431,000

11. Seóul, South Korea - 12,215,000
12. Beijing, China - 12,033,000
13. Karachi, Pakistan - 11,774,000
14. Delhi, India - 11,680,000
15. Dhaka, Bangladesh - 10,979,000
16. Manila, Philippines - 10,818,000
17. Cairo, Egypt - 10,772,000
18. Õsaka, Japan - 10,609,000
19. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil - 10,556,000
20. Tianjin, China - 10,239,000

21. Jakarta, Indonesia - 9,815,000
22. Paris, France - 9,638,000
23. Istanbul, Turkey - 9,413,000
24. Moscow, Russian Fed. - 9,299,000
25. London, United Kingdom - 7,640,000
26. Lima, Peru - 7,443,000
27. Tehrãn, Iran - 7,380,000
28. Bangkok, Thailand - 7,221,000
29. Chicago, USA - 6,945,000
30. Bogotá, Colombia - 6,834,000

31. Hyderabad, India - 6,833,000
32. Chennai, India - 6,639,000
33. Essen, Germany - 6,559,000
34. Hangzhou, China - 6,389,000
35. Hong Kong, China - 6,097,000
36. Lahore, Pakistan - 6,030,000
37. Shenyang, China - 5,681,000
38. Changchun, China - 5,566,000
39. Bangalore, India - 5,544,000
40. Harbin, China - 5,475,000

41. Chengdu, China - 5,293,000
42. Santiago, Chile - 5,261,000
43. Guangzhou, China - 5,162,000
44. St. Petersburg, Russian Fed. - 5,132,000
45. Kinshasa, DRC - 5,068,000
46. Baghdãd, Iraq - 4,796,000
47. Jinan, China - 4,789,000
48. Wuhan, China - 4,750,000
49. Toronto, Canada - 4,657,000
50. Yangon, Myanmar (Burma) - 4,458,000

51. Alger, Algeria - 4,447,000
52. Philadelphia, USA - 4,398,000
53. Qingdao, China - 4,376,000
54. Milano, Italy - 4,251,000
55. Pusan, South Korea - 4,239,000
56. Belo Horizonte, Brazil - 4,160,000
57. Almadabad, India - 4,154,000
58. Madrid, Spain - 4,072,000
59. San Francisco, USA - 4,051,000
60. Alexandria, Egypt - 3,995,000

61. Washington DC, USA - 3,927,000
62. Houston, USA - 3,918,000
63. Dallas, USA - 3,912,000
64. Guadalajara, Mexico - 3,908,000
65. Chongging, China - 3,896,000
66. Medellin, Colombia - 3,831,000
67. Detroit, USA - 3,785,000
68. Handan, China - 3,763,000
69. Frankfurt, Germany - 3,700,000
70. Porto Alegre, Brazil - 3,699,000

71. Hanoi, Vietnam - 3,678,000
72. Sydney, Australia - 3,665,000
73. Santo Domingo, Dom. Rep. - 3,601,000
74. Singapore, Singapore - 3,587,000
75. Casablanca, Morocco - 3,535,000
76. Katowice, Poland - 3,488,000
77. Pune, India - 3,485,000
78. Bangdung, Indonesia - 3,420,000
79. Monterrey, Mexico - 3,416,000
80. Montréal, Canada - 3,401,000

81. Nagoya, Japan - 3,377,000
82. Nanjing, China - 3,375,000
83. Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire - 3,359,000
84. Xi'an, China - 3,352,000
85. Berlin, Germany - 3,337,000
86. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia - 3,328,000
87. Recife, Brazil - 3,307,000
88. Dusseldorf, Germany - 3,251,000
89. Ankara, Turkey - 3,190,000
90. Melbourne, Australia - 3,188,000

91. Salvador, Brazil - 3,180,000
92. Dalian, China - 3,153,000
93. Caracas, Venezuela - 3,153,000
94. Adis Abeba, Ethiopia - 3,112,000
95. Athina, Greece - 3,103,000
96. Cape Town, South Africa - 3,092,000
97. Koln, Germany - 3.067,000
98. Maputo, Mozambique - 3,017,000
99. Napoli, Italy - 3,012,000
100. Fortaleza, Brazil - 3,007,000

source: http://worldatlas.com/citypops.htm



Moscow 10,5
Paris 9,8
Istanbul 9,4
London 7,6
Rhein-Ruhr North 7 6,6
Saint Petersburg 5,3
Madrid 5,1
Barcelona 4,4
Milan 4,1
Rhein-Main 4 3,7
Berlin 3,3
Rhein-Ruhr Middle 6 3,3
Athens 3,2
Rhein-Ruhr South 8 3,1
Katowice 3,0
Naples 2,9
Stuttgart 2,7
Hamburg 2,7
Rome 2,7
Kiev 2,6
Munich 2,3
Birmingham 2,2
Manchester 2,2
Warsaw 2,2
Vienna 2,2
Lisbon 2,0
Bucharest 1,9
Minsk 1,7
Budapest 1,7
Stockholm 1,7
Rhein-Neckar 5 1,6
Kharkov 1,5
Novosibirsk 1,4
Leeds 1,4
Lyon 1,4
Marseille-Aix-en-Provence 1,4
Nizhni Novgorod 1,3
Bielefeld 1,3
Hannover 1,3
Porto 1,3
Ekaterinburg 1,3
Nuremberg 1,2
Turin 1,2
Prague 1,2
Samara 1,2
Omsk 1,1
Belgrade 1,1
Kazan 1,1
Amsterdam 1,1
Rotterdam 1,1
Sofia 1,1
Helsinki 1,1
Aachen 1,1
Copenhagen 1,1
Chelyabinsk 1,1
Rostov-on-Don 1,1
Dnepropetrovsk 1,1
Ufa 1,0
Odessa 1,0
Volgograd 1,0
Donetsk 1,0
Tyneside (Newcastle) 1,0
Lille 1,0
Dublin 1,0

source: UN department of economic and social affairs.

As it happens every time we talk about metro areas data are very different from a source to another...

I noticed now...
In UN source Rome has a metro of 2.7 mio
That means its metro population is less than city population (2.8 in municipality)... Incredible! :D

I noticed now...
In UN source Rome has a metro of 2.7 mio
That means its metro population is less than city population (2.8 in municipality)... Incredible! :D

yes, 2.8mio if we mean the municipality but the metro area has a population of 3.700.000...

Look: these are strange lists, but it always depends on the sources. Just check: Düsseldorf bigger than Köln and both outside Ruhr (Essen). What do they include in these ones. For example is Wuppertal here Köln, Ruhr, or Düsseldorf? It is one big Metro. These stats mix up some datas a bit.

The second list you can flush, sorry - they don't only mix up city propers with metros and national defined agglomerations, the data are even wrong. Moscow city has already between 11 and 13 mio...

Zarkon: I think it's because Rome is a huge municipality not like the other Italian cities, I am not sure who told me (Genius?), that Mussolini made it that way. So in the 2.7 mio are maybe only the ones counted that live in "dense populated areas" ;) Anyway - Rome metro (even if not defined by Italy itself) has some 3.8mio...

We had an excellent thread about this, with most of the research done by justme. It should have been stickied (wasn't a mod back then yet).

I remember that thread , but where is it ??

That was a long time ago, it's gone now...

That was a long time ago, it's gone now...

You could ask "justme" if he still knows where he got it from...just an idea btw

I think I still have it on my computer hang on...

This is what I could find:

United Kingdom
London: 18million
Manchester/Liverpool: 4.8million
Birmingham: 3million
Leeds/Bradford: 1.8million
Glasgow: 1.4million
Sheffield: 1.2million
Newcastle: 1.1million

Germany
Rhein/Ruhr: 12million
Berlin: 5million
Frankfurt (Rhein/Main): 4.9million
Hamburg: 3.5million
Munich: 3million
Leipzig/Halle: 2.5million
Stuttgart: 2.5million
Mannheim (Rhein/Neckar): 2.5million
Hannover: 1.1million
Bremen 1.1million
Dresden: 1million
Nurnberg: 1million
Chemnitz - Zwickau: 1million
Saarbrücken - Forbach: 1million

France
Paris: 12million
Lyon: 1.7million
Marseille: 1.5million
Lille: 1.2million
Toulouse: 1million
Nice: 1million
Bordeaux: 1million

Belgium
Brussels: 2.9million
Antwerp: 1.6million

Euroregion
Rhein-Maas (10,478km² - Germany/Netherlands/Belgium)*: 3.8million
(*includes Aachen, Maastricht, Liege)

Spain
Madrid: 5.6million
Barcelona: 4.6million
Valancia: 1.7million
Sevilla: 1.4million
Alacant: 1.4million
Malaga: 1.3million
Bilbao: 1.2million

Italy
Milan: 8.1million
Rome: 5million
Naples: 4.5million
Torino: 2.5million
Bari: 1.6million
Palermo: 1.2million
Catania: 1.1million
Salerno: 1.1million
Brescia: 1.1million
Florence: 1million
Genoa: 1million
Bologna: 1 million
Bergamo: 1 million
Venice - Padua: 1million

Poland
Katowice: 3.9million
Warsaw: 3.1million
Krakow: 1.5million
Lodz: 1.4million
Trojmiasto: 1.1million
Wroclaw: 1.1million

Czech Republic
Prague: 1.7million

Hungary
Budapest: 2.5million

Portugal
Lisbon: 2.8million
Oporto: 1.3million

Greece
Athens: 4.2million
Thessaloniki: 1million

Netherlands
Rotterdam/The Hague: 3.4million
Amsterdam: 2million
Utrecht: 1million
(All above in Deltametropolis: 7.5million)
Brabantstad: 2.4million

Switzerland
Zurich: 1.8million

Sweden
Stockholm: 1.8million

Norway
Oslo: 1million

Denmark
Copenhagen (excluding Malmo): 1.8million*
(*Øresund region incl. Sweden: 3.5million)

Finland
Helsinki: 1.2million

Norway
Oslo: 1million

Ireland
Dublin: 1.5million

Bulgaria
Sofia: 1.1million

Latvia
Riga: 1.4million

Russia
Moscow: 14.5million
St. Petersburg: 4.8million
Niznij Novgorod: 1.9million
Jekaterinburg: 1.4million
Cheljabinski: 1.2million
Volgograd: 1.2million
Ufa: 1.0 million
Kazan: 1.1 million
Saratov: 1.1
Omsk: 1.1

Ukraine
Kiev: 3.3million
Donets'k: 1.7million
Odessa: 1.1million
Dnipropetrous'k: 1.4million

Belarus
Minsk: 1.7million

Romania
Bucharest: 2.6million

Turkey (European side)
Istanbul: 12.7million

Austria
Vienna: 2.7million

Serbia & Montenegro
Belgrade: 3million
Novi Sad:1million

Croatia
Zagreb: 1.3million

Macedonia
Skopje: 1.2million

Bosnia & Herzegovina
Sarajevo: 1.1million

UN data is very inaccurate. Some metros counted with city limits figures, some with metro figure, some with outdated city limits etc.

As for Moscow/London. Again.
Using Moscow 13,6mln type - London should be around 11mln.
Using London's 18mln - Moscow should be around 20mln.

Sorry coth, but you are going to have to prove that some way or another...

SHiRO - you can calculate yourself Moscow region (17mln [10,5mln - city of moscow and 6,7mln - moscow region that is fully connected to moscow, may be except of few small district with total population not over 100 thous.])+parts of other regions around that connected to Moscow by bus and commuter networks and economically. It is such cities like Tver, Alexandrov, Vladimir, Gus' Khrustal'niy, Ryazan', Tula, Kaluga, Gagarin. Also could be added Rzhev, Vyaz'ma, Paveletskies cities, Kimry etc. And of course tones of smaller cities around them, that also connected to Moscow agglomeration.

That 13,6mln that showed on city population.de - it is agglomeration. Because metro is too big in Moscow to be metro.

:cry:

poor shiro
brabant "city" :rofl:
radio bergeyk in a metro region? :hilarious

actually towns in your province are official parts of the arnhem/nijmegen cluster :laugh:

'brabantstad' is nothing more than an effort to build an international profile and most certainly the whole of brabant province cannot be regarded as a metro

radio bergeyk anyone

(NL radio show that pokes fun of blood sausage chewing farmers of eindhoven :D )

Brabant is the main cattle dung dump :D
and that's official

I mean you people can't even speak properly
Brabant is as urban as droppings

SHiRO - you can calculate yourself Moscow region (17mln [10,5mln - city of moscow and 6,7mln - moscow region that is fully connected to moscow, may be except of few small district with total population not over 100 thous.])+parts of other regions around that connected to Moscow by bus and commuter networks and economically. It is such cities like Tver, Alexandrov, Vladimir, Gus' Khrustal'niy, Ryazan', Tula, Kaluga, Gagarin. Also could be added Rzhev, Vyaz'ma, Paveletskies cities, Kimry etc. And of course tones of smaller cities around them, that also connected to Moscow agglomeration.

That 13,6mln that showed on city population.de - it is agglomeration. Because metro is too big in Moscow to be metro.
OK so that means the Moscow metro is between 13,6 and 17,2 million.
Where do you get the 20 million figure from then?
You are still going to have to prove it all though with commuter figures and economic and transport links.
My guess is that Moscow is around 15 million in a comperable fashion.

Significantly smaller than London in any case...

Shiro: this list is maybe not perfect, but it's for sure one of the best seen in these threads!

:cry:

poor shiro
brabant "city" :rofl:
radio bergeyk in a metro region? :hilarious

actually towns in your province are official parts of the arnhem/nijmegen cluster :laugh:

'brabantstad' is nothing more than an effort to build an international profile and most certainly the whole of brabant province cannot be regarded as a metro

radio bergeyk anyone

(NL radio show that pokes fun of blood sausage chewing farmers of eindhoven :D )

Brabant is the main cattle dung dump :D
and that's official

I mean you people can't even speak properly
Brabant is as urban as droppings
eusebius, it is not smart for you to start trolling in the Eurosection.
Different rules apply here.

Don't respond to this post in this thread, if you got something to say, use the PM.

Shiro: this list is maybe not perfect, but it's for sure one of the best seen in these threads!
Thank Justme, it is mainly based on his research...:)

@ SHiRO , that's the one , thanks

Any idea from which year those numbers are in that list ?

From when the thread was created, at least 1,5 years ago if not more...

why don't you reply with facts, shiro?

towns in Brabant ARE parts of Knooppunt Arnhem Nijmegen

Brabantstad is an imaginary "metro"
rural sprawl, hardly urban

as before, from another thread that we're bickering in:

any person either in finance, investment or governing knows that Arnhem is #5, hot on the heels of #4 actually

both motorways and railways in the very east of Brabant run from Nijmegen (Gelderland) to Venlo (Limburg)
this part also accounts for your would-be metro but it's only remotely connected to the rest of the province

face the facts

Arnhem is far more of a center in a huge urban cluster; literally 1.3mln living at around 30km from Arnhem. Tens of thousands of homes are being built. The Romans were right, the investors and tourists are right but when will shiro give in :dunno:
On top of that the greater Arnhem area involves 3 other provinces: Veenendaal (Utrecht), Cuijk (Brabant), Mook (Limburg) plus Kleve and Emmerich just across the border with Germany ...

No one is interested eusebius...:|

ah, I see you speak on behalf of 'everyone'. Well, an important aspect to a certain place being important could be defined by where global stars perform: Madonna, Tiesto, Radiohead, Santana, U2, the lot ... play Arnhem. They may not even have heard of Brabant or http://www.vpro.nl/programma/radiobergeijk/ :laugh:
Arnhem actually welcomes quite a few commuters from Amsterdam (arts education, publishing and media companies) and the only ever train to run exclusively from outside Amsterdam to Amsterdam was from Arnhem.

Don't hijack this thread.
This isn't the UK Skybar or the World forums...
Final warning.

They may not even have heard of Brabant

In fact, to be honest with you I have never heard before of Brabant and I'm quite suprised there was such city with a metro region of 2.4million inhabitants....??

In fact, to be honest with you I have never heard before of Brabant and I'm quite suprised there was such city with a metro region of 2.4million inhabitants....??

It is from the west from Roosendaal up to Breda - Tilburg - Den Bosch -Eindhoven & Helmond in the east.

ps : other people can give more detailed info

@Eusebius

You're right some towns in northeastern Brabant are more likely to be a part of the Arnhem/Nijmegen area then Brabantstad.

Then again Zaltbommel and surroundings (=Gelderland) is pretty much Den Bosch metro area so it goes both ways. Also some places in Limburg are heavily dependent on Brabant, like Weert for example. And Venlo even said they want to join Brabantstad.

(Possible) Metro areas are ofcourse not limited to ancient province borders.


@I'm Back

Brabant is not a city, but a province in the southern Netherlands with a pop. of 2.4 million. Since most people live in and around it's four main cities and most economic and cultural activities take place in that same area it's now considered a polycentric urban network, named Brabantstad. Kind of a smaller, less dense version of the more famous Randstad.

@ SHiRO
-do you wear a uniform, and do you salute? A final warning to me from you ... ok, toddler, should I change your nappy?

@I'm Back

- trust Dennol > Dennol: the very west of the province of Gelderland is depending on Utrecht more than on any other. Yet Arnhem attracts far more vital places like Deventer, Emmerich, Kleve, Cuijk, Oss and Veenendaal.

What part of final warning don't you understand eusebius?
You must think we are in the UK Skybar here. You are going to have to abide by the same rules as everyone else and you are going to stop with your smartass comments bringing the thread off topic or I will make sure you wont post anymore.

Is that clear enough?

(and just because you are seemingly a bit dense;...don't respond to this).

can you explain to me what this has to do with me expressing doubts about your silly metro chatter?
well?
:dunno:

is that clear enough toddler shiro??

off to bed you go

no tv and internet for 7 days

if you object any further

Can't say he wasn't warned...

No SSC for 7 days for eusebius...

The official german metropolregion Hannover-Braunschweig-Göttingen has at least 2,1mio inhabitants. it was founded in 2005 and consists mainly of the citys Hannover, Braunschweig, Göttingen, Wolfsburg, Salzgitter and Hidesheim.

OK so that means the Moscow metro is between 13,6 and 17,2 million.
Where do you get the 20 million figure from then?
You are still going to have to prove it all though with commuter figures and economic and transport links.
My guess is that Moscow is around 15 million in a comperable fashion.

Significantly smaller than London in any case...
Moscow region (17mln [10,5mln - city of moscow and 6,7mln - moscow region that is fully connected to moscow, may be except of few small district with total population not over 100 thous.]) + parts of other regions around that connected to Moscow by bus and commuter networks and economically. It is such cities like Tver, Alexandrov, Vladimir, Gus' Khrustal'niy, Ryazan', Tula, Kaluga, Gagarin. Also could be added Rzhev, Vyaz'ma, Paveletskies cities, Kimry etc. And of course tones of smaller cities around them, that also connected to Moscow agglomeration.

Whole Poland is coonnected to Warsaw, therefore i declare Warsaw agglomeration to be 39 million.

Whole Poland is coonnected to Warsaw, therefore i declare Warsaw agglomeration to be 39 million.
Whole Russia and some other CIS countries connected to Moscow, but we are not talking on this.

@I'm Back

Brabant is not a city, but a province in the southern Netherlands with a pop. of 2.4 million. Since most people live in and around it's four main cities and most economic and cultural activities take place in that same area it's now considered a polycentric urban network, named Brabantstad. Kind of a smaller, less dense version of the more famous Randstad.

Thanks for the information ;)

@ coth , how big is the urban area of Moscow ?

@ SHiRO , could you add some of your maps of SSP in this thread cause I would like to see the difference between larger cities/areas (the combination of density) ?

^I have no clue. Here in Russia such term is not exist. We not counting agglomerations and metros. We have cities and subjects.

Those 13,6mln should be around 2500-3000 sq km
20mln (including all forests and small towns) is about 50000 sq km. (about 220x250 km but those big cities that connected to moscow by local bus network, commuter network, economically etc located in around 150-180km from moscow.)

@ SHiRO , could you add some of your maps of SSP in this thread cause I would like to see the difference between larger cities/areas (the combination of density) ?
just tell me which cities you want to see. :)

^I have no clue. Here in Russia such term is not exist. We not counting agglomerations and metros. We have cities and subjects.

Those 13,6mln should be around 2500-3000 sq km
20mln (including all forests and small towns) is about 50000 sq km. (about 220x250 km but those big cities that connected to moscow by local bus network, commuter network, economically etc located in around 150-180km from moscow.)
You do realise that the 18 million London metro is on 22,000 sq km, don't you.
So Moscow's metro takes up more than twice that area to get to 20 million.
And this when Moscow's transport network is not nearly as large as London's.
Sorry coth, you have to do better than that. Cities 180 km away are not part of the "local" commuter network.

Moscow is not 20 million. Moscow is not larger than London.
Like I said, 15 million is more like it...

You do realise that the 18 million London metro is on 22,000 sq km, don't you.
So Moscow's metro takes up more than twice that area to get to 20 million.
And this when Moscow's transport network is not nearly as large as London's.
Sorry coth, you have to do better than that. Cities 180 km away are not part of the "local" commuter network.

Moscow is not 20 million. Moscow is not larger than London.
Like I said, 15 million is more like it...
but 70% of this area is forests. like 30% of 1000sq km 10,5mln moscow is also forests. russia is big and density is low. so our suburban trains going on 200km in average.

Sorry I don't buy that. 200 km by non HSR train (in Russia) means a 2,5 or 3 hour commute EACH WAY.

Moscow's suburbs all lie within 50 km of the center max!

Face it coth...20 million Moscow is a stretch.

Yes, 2,5 - 3h and it is typical for Russia. Piter's commuter network going far away than Moscow one, for example.

Moscow suburbs is entire Moscow province and all district of nearest provinces where is railroad line going through.

here is suburban network of moscow
http://metrozzz.narod.ru/raznoe/maps/prigorodny2002.gif

50km of center - is almost city of moscow. distation between farest districts is 65km

coth, there is 6,7mln in moscow oblast?

According to expert.ru Moscow Oblast had 7.1mln in 2004
And Coth is stretching the facts. There is no way Moscow metro is 2omln.
Coth included Tver in Moscow metro which is 200 km away. Well, I travelled many times on that route. It takes just under 3hrs by train, and 2 hours by car if there is low traffic. A daily comute for a 9to5 job is simply impossible.
Coth: why do you care about Metro statistics anyway?
City proper figures are more important becouse they are REAL, not speculative like the so called metro regions.
And Moscow city is the largest in Europe!

Bigest on Poland

Katowice GOP - abut 4mln or 38mln using rusian way of counting :D

According to expert.ru Moscow Oblast had 7.1mln in 2004
And Coth is stretching the facts. There is no way Moscow metro is 2omln.
Coth included Tver in Moscow metro which is 200 km away. Well, I travelled many times on that route. It takes just under 3hrs by train, and 2 hours by car if there is low traffic. A daily comute for a 9to5 job is simply impossible.
Coth: why do you care about Metro statistics anyway?
City proper figures are more important becouse they are REAL, not speculative like the so called metro regions.
And Moscow city is the largest in Europe!
stretching? tell me. Isn't those cities connected by local moscow regional bus network? by moscow suburban rail network? Isn't those cities really not economic regional centers, but Moscow is economic center for them?

i have suburban house near Chupriyanovka station, i suppose you know this station. it is nearest suburbs of Tver. i know many people there is from moscow. and many people that lives in tver but going to work in moscow.
express train going about 2 hours, with stops in big towns only, that is not much.


some people spend up to 4 hours to reach their work place in peak hours within city limits. two hours on train isn't really much if you work near train station. i was spend every day a hour to go college and hour from college to home 4 years, while it is located just about 4 km from my home. so 2 hours isn't much.


i don't really care of metro, because for such cities like Moscow and London and most of European cities metros is not exist - it is too phantomal. so such cities counting with their agglomeration areas.

Bigest on Poland

Katowice GOP - abut 4mln or 38mln using rusian way of counting :D
well Moscow is 270mln then if counting your 38mln standard;)

stretching? tell me. Isn't those cities connected by local moscow regional bus network? by moscow suburban rail network? Isn't those cities really not economic regional centers, but Moscow is economic center for them?

i have suburban house near Chupriyanovka station, i suppose you know this station. it is nearest suburbs of Tver. i know many people there is from moscow. and many people that lives in tver but going to work in moscow.
express train going about 2 hours, with stops in big towns only, that is not much.


some people spend up to 4 hours to reach their work place in peak hours within city limits. two hours on train isn't really much if you work near train station. i was spend every day a hour to go college and hour from college to home 4 years, while it is located just about 4 km from my home. so 2 hours isn't much.


i don't really care of metro, because for such cities like Moscow and London and most of European cities metros is not exist - it is too phantomal. so such cities counting with their agglomeration areas.So cities like Birmingham (UK's second largest city) which is just as far away as Tver is from Moscow as Birmingham is from London is part of London's 'metro'? Even though London has a Pendolino tilting train service and the service is faster (most definately and likely) than the rail service between both Russian cities which is probably via ex-Soviet rolling stock? To top it off London has the larger rail network - more stations, more lines, more services than in the equivalent Moscow area.

By 2008 I will be able to go to Central Brussels from Central London in 2hrs, to Cental Paris in 2hrs 15mins - are Brussels and Paris now part of the London metro? Yet you mention people commute 4hrs? I know people who commute in from the north for Monday, live in an apartment and then go back home on the commute north on a Friday - but 8hrs EACH DAY TRAVELLING. In other words they spend 1/3 of their working life stuck on a train! Thats longer than the time they would spend in the office (if its normal 9-5 hours) and more probably than they would sleep. That would have to be the worst life ever - 8hrs only to sleep, eat and have fun....you could go on the train drunk and be sober by the time you arrive for work in Moscow :laugh:

That saying, you have yet to state any facts or figures from any reliable source. Sometimes Coth I really do question you - its as if your deliberately fabricating this information just for a laugh. It would be more worrying though if your actually being serious and it does pose questions about what on earth goes on inside the GKS. Infact your nearly as bad as Eusebius, difference being is he is joking around - your not.

Why did you mention Eusebius and not me?

Nick, we talking about SUBURBAN bus network, about SUBURBAN rail network, about regional economic dependences.

after all - 18mln in London counting counties populations and covers area of 27,5 thous. sq. km., while Moscow 13,6mln is only big cities in very nearest suburbs that is not over 3 thous sq km in total. those we call satellite cities. so entire Moscow regional population is around 18mln this year - few districts of Moscow province, that not so much developed and not so economically depend on moscow and connected only by bus network, with total population not over 100 thous.

Nick, you have troubles with understanding numbers and statements

Why did you mention Eusebius and not me?Funny how the same individuals always seem to group together when one is wrong to somehow try and scrap back some dignity.

Now be careful on this thread - what you talk about has nothing to do whatsoever with discussing the biggest metro regions in Europe. You are it appears increasingly moving towards an agenda not at the general discussion of important or relevant topics - but some devious little ulterior agenda. If you have anything more to say to me use the PM function. That saying if you could please do a search and locate the thread that you stated in the other thread I will be glad to reply to that (due to the lack of a SCC search facility and ability to Google SSC) thread.

Now if you don't have anything to say about metro regions, I suggest you move along because you seem to be sounding ever more like RainierMeadows on the UK Skybar - a trollish mod. Then again this thread has already been stained by Coth's (usual) doubtful figures.




Nick, we talking about SUBURBAN bus network, about SUBURBAN rail network, about regional economic dependences.

after all - 18mln in London counting counties populations and covers area of 27,5 thous. sq. km., while Moscow 13,6mln is only big cities in very nearest suburbs that is not over 3 thous sq km in total. those we call satellite cities. so entire Moscow regional population is around 18mln this year - few districts of Moscow province, that not so much developed and not so economically depend on moscow and connected only by bus network, with total population not over 100 thous.

Nick, you have troubles with understanding numbers and statementsSuburban? Firstly, and I quote you saying: local moscow regional bus network - and you say I have trouble reading and understanding numbers and statements? :laugh:

Secondly - where did you find the 27,500km² figure from?

Thirdly - May I ask, if you know the 'real' metro area for Moscow - what is its coverage area for 18mn people, in km².

Lastly - Please provide a source from a local/national government/authority that gives Moscow an 18mn (or more) population, also with km²

Then again this isn't the first time that you've tried to inflate numbers - remember that little incident where you claimed Moscow was building more skyscrapers than Hong Kong and New York, urban populations, etc.... Also its not like I'm the only one here doubting you, eg Shiro.

Also I should mention the criteria you are using would tend to make me believe that London's metro area must indeed increase in size - afterall this is using your 'logic' to define metropolitan areas which seems about as rigid as jelly. Also no offence to your english - but could you make a better attempt - these are english-speaking boards afterall and sometimes its very hard to understand exactly what your trying to say. Sometimes this leads to you contradicting yourself within the same sentence!

Regional = Suburban = Provincial for Moscow Region [i call Regions (Oblast') as Provinces].

so i never defined real metro. i said no metro for moscow or london. it is too phantomal in such cities. there is agglomeration.

as for 18mln including all forests - 47000 sq. km.

forests covers 42% of province
http://www.moseco.ru/doklad2000/intro/2.html
so 45900 - 19278 = 26622 sq km. 6,7mln according to census of 2002. now could be over 7,1mln as noted Elbrus.
http://www.perepis2002.ru/ct/html/ALL_00_01.htm

and covers 11% (116,47 sq km) of moscow terriotory within main borders
so 1081 - 116,47 = 964,53. 10,4mln according to census of 2002. now about 10,5mln.
http://www.perepis2002.ru/ct/html/ALL_00_01.htm

And again. Russia does not recognize such terms like agglomeration and metropolitan area. We counting population of cities within city borders and of subjects within subject borders.


I don't remember source now. But wikipedia list it as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London,_UK
In 2004, the Government of Greater London officially defined a metropolitan region centered on London covering 27,224 km² (10,511 square miles) with a population of approximately 18 million people, including a large portion (though not all of) the South East England and East of England regions. A metropolitan region is not the same as a metropolitan area. It is a region where there are a vast number of linkages and networks between all the urban settlements. Another metropolitan region is the one extending from Rotterdam to Cologne along the Rhine River, with about 30 million people in it.


so as i said you have trouble reading and understanding numbers and statements

Funny how the same individuals always seem to group together when one is wrong to somehow try and scrap back some dignity.

Now be careful on this thread - what you talk about has nothing to do whatsoever with discussing the biggest metro regions in Europe. You are it appears increasingly moving towards an agenda not at the general discussion of important or relevant topics - but some devious little ulterior agenda. If you have anything more to say to me use the PM function. That saying if you could please do a search and locate the thread that you stated in the other thread I will be glad to reply to that (due to the lack of a SCC search facility and ability to Google SSC) thread.

Now if you don't have anything to say about metro regions, I suggest you move along because you seem to be sounding ever more like RainierMeadows on the UK Skybar - a trollish mod. Then again this thread has already been stained by Coth's (usual) doubtful figures.

Don't worry, I'll leave you to your (not so) intellectual discussions. I was just a little jealous of the attention Eusebius get.

just tell me which cities you want to see. :)

let say the 10 biggest to start with...(are your maps drawned on the same scale?)

I'll assume you mean the biggest European metro's

London (somewhat zoomed in)
http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/500/2748london.png

Moscow (somewhat zoomed in)
http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/500/2748moscow.png

Istanbul (a bit zoomed in)
http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/500/2748istanbul.png

Rhein-Ruhr (combined metro)
*no map*

Paris
http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/500/2748paris.png

Deltametropolis (combined metro)
http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/500/2748deltametropolis.png

Milan (a bit zoomed in)
http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/500/2748milan.png

Madrid
http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/500/2748madrid.png

Berlin (I think the scale is a tad of, maybe this map is 110% of the others)
http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/500/2748berlin.png

Barcelona
http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/500/2748barcelona.png

Frankfurt (Rhein-Main) (combined metro)
http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/500/2748frankfurt.png

Manchester-Liverpool (Liverpool not on map) (combined metro)
http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/500/2748manchester.png

Rome
http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/500/2748rome.png

Saint Petersburg
http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/500/2748st_petersburg.png

Athens
http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/500/2748athens.png

Naples
*no map*

Milan
http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/500/2748rome.png

That's Rome ;)

Ok Shiro...

I "stole" the correct map of milan made by you...

http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/500/2748milan.png

:cheers:

Yeah, I was in the process of correcting that, but I was called away...
it's fixed now...

I wish I could find a better base map for Milan. This one is to zoomed in for my taste and doesn't show the entire extend of urban development.
It's not the whole metro by far either!

:cheers:

btw shiro, you map of moscow agglomeration does not incude southern, western and northern parts - cities like Serpukhov(!!), Mozhaisk/Borodino, Klin(!!), Solnechnogorsk (!!!!! - the city is under City of Moscow administrative control), Kubinka, Zhukovskiy, Sergiev Posad etc...

That's why it says "somewhat zoomed in" ;)

It does show the direct urban area though and that's what the maps are about, not metro area (so I guess I'm posting off topic maps...;))

If you have a better map I would be thankfull...

So with all the different data and definitions(local, regional, urban, metro, aglomeration, etc) :) this discussion becomes pointless.
Why don't we leave the METRO term for the americans, and use the original
European City proper stats instead!
After all European cities are compact and usually well-defined. Unlike the sprawling
suburbia in the NewWorld. Metro statistics work best in N.America because apart from NYC they have no well-defined cities.
There is NO metro area of London.
There is NO metro area of Moscow.
What we have in Europe is a well-defined and uninterupted big cities and
huge numbers of smaller well-defined cities and towns around them that form
aglomerations, not metros!
Metro is uninterupted SUBURBIA.
We DON'T have that in Europe.
FORGET about it! ;)

This is the best map I could find on the web about Milan metro area urbanization...

http://www.ors.regione.lombardia.it/publish_bin/C_2_ContenutoInformativo_1164_ListaAllegati_Allegato_3_All_Allegato.jpg

Map shows only Lombardy Region (I think it shows idric artificial basins in Lombardy or something: nothing to do with metro area analisys :) ), so you cannot find on the North Canton Ticino conurbation, and on the West and on the South respectively Novara and Piacenza (not conurbated but in the "larger metro"), they're in Piedmont region and Emilia Romagna region

To have a more detailed cartographic support you can go at these sites:
http://www.regione.lombardia.it/rlservices/externallink/link.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cartografia.regione.lombardia.it

http://ww3.atlanteitaliano.it/atlante/default2.htm

In the second site click on cartografia: it says english version is under costruction... :bash:

from wikipedia

Without a specific national reference to London's metropolitan area, many different sources provide alternate definitions. One such definition describes the London metropolitan area (6,267 square miles, 16,043 km²) with a population of 13,945,000 — larger than the combined populations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. (External references: [4], [5]) If this definition is followed, then London is the largest metropolitan area of Europe, along with Moscow (whose metropolitan area has somewhere around 14 million people), and above Paris (11.5 million people in the metropolitan area in 2004). However, the definition used here for the metropolitan area of London should be taken with a lot of caution, as it includes areas quite far away from London, such as Dover, right by the English Channel, or Colchester, in the very north of Essex. Discounting eastern Kent, northern Essex, and West Berkshire, the figure is closer to 12 million to 12.5 million people.

In 2004, the Government of Greater London officially defined a metropolitan region centered on London covering 27,224 km² (10,511 square miles) with a population of approximately 18 million people, including a large portion (though not all of) the South East England and East of England regions (As described in the "London Plan" from the Mayor of London external link below). A metropolitan region is not the same as a metropolitan area. It is a region where there are a vast number of linkages and networks between all the urban settlements. Another metropolitan region is the one extending from Rotterdam to Cologne along the Rhine River, with about 30 million people in it. It should be noted, however, that the metropolitan region of London defined here bears little or no relation to what "London" is understood to be by the British public

^^^^
Rocky: exactly, all this metro mumbo-jumbo has nothing to do with real cities.
Not in Europe.

^^
I do not agree...

And where do the cities end?

Could it be real cities in Europe are in their municipality?
Then: London has a 1200 skm municipality, Paris has 102 skm municipality, Rome has 1300 skm municipality...
It's not that a real panorama of the "size" of the cities

There was a time when to know what a city was you had only to see at everything which was inside its walls

Now it's a little more difficult...

SHIRO - there is something really beautiful about those red satelite maps of cities.

'Blood-spattered-jacksonpollock-o-grams' rock hard in my book.

great maps.
the similarity of London and Paris is surprising me.

If I understand this discussion correctly : there are no limits to point out a metropolitan region so correct me when I am wrong => could it be that there are more than one organisation who is responsable for the devellopment of 1 region like this ?

Regional = Suburban = Provincial for Moscow Region [i call Regions (Oblast') as Provinces].

so i never defined real metro. i said no metro for moscow or london. it is too phantomal in such cities. there is agglomeration.

as for 18mln including all forests - 47000 sq. km.

forests covers 42% of province
http://www.moseco.ru/doklad2000/intro/2.html
so 45900 - 19278 = 26622 sq km. 6,7mln according to census of 2002. now could be over 7,1mln as noted Elbrus.
http://www.perepis2002.ru/ct/html/ALL_00_01.htm

and covers 11% (116,47 sq km) of moscow terriotory within main borders
so 1081 - 116,47 = 964,53. 10,4mln according to census of 2002. now about 10,5mln.
http://www.perepis2002.ru/ct/html/ALL_00_01.htm

And again. Russia does not recognize such terms like agglomeration and metropolitan area. We counting population of cities within city borders and of subjects within subject borders.


I don't remember source now. But wikipedia list it as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London,_UK
In 2004, the Government of Greater London officially defined a metropolitan region centered on London covering 27,224 km² (10,511 square miles) with a population of approximately 18 million people, including a large portion (though not all of) the South East England and East of England regions. A metropolitan region is not the same as a metropolitan area. It is a region where there are a vast number of linkages and networks between all the urban settlements. Another metropolitan region is the one extending from Rotterdam to Cologne along the Rhine River, with about 30 million people in it.


so as i said you have trouble reading and understanding numbers and statementsSo what your saying is that the Moscow authorities don't actually consider what your talking about to be a metro area. I also don't quite get why you talk about forests, other metro areas in the world aren't constant urban sprawl and London, Paris, etc all have similar issues.

Also 47,000km² - thats ridiculously large even for Moscow. Greater London, South East of England and the East of England have a combined population of 20,560,726 over 39,795km²! Not only that, but the rail infrastructure is larger and not to mention more modern and faster. Face it Coth you do an awful lot of bullshitting. At least this isn't as bad as the incident where you once proposed that the homeless people of Moscow weren't residing in Moscow, but were 'tourists' who 'commuted in' just to be homeless on the streets of Moscow. That just beat the time you even once claimed that illegal immigrants had been all counted in Moscow and that we should all accept the inflated figure (even though its impossible to actually even get accurate estimates on illegal immigrants in other more developed countries around the world). :laugh:

Also source exactly the 27,224km², I've seen GLA reports that have said 22,000km², hence my hesitation even when I've known about the Wikipedia source from precious threads!

Nick, just stop. You do messing up everything that could be messed up. Comparing a state to region, comparing metropolitan region to metropolitan area, using clear area footage as bases of metropolian area explanation etc...

'tourists' who 'commuted in'
nick, i'll remind you that fabricating words and playing on them, stating forumers about their flows in english bringing a negative results.

ps. and go pace site and look up yourself. they did once reported about begards in moscow - how much of them and where are they from.
pps. and stop offtoping all the time and everywhere. if you don't have numbers and facts that could back up you, just say nothing.

I'm the one without facts! You come here making a statement and when unable to provide a credible source, you start to chuck around a few stats just to get a population equal to that of London's - in other words you form your own area just to get as close to the 18mn figure as possible. Even though the area is twice that of London's AND the transport links are less extensive and more dated! This is just another one of your idiotic comparisons - yes there are differences but you go out of the way just to confuse people more and then include some stories just to make things even more confusing! I do believe you've been warned before about this approach before, hence why you had a long absence from these sort of debates until just recently.

nick, as I told, if you don't have numbers and facts that can back up you, just say nothing. i did provided it you, using known understanding of metropolitan area. but as I was stated London has not metro, as well as Moscow and most of european cities, but only urban agglomerations. as they listed with it everywhere.

you personal dislike to staistics does make it wrong. only numbers shows reality. remember it.

Why are you going on about me? Your the one 'creating' figures out of nowhere! London does have a metro - its defined by the GLA for christs sake. You on the otherhand can't find a larger figure for a Moscow metro and thus resorted to throwing random stats about which show that your area covers a larger area which is populated by less people with lower population density and poorer transport links into Moscow than they are into London.

Publish an actual authoritative source for Moscow and then we can talk, until then don't bother.

Nick. Defining of what is metropolitan area is not made by me. It have usual understanding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_area

Since Russia does not recognize it. I used standards and showed you numbers that fills into this standards. If you simply dislike them - it doesn't make them wrong.

As for GLA - They NEVER defined London metropolitan area and its population. They defined METROPOLITAN REGION, which is not the same.
http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/london_plan/lon_plan_1.pdf
1.13 London is part of a metropolitan region of over 18 million people.


Nick - I wait just for one time you say - "Yes, I was wrong".

Guys just knock it off...
This thread has been brought off topic too many times already.

Copenhagen-Malmö Metropolitan Area boasts 3,6 million (this has probably been pointed out already though). ;)

Nick. Defining of what is metropolitan area is not made by me. It have usual understanding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_area

Since Russia does not recognize it. I used standards and showed you numbers that fills into this standards. If you simply dislike them - it doesn't make them wrong.

As for GLA - They NEVER defined London metropolitan area and its population. They defined METROPOLITAN REGION, which is not the same.
http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/london_plan/lon_plan_1.pdf
1.13 London is part of a metropolitan region of over 18 million people.


Nick - I wait just for one time you say - "Yes, I was wrong".Why am I the person in the wrong - you failed to provide an authoritative, authentic source showing any metro figures, so you went on to start showing data saying 'this' is what I think Moscow's metro area is mostly like.

A metro region and metro area are actually essentially the same thing - slightly different wording and methodology, but its not like their only measuring pears in, while the other is measuring apples in. Justme is the best person here who knows his business - I am though doubtful about yourself though.




SHiRO - As a mod could you please tell me whether Coth's 'attempt' at defining an immensely large (larger than the Netherlands) metro area/region is correct or not. Once we know this, the thread should be able to carry on without interference.

The authentic source you provided is not about we are talking about. But if you so want official source for Moscow - links is above. According to census of 2002 Moscow region is 17,1mln. Estimates for 2004 that was provided by Elbrus is 17,6mln. The region covers area of 47 000 sq km (just about 290x230km in average), one of smallest subjects in Russia. Moscow, for example, between most outline districts is about 45x60km (However, one part of City of Moscow located in 30km from city, about 70km from Kremlin).


And I remind you again. Not moderator and not area determine the meaning of metropolitan area. But international standads, based on many aspects, that is mostly based on connectivity - transportational, economical, political etc.
Using this standards Moscow metro is over 20mln. Your personal dislike to this fact doesn't make it wrong. You can argue to people that invented this standards, if they are still alive, not to me.

Your love to distorting the words and meanings to own understanding will not lead you to happiness...

Moscows region though isn't the same as a metropolitan region, let alone close to anything like a metropolitan area.

Also how the hell is Moscow's metro going to be over 20mn if it covers for a population of 17,1mn in an area already larger than the Netherlands and an area 2x that of London's metro. Adding just 3mn more must be adding several thousandkm² - the area you are thinking for must be upwards of 60-70,000km² - thats an area half the size of England for christs sakes. Keep on going and you'll probably manage to create a 'metro' that covers half of Russia.
Yet the connectivity is far poorer in the areas around Moscow - it has a smaller rail network so the likelihood of living furher out and being in the metro of Moscow decreases even more. Yet you must be claiming that the further out you go and the less connected you are that your automatically part of the metro.

I don't distort words and meanings - but when you start producing random facts for regions which have nothing to do with connectivity to the core then it does worry me.

Random facts is what pronouncing you. Metro does not depend on area. Local bus network and commuter lines goes up to 200 km from Moscow. Circle commuter line is almost 600 kilometers long. You forgetting that Russia is not Western Europe. With such size of country - we have very small dense of cities and towns - completely different planning. In Russia 150km is nothing. Still suburbia. Even Metropolitan area of Novosibirsk covers over 20000 sq km with 2,2mln. And Saint Petersburg - over 50000 sq km with 5,2mln. It is not a random fact. It is based on standards and not on - what you think should be.

You have defining of metropolitan area and you have numbers - you can calculate it yourself, not by getting random facts from politicians.

So, since metro is too low densed in Russia - it is not using, but using agglomeration.

And I still await. First time in your life you should grow and understand that you were wrong.

I'm sorry Coth - but your the one that stated an immense region 2x the size of the London metro as a sort of half-attempt at a Moscow metro. You then stated that this metro is infact larger including some 20mn+ people in what must surely be an area nearly HALF THE SIZE OF ENGLAND.

So your telling me that I could travel 150km and still be in a Moscow suburb? Even though the transport connections are far more limited, more dated and slower than London's, yet your telling me that people commute form even further away into Moscow every day - even travelling 8hrs each day commuting in and out of Moscow - do you realise how stupid that sounds.

Where am I wrong? Your stating that I am wrong when the GLA clearly define a metro region which is practically identical to a metro area. You though manage to not only create a ridiculously large 'region', but then state that the 'metro area' is infact far larger based on your own reasoning that it should be. For christs sake your making a joke of the GKS and all its values! I just don't get why mods won't come in here and actually provide another view to this cause this is just getting ridiculous.

Nick, I don't want argue on stupid fact that metro depend on area. You can research of map of suburban bus and rail network of Moscow and all other data yourself. I don't want spend time on this and on you. Before you don't find - don't return to discussion.

@ coth & nick-taylor : some visual info for you guys :)


European urbanisation :

http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/5484/euro35du.jpg

urbanisation more detailed :

Spain

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/ERD/DB/data/maps/spain_1.jpg

Germany

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/ERD/DB/data/maps/germany_0.jpg

France

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/ERD/DB/data/maps/france_0.jpg

Great Britain & Ireland

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/ERD/DB/data/maps/gb_0.jpg

Italy

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/ERD/DB/data/maps/italy_1.jpg

Scandinavia

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/ERD/DB/data/maps/scandi_0.jpg

From the French northern most coast to Göteborg :eek:

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/ERD/DB/data/maps/benlux_0.jpg

European population

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/ERD/DB/data/maps/pop_1.jpg

Beautiful maps V-200 :eek:

Really really beautiful!! Thanks :)

From the first map I came to the conclusion that whole Europe is only one immense metro area! :D

Wow. Cool maps! For Scandinavia one, Helsinki and Oslo looks largest, and Copenhagen-Malmö smallest (since they are so dense built)! :eek:

I must feel sorry for these poor residents of Moscow "metro area" who travel to work and home for 3-4 hours each way every day. :laugh:
And I thought 40 minutes to get from Kingston (that's where I live, it's zone 4, almost on the edge of greater London area) to central London (where I work) was alot! :D

hi all , here i will try to figure the top metro regions of europe out iwhat you think asbout my stats are they realistc ; : hre the are

1.) London metro ( includes the southwest of england , southend on sea and reading ) 13 mill +
2.) rhein ruhr metro ( includes the ruhrgebiet , cologne , bonn , hamm , leverkusen , wesel , mönchengladbach ; 12 mill+
3 .) Paris metro (includes marne la valle , evry , cwry pontoise , st quentin en yvelines 11 mill +

4 .)Moscow area 10 mill+
5.) Saint petersburg 6 mill +
6.) madrid metro 6 mill+
7 ) the sclesian vally polad 6 mill+
8.) barcelona metro 4 mill +
7.) athens metro (incl. kifisia , pireaus ) 4 mill+
8.) berlin metro( incl oranienburg , strausberg , potsdam .. ) 4 mill+
9.) Milano metro ( incl . monza , rho .. 5 mill +
10.) Randstad incl amsterdam haarlem , rotterdam , den haag utrecht 8 mill
+
11.) frankfurt etro ( incl hanau , offenbach, russelsheim , mainz wiesbaden ) 3 mil+
12) the swiss midands ( incl , st louis , basel , zurich , bern , olten .. 3 mill+
13 .) rome etro 3 mill+
14 .) stuttgart metro 3 mill+
15 hamburg metro 2 mill +
16 ) brussls metro 2 mill +
17) Copenhagen - malmö 2 mill +
18) Stockholm metro 2 mill +
17 :9 oslo metro 1 mill+
18.) lisbon metro 1mill+
19 warsaw metro 1 mill +
20.) munich metrop 1 mill +

what u think about it are my facts accurate ?

Madrid Metrop.: 5.900.000 inhab.
Barcelona Metrop.: 5.300.000 inhab.
;)

confusion, confusion... :)
1: I think one thing everybody can agree on is that Moscow is the largest CITY in Europe with 11.3mln people living on 1,100 sq.km (2004 figures from Wikipedia).
2: Urban areas (uninterupted build-up areas) are harder to define but London and Moscow seem to have a good chance of being equal there with roughly 13-14 mln each.(although London whould be far less dense)
3: Metro Areas are very hard to define(especialy with different standards applyed in different countries) and have very little to do with cities. And the largest european metro area is the Rhein metro(30 mln people ;) ).Can be seen on Population density meps above!
Moscow, London, or enything else for that matter do not come close to it.
4: I'm also reasonably sure that Istanbul can challenge both cities on points 1 and 2

I must feel sorry for these poor residents of Moscow "metro area" who travel to work and home for 3-4 hours each way every day. :laugh:
And I thought 40 minutes to get from Kingston (that's where I live, it's zone 4, almost on the edge of greater London area) to central London (where I work) was alot! :DI think Coth is one of these such individuals - spending 1/3 of your working life on a train is the only explanation of his odd 'issues'.

Apparently I'm meant to study the rail and bus maps to find out how big this metro area is, even though its smaller than London's in the first place :laugh:

Nick, have you found map? If not - why you return to discussion?

I think Coth is one of these such individuals - spending 1/3 of your working life on a train is the only explanation of his odd 'issues'.

Apparently I'm meant to study the rail and bus maps to find out how big this metro area is, even though its smaller than London's in the first place :laugh:

Let's count. Say a normal working day is 8 hours (for many people it might be much longer though). So you spend 8 hours at work plus 7-8 hours (!) travelling to work and home (Moscow's case according to coth). When do these people sleep, eat and do other essential things? :eek:

Very cool maps, thanks!

Wow. Cool maps! For Scandinavia one, Helsinki and Oslo looks largest, and Copenhagen-Malmö smallest (since they are so dense built)! :eek:

Yes, but I think the urban area around Oslo is sort of inflated on this map. Oslo's urban area does not connect with the towns in the southern part of the Oslofjord, like shown here. If so, it would have a population on 1,8 million! It is one economical region though, often referred to as "sentrale Østlandet".

Let's count. Say a normal working day is 8 hours (for many people it might be much longer though). So you spend 8 hours at work plus 7-8 hours (!) travelling to work and home (Moscow's case according to coth). When do these people sleep, eat and do other essential things? :eek:I think if anyone around the world managed (let alone do it day-in, day-out) to do that, I would question their sanity! Then again this could prove negativeto society by provingn unstable families, higher suicide + murder rates, etc...

Also I'm unsure why Coth wants me to look for rail + bus maps to show how big the metro area is. Is he trying to now tell me that the metro area/region is defined by the transport companies? Next I'll be told to check McDonalds or Pizza Hut to find out the metro for Moscow!

The map looks cool, but it's really to be taken sceptical. For example it looks like Helsinki-Turku-Tampere is one big metro with Helsinki as the same size and density as inner Paris... Glasgow-Edingburgh has the size and density of Milano... I think it's based on light intensity. That also explains Belgium as totally red (even though it IS densly populated) - the streets there are all lighted, also during the night.

The map looks cool, but it's really to be taken sceptical. For example it looks like Helsinki-Turku-Tampere is one big metro with Helsinki as the same size and density as inner Paris... Glasgow-Edingburgh has the size and density of Milano... I think it's based on light intensity. That also explains Belgium as totally red (even though it IS densly populated) - the streets there are all lighted, also during the night.


the reason is those maps dont have the same scale ;)

If you look at the European map, you will notice, for instance, the Milan area is probably the second widest in Europe, a highly urbanized area from Milan down to Venice.

John, 4 hours, is what you will get sometimes on car - 10 kilometers within city climit, if hard trafic. Or 10 minutes on metro.


Nick, so how can you argue since you don't even know what you are talking about? Metro - hardly depend on connectivity. Not on area or McDonalds network. Again, stupid claims from you.


Damn, Nick, who did brought you up? This is very negative distinctive feature - not to know how to admit own mistakes.

the reason is those maps dont have the same scale ;)

If you look at the European map, you will notice, for instance, the Milan area is probably the second widest in Europe, a highly urbanized area from Milan down to Venice.I think your referring to either the River Po Valley or Padania ;)

The 'widest' area would without question the Brussels-Amsterdam-Ruhr area from observing the main European overview. The largest 'individual' blobs being London, Moscow and Paris.


John, 4 hours, is what you will get sometimes on car - 10 kilometers within city climit, if hard trafic. Or 10 minutes on metro.

Nick, so how can you argue since you don't even know what you are talking about? Metro - hardly depend on connectivity. Not on area or McDonalds network. Again, stupid claims from you.

Damn, Nick, who did brought you up? This is very negative distinctive feature - not to know how to admit own mistakes.4 hrs in a car one way and another 4hrs on the way back each day is seriously crazy. Assuming the average speed of around 60mph (inc traffic jams, old car, poor/old road infrastructure, traffic lights, etc...) - 4hrs journey could see you travel maybe 240miles! Thats further than London - Paris (212miles). Stop making up these idiotic theories!

So now metro's aren't dependent on connectivity? So how do the people commute in then if connections are poor or non-existant with Moscow? Afterall to be in the metro, there has to be a certain percentage of people able to commute into Moscow in the first place, but now your arguing otherwise! I also only made the McDonalds gesture because you seem to be telling me now that metro's are defined by the Moscow + Russian transport authorities! Also where am I wrong - if I am wrong, prove it! To top it off - your the one throwing figures and sources not related to metro's aimlessly!

Nick if you never heard of what is traffic, then it's not my problems.

And another reminder - there is no official language on forum. Hardly - i meant heavily - and you did understood it.

So later I would like to talk in Russian.

Nick if you never heard of what is traffic, then it's not my problems.

And another reminder - there is no official language on forum. Hardly - i meant heavily - and you did understood it.

So later I would like to talk in Russian.Talk in russian if you want, but it will only dent your credibility (who understand english more than russian) further and make you look like a fool for being unable to prove yourself right! I still await a credible reply from yourself in regards to a close estimate for the Moscow 'metro'.

Nick - reply has been. You didn't admited it because you simply dislike it.

Any else questions - in Russian.

I think your referring to either the River Po Valley or Padania ;)

The 'widest' area would without question the Brussels-Amsterdam-Ruhr area from observing the main European overview. The largest 'individual' blobs being London, Moscow and Paris.



:| in fact I wrote the "second" widest area as clearly " the Brussels-Amsterdam-Ruhr area" is by far the biggest in Europe.

I wrote "Milan area" as it's by far the biggest city in that area and I doubt many forumers know the "River Po Valley or Padania " (which corresponds roughly at the same area)>

Nick - reply has been. You didn't admited it because you simply dislike it.

Any else questions - in Russian.

What about Lithuanian? :D

Is he talking to you? Or I am?

^^
what? :|

:| in fact I wrote the "second" widest area as clearly " the Brussels-Amsterdam-Ruhr area" is by far the biggest in Europe.

I wrote "Milan area" as it's by far the biggest city in that area and I doubt many forumers know the "River Po Valley or Padania " (which corresponds roughly at the same area)>I think you mis-read what I said. I never stated that you were wrong - I just said that:

I think your referring to either the River Po Valley or Padania

At least read what I say before reply! Christ! Also just because many people don't know an area, it doesn't mean you start saying that somehow:

the Milan area is probably the second widest in Europe, a highly urbanized area from Milan down to Venice.

Your saying here that the entire area from Milan to Venice (152miles or 245km) is the 'Milan area'. Quite simply the more correct terminology here would have either been either Padania or the River Po Valley....which is right.




Nick - reply has been. You didn't admited it because you simply dislike it.

Any else questions - in Russian.So you admit to being unable to provide a metro area figure other than one that you 'think up'?

So your Milan area is the entire Po valley , right ?

The Po Valley is an urban corridor as the Swiss Midlands or the Euregio Rhein (Basel-Strasbourg-Karlsruhe) - it is a polycentric big economical area, an urban network. And as this one of the densest populated bigger areas on the continent. I wouldn't call that "Milano Metro" as the Swiss Midlands are not "Zurich Metro" or the Regio Basiliensis is only part of the Euregio Rhein...

So you admit to being unable to provide a metro area figure other than one that you 'think up'?
Are you off road? I did it.
Nick, admit you were wrong. Grow up for few years.

I think you mis-read what I said. I never stated that you were wrong - I just said that:

I think your referring to either the River Po Valley or Padania

At least read what I say before reply! Christ!


:| my god that's what I call "to have a chip in the shoulder"! Dont be so aggressive as I dont think I NEVER claimed you stated I was wrong :|

Again I just pointed out what is the second widest area and I didn't deny it's the Po Valley or Padania area, but I just wrote:

I wrote "Milan area" as it's by far the biggest city in that area as I doubt many forumers know the "River Po Valley or Padania "

So just cool down.

So your Milan area is the entire Po valley , right ?No, what I'mBack was trying to state was that the immense area that connects and includes Venice and Milan (over 150miles) was some how the 'milan area'. The correct term would be either to describe the entire regional area of Padania or more refined, the River Po Valley which is what I talked about previously in my posts in this thread and got I'mBack in a mood cause cause hes Italian.




Are you off road? I did it.
Nick, admit you were wrong. Grow up for few years.I think the correct term would be off-the-rails ;)

Also if you think I'm so wrong - source exactly where I was wrong. If you fail to do this then you fail to have a case against me and that will only make you look dumber:
- Accusing someone of being wrong, even though they themselves can't actually come up with figures themselves
- Failing to actually provide a correct source that details a 'Moscow metro' without starting throwing figures of a region around.

:| my god that's what I call "to have a chip in the shoulder"! Dont be so aggressive as I dont think I NEVER claimed you stated I was wrong :|

Again I just pointed out what is the second widest area and I didn't deny it's the Po Valley or Padania area, but I just wrote:

I wrote "Milan area" as it's by far the biggest city in that area as I doubt many forumers know the "River Po Valley or Padania "

So just cool down.Don't be aggressive? If you thought that, then why did you reply to me when I was clearly just pointing out the facts and not actually proving you wrong other than your terminology of the area which is false to be referred as the 'Milan area' - an area in length of 150m+!!!!

I think your the one who needs to cool down and stop being aggressive - just look at your signature AND all these in most of your posts directed to me: ":|"

Sounds like its got to you ;)

I think the correct term would be off-the-rails ;)
Do you know how it will be in Russian? no? then please stop notice about such things to forumers;)


Also if you think I'm so wrong - source exactly where I was wrong. If you fail to do this then you fail to have a case against me and that will only make you look dumber:
- Accusing someone of being wrong, even though they themselves can't actually come up with figures themselves
- Failing to actually provide a correct source that details a 'Moscow metro' without starting throwing figures of a region around.
You called metro region of London as metro area and tryed to prove it without any figures and sources that can back up you. i did provided you figures. you don't like them. have you found commuter map of moscow? no? then stop claiming that are you don't know about.

Do you know how it will be in Russian? no? then please stop notice about such things to forumers;)

You called metro region of London as metro area and tryed to prove it without any figures and sources that can back up you. i did provided you figures. you don't like them. have you found commuter map of moscow? no? then stop claiming that are you don't know about.Well Russian isn't the primary language on the board: english is.

Why do I need to prove myself? You did the work for me ealier in the thread regarding the figure for 18mn and London! I don't like your figures because they are ones you made up on the spot and you also said that the 'true' Moscow metro was far larger than the area and figure you gave, which I find personally quite funny! An area larger than the Netherlands with poorer connectivity!

Also this is the closest thing I can find to a Moscow commuter rail map: http://parovoz.com/maps/moscow_region.gif - about as legible as your posts! Find me another one - your the one who is meant to be proving a point about Moscow's metro. Now run on and do your homework!

Nick, I was showed it already.
The map of lines of suburban rail network of City of Moscow.
Note digits near every stations. It is kilometer from central stations.
http://metrozzz.narod.ru/raznoe/maps/prigorodny2002.gif

It's loading long, just wait for few 10-20 minutes. I can't move to another place. It's copyrighted.

Map for buses will be gigantic (if including small local routes). I can't find it online. Only seen it on paper. So if you will find it, then it will be good...

So where is it on spot? Maps of commuter rail network says all cities (you should know Russian to read from picture).

So in commuter belt Moscow covers over 20mln. (18mln + parts of other regions. all info on population of cities and regions on official census site www.perepis2002.ru, if you don't know russian you can find all this census figures on citypopulation.de)

However I can help with big cities at least outside of Moscow region, but connected by commuter network.
Tver (405thous), Kymry (50thous), Alexsandrov (65thous), Vladimir (315thous), Ryszan' (520thous), Paveletskies cities (don't know), Tula (480thous), Novomoskovsk (135thous), Obninsk (108thous), Kaluga (335thous), Gagarin (30thous), Vyaz'ma (60thous).

Those are official in commuter belt of Moscow. What's here on spot?

10-20mins to load? It times out when trying to connect and I can't download directly from the link you posted in both Firefox and IE and I'm on a pretty damn fast connection. If I can't access it I can't check it! D/L, zip it and upload it to a fileshare program.


Looking at your other 'work', I note they state Moskva oblast has a population of 6,618,538 (2002) over an area of 47,000km². Moscow itself has a popualtion of 10,383,000 (2002) over an area of 1,097km²....


Moscow 'Region'
Population - 17,001,538
Area - 48,097km²


London Metro Region
Population - 18mn
Area - 22-27,000km²


Netherlands
Population - 16,297,196
Area - 41,526 km²


Difference is the latter two both have HSR and/or tilting trains to allow people to move across longer distances quickly AND large networks which have modern trainsets, etc...

Nick - it is copyrighted. I can't move it. Just wait until it loaded.
Moscow Region is 45900 sq km. City of Moscow - 1089 sq km. Total - 47000 sq km.


Again Nick - you stick AREA to the metro meaning. It's wrong. As for HSR - those is not suburban network. There are fast expresses (on suburban trains, btw) that goes up to 400 kilometers from Moscow. To such cities as Yaroslavl', Orel, Smolensk etc.

Right I did a quick count:

Moscow
Commuter rail: 596 stations
Subway: 165 stations
Tota: 761 stations
Amount of km² per station: 63.2

London
City Proper: 552 stations
Metro: 600 stations
Total: 1152 stations
Amount of km² per station: 21.2


Difference: 2.97x


So not only does Moscow have a smaller network....it has smaller coverage due the far larger area: 48,097km² compared to 22-27,000km² for London. Not only that, but Moscow has older and slower trains. It also lacks a HSR system or tilting train system. I'm sorry Coth, but everyway you look at it - Moscow seems to have a pretty god damn small transport network for an immense area. If I included an area that large for London (ie approx 48,097km²), then the station count would shoot up to around 1,400 stations - nearly double the count for Moscow.

That said, that map is only 200kb, but seemed to take around 10mins to download when I tried again today. Also London has god knows how many fast express lines - there are alone 4 express lines to 4 of the 5 London international airports. Paris is some 341km away by 300kph Eurostar you daft idiot and although Eurostars and Pendolino's aren't mainstream commuter trains, you'd have to be kidding me if you think Moscow has 400km suburban express services. Those must be journies of at least 4hrs+. :laugh:

Bad days Nick? Again? :ohno: :laugh:
Which time you trying to say that metro depend only on area?

As for your questions - answer is one:
If you see the map of Russia. You can notice that consistence of settlements in Russia much less than in Western Europe.

Right I did a quick count:

Moscow
Commuter rail: 596 stations
Subway: 165 stations
Tota: 761 stations
Amount of km² per station: 63.2

London
City Proper: 552 stations
Metro: 600 stations
Total: 1152 stations
Amount of km² per station: 21.2


Difference: 2.97x


So not only does Moscow have a smaller network....it has smaller coverage due the far larger area: 48,097km² compared to 22-27,000km² for London. Not only that, but Moscow has older and slower trains. It also lacks a HSR system or tilting train system. I'm sorry Coth, but everyway you look at it - Moscow seems to have a pretty god damn small transport network for an immense area. If I included an area that large for London (ie approx 48,097km²), then the station count would shoot up to around 1,400 stations - nearly double the count for Moscow.

That said, that map is only 200kb, but seemed to take around 10mins to download when I tried again today. Also London has god knows how many fast express lines - there are alone 4 express lines to 4 of the 5 London international airports. Paris is some 341km away by 300kph Eurostar you daft idiot and although Eurostars and Pendolino's aren't mainstream commuter trains, you'd have to be kidding me if you think Moscow has 400km suburban express services. Those must be journies of at least 4hrs+. :laugh:

"Commuter" journey of 400km (which is of course nonsense but let's just pretend so) in Russia would last about 7-8 hours considering outdated railway system and stops. :|

Well you asked me to look at the map, but it showed that Moscow has less stations over a far larger area. Your points are eroding away like sandstone does when hit by waves. Face it - no matter how you define Moscow's metro it is going to be smaller than London's - even when you use an immense area to try and somehow justify it. Yet even though the area you come up with is actually a region, you claim the Moscow metro area somehow even larger than that! Just to get a larger population than London's metro, you have to try and get an area that is approaching half the land mass of England! :laugh:

"Commuter" journey of 400km (which is of course nonsense but let's just pretend so) in Russia would last about 7-8 hours considering outdated railway system and stops. :|So Russians travel some 16hrs each day to work 7hrs (+1hr break)...only to get back home to instantly get back on the train for work. :laugh:

Coth, just dont listen to Nick: he will never admit Moscow has a bigger metro area than London (or more generally will never admit there are far better cities than London).

The good point is that all the websites list Moscow with a bigger Metro area than London as the 18 mil figure for London comes only from the .... mayor of London, which is quite well known to be a big-headed mayor and selling stories in order to be a more credible mayor of a city with a 18 millions metro area. ;)

So, Coth, let him believe what he wants, fortunately the rest of the world can see Moscow metro area is bigger than London (I'm now expecting a far-too-long-post-to-ready by Nick :D ).

IMHO, Moscow area is around 13/14M while London is more 11/13M. (well, by checking several websites :D )

OK all points are made, so no need to continue this LDN/Moscow "discussion"...

"Commuter" journey of 400km (which is of course nonsense but let's just pretend so) in Russia would last about 7-8 hours considering outdated railway system and stops. :|
John, before you trying to argue. Or even calling something nonsense. You should check - if it is true or not. What you stated - is nonsense. You have Yandex and you can find all data - suburban expresses maps, timetables etc.

OK all points are made, so no need to continue this LDN/Moscow "discussion"...
ok.

Coth, just dont listen to Nick: he will never admit Moscow has a bigger metro area than London (or more generally will never admit there are far better cities than London).

The good point is that all the websites list Moscow with a bigger Metro area than London as the 18 mil figure for London comes only from the .... mayor of London, which is quite well known to be a big-headed mayor and selling stories in order to be a more credible mayor of a city with a 18 millions metro area. ;)

So, Coth, let him believe what he wants, fortunately the rest of the world can see Moscow metro area is bigger than London (I'm now expecting a far-too-long-post-to-ready by Nick :D ).

IMHO, Moscow area is around 13/14M while London is more 11/13M. (well, by checking several websites :D )Where are the sources that say Moscow has the largest metro? Coth was unable to enlighten me and even when you take an area that is larger than the Netherlands and nearly 2x the size of London's metro you still only get a population of 17,001,538, ie 1mn short of London's metro. Maybe if Coth was unable to provide the source - you can as you obviously seem to know more than him regarding metros and Moscow. Coth believes it to be around 21mn - can you back him up on that? I want authoritiative government or academic sources also. Now carry on - you have work to do!

11/13mn? No the GLA define it as 18mn....I think they might have more understand than yourself in this issue, but you won't admit that cause that would be proving me right and proving you wrong.

I don't really understand this discussion - you CAN'T compare London and Moscow! The latter is much denser populated by the commieblock plannings in communist time, which also spread over the ring motorway and city border nowadays. Outside of this dense area is a ring of Datshas, which are part of the metro but only inhabited during weekends mostly. London planning is different - endless attatched or semi-attatched two-floor houses form a carpet around the center, then comes the green belt and outside the ring of new towns.

The morphological structure of the two metros is extremly different (though the landscape is the same, but the modern history and planning isn't). It's the same as if you would compare the (naturally) dense HK with Berlin - one of the "greenest" and less densest populated metropolis.

^^ No, they aren't totally comparable, but do you agree with Coth saying that people commute 4hrs or over 400km each day to work in Moscow? That is the way that Coth is trying to state the 'Moscow metro' is set as.

Then we have I'mBack here claiming to know more than the GLA!

4 hours is maybe both ways. And this is possible. Here in Switzerland if you are looking for a job and register as unemployed you have to get any job that is offered to you in a surrounding of 2 hours commuting each way... But 4 hours ONE way I didn't even see in Sao Paulo, there I have to agree.

I also had about 2.5 hours from the airport to the city center in Moscow and the driver told me it's absolutly normal... I never would drive there voluntarlily with this perfect metro system anyway. Same goes for London.

nick. i repeat you again. not one official source saying metro area for london and for moscow. most of sources, according to standards, using commuter belt for metro area.
so area of commuter belt of moscow is less dense, but covers much larger area with larger population. off course not much people use suburban expresses to get work in moscow. only a few. but it's still commuter belt of moscow. my dacha for example located in 170km from moscow in suburb of tver'. there are many muscovites. and i know poeple that go to work to moscow or another provincial city like klin (90km from moscow), solnechnogorsk (80km, actually city under city of moscow administrative control) or in zelonograd(40km, but since 1994 it is district of moscow). on my direction there is big suburban settlement zavidovo, located in about 120-130km from moscow, near moscow sea. another one big located between solnechnogorsk and klin.
Nick, Kuesel stated very correctly. London and Moscow is a big gap in planning. Even like Russia and Western Europe.

Kuesel - No Coth is telling us that people commute 4hrs in and then 4hrs back - ie 1/3 of their entire day spent on transport to get to and from home to work. 2hrs each way is stretching it for the 'masses' - ie large majority of people, even in megacities like Tokyo where transport is second to none. Yet Coth is saying people commute somewhere close to 400km. That's like travelling from Geneva to Lucerne and then back again: just for the morning commute and they then commute the same distance in the evening.

The fact is the infrastructure is far older than in say the developed western economies and yet apparently a lot of people still make these commutes. Some of the lines in the map Coth provided are around 250km long (ie radiating out) - thats like taking a train from London up past Birmingham and then up to Manchester, Leeds and Liverpool (ie some 3/4's of the UK population within the same area around London) without any HSR or tilting train technology to speed the journey up!




Coth - The Moscow region already has a far larger area, but still a smaller population. The distances you talk of (ie around 400km away as being used by suburban train services) are ridiculous! Even if you took into account the different planning systems, you'd have to be seriously joking that 400km (ie 800km each work day) one-way commutes are common each day. Thats like people commuting between Osaka and Tokyo! The number of which is very small.

as for 4 hours Nick - i did explained - it is within city limits because of hard traffic on roads sometimes. it could be 4 hours on car or 10 minutes on metro.

as for 400km. nick - do you understand words SUBURBAN EXPRESS? it is not hsr between cities. it is SUBURBAN! I didn't used it in 20mln definition. Including those expresses metro area of moscow will be 30mln (central federal district of russia). but since standards is exists you should use it, instead of spreading up figures that you like.

So I can take a train 400km out from Moscow....and it would be called a Suburban Express? 400km away from the centre of Moscow and thats a suburban service! So now the Moscow metro balloons up to 30mn!

Also if you are referring to the larger region of: Central'nyj Federal'nyj Okrug, of which Moscow is the capital of, it has a population of 38,000,651 (2002) covering....and wait for this; an area of: 652,800km². Thats an area greater than the United Kingdom (244,820 km² - 59,553,800, 2003) AND Japan (377,835 km² - 127,417,244, 2005) COMBINED! You'd have to be physically forcing me to shit myself if your beginning to tell me that, THAT area is somehow the Moscow metro!

Also you do know your giving I'mBack an even harder task of trying to prove you right!

nick, as i stated. i didn't mentioned it in 20mln definition. this is includes local suburban bas and rail network. i did stated you 30mln becuase you several dozen times said that metro depend on area and that your country has hsr so it could expand metro area. it is rubbish.

Well what are your lines of definition - your making claims to populations now in excess of 30mn and the only way that you could attain such a population is by having a metro area at least the size of Japan!

it isn't big for Russia. in XVIII century Moscow province area was defined as over 400 000 sq km...

Now your talking about provinces, what has that to do with you proving what Moscow's metro is exactly?

Also you do know your giving I'mBack an even harder task of trying to prove you right!

:|
Again twisting the facts and the stories? :|

If you read back my post I said:

Coth, just dont listen to Nick: he will never admit Moscow has a bigger metro area than London (or more generally will never admit there are far better cities than London).

The good point is that all the websites list Moscow with a bigger Metro area than London, as the 18 mil figure for London comes only from the .... mayor of London, which is quite well known to be a big-headed mayor and selling stories in order to be a more credible mayor of a city with a 18 millions metro area.

So, Coth, let him believe what he wants, fortunately the rest of the world can see Moscow metro area is bigger than London (I'm now expecting a far-too-long-post-to-ready by Nick ).
IMHO, Moscow area is around 13/14M while London is more around 11/13M. (well, by checking several websites )


Btw, I thought Shiro asked to stop with this discussion Moscow-London, but it seems you cant refrain from twisting stories ... as usual.
__________________

it was just about feeling of spaces in russia.

:|
Again twisting the facts and the stories? :|

If you read back my post I said:

Coth, just dont listen to Nick: he will never admit Moscow has a bigger metro area than London (or more generally will never admit there are far better cities than London).

The good point is that all the websites list Moscow with a bigger Metro area than London, as the 18 mil figure for London comes only from the .... mayor of London, which is quite well known to be a big-headed mayor and selling stories in order to be a more credible mayor of a city with a 18 millions metro area.

So, Coth, let him believe what he wants, fortunately the rest of the world can see Moscow metro area is bigger than London (I'm now expecting a far-too-long-post-to-ready by Nick ).
IMHO, Moscow area is around 13/14M while London is more around 11/13M. (well, by checking several websites )


Btw, I thought Shiro asked to stop with this discussion Moscow-London, but it seems you cant refrain from twisting stories ... as usual.
__________________So where are these 'websites'? I assume your inability to source them here is because your unable to actually prove your 'source'. Then again the GLA clearly states 18mn - the local authority governing London probably has more indication of what is coming in and out of the city than any websites that you might throw forward.

And where am I twisting the facts - where is your proof, if you say I am - you should be easily able to show exactly where? Is this a malicious unproven case against me? So where is your evidence - unable to provide any I can only asseme! I think though that this is more likely a personal attack on me because of your failings in the past?

Then again I'm only going by what the GLA (an authoritiative body) is saying and what Coth is saying here. While you are saying 13/14 mn for Moscow, Coth is stating otherwise and that Moscow's metro is well over 30mn+???? You on the other hand come up saying 'websites' (with no actual sources) saying 11-13mn for London. Yet its only ruling body states otherwise. Now do some work instead of being critical about an authoritative source that you dislike simply because it actually shows a large figure. Also this chat is more about Coth being unable to provide a source for an equivalent metro for Moscow - so far its been: 17mn - 18mn - 20mn - 30mn.....

Provide some source, preferably from agencies or authorities that actually have credibility, then I'll treat you like an adult. Failing that - don't bother with this thread again!

"Most websites" cite London as 11/14 million because they know jack shit about what they are talking about. Usually they only take the urbanized area or in some cases even only the figure for Greater London.
The GLA is the most authoritative source on the subject and says 18 million.
Another reliable sourch, French INSEE states a figure of 17 million+ and it uses stricter criteria than the US Census even. Either way, London's metro is way larger than Moscow's, which despite coth incoherent, unbacked by sources claims are.

London 18 million
Moscow 15 million

backed up by sources, reasonable and realistic...


Now can we please put this to rest?

My lord Coth you are at it again. Whenever you are proved wrong or that another city in Europe has a bigger this, or a bigger that, you come along and stretch the definitions to suit.

"Most websites" cite London as 11/14 million because they know jack shit about what they are talking about. Usually they only take the urbanized area or in some cases even only the figure for Greater London.
The GLA is the most authoritative source on the subject and says 18 million.
Another reliable sourch, French INSEE states a figure of 17 million+ and it uses stricter criteria than the US Census even. Either way, London's metro is way larger than Moscow's, which despite coth incoherent, unbacked by sources claims are.

London 18 million
Moscow 15 million

backed up by sources, reasonable and realistic...


Now can we please put this to rest?
shiro - it is very bad trollish behavior - spreading that someone posting something without sources, when sources was posted. :ohno:

nick that sources that says that moscow is 13-14mln also says that london 11-13mln. and it is agglomeration, because metro area is not existed.

and that 14mln for moscow is 2000-2500 sq km in maximum (only big cities, that borders with moscow and nothing else). may be it is even less that 2000 sq km.

since officially nobody define population of Moscow metro area.
you have next figures
1. Bus suburban network
2. Rail suburban local network (you can use full however;))
3. Populations
etc
you can calculate round figure yourself:)


and SHiRO, The GLA does not says that metro area is 18 million.


@pm, yeah, London is a center of universe :))

"Most websites" cite London as 11/14 million because they know jack shit about what they are talking about. Usually they only take the urbanized area or in some cases even only the figure for Greater London.
The GLA is the most authoritative source on the subject and says 18 million.
Another reliable sourch, French INSEE states a figure of 17 million+ and it uses stricter criteria than the US Census even. Either way, London's metro is way larger than Moscow's, which despite coth incoherent, unbacked by sources claims are.

London 18 million
Moscow 15 million

backed up by sources, reasonable and realistic...


Now can we please put this to rest?

I just hope for you, you just did some copy/past one of Nick's post ... or did nick give you some lessons? (sorry but you use the same words and expressions as Nick... or maybe you are the same person ...?? :D
This will explain why you hassle me with your PMs :D

PS: the signature is gone, happy?

PS: nick, just do any research and you will see that apart GLA (the most authorative source in the subject according to you and Shiro :| ) NO OTHER SITE/SOURCE will stat London's metro is 18M.

But again, if you wish to believe that's the London metro, fine for me. (ps: how it comes the "most authorative source" CANT define excatly how big is this metro "region" (I finally notice you dont use any longer the term "area" since I let you notice in the other thread :D ) ? You quote a figure between 22-27,000km²?!?!?

5,000km²are not peanuts! It's more than 3 times the area of Greater London!! So, how the "most authorative source" explains this 5,000km²??

because the reason the GLA did the research into London's metro is because there was no reliable figure for it previously.

I just hope for you, you just did some copy/past one of Nick's post ... or did nick give you some lessons? (sorry but you use the same words and expressions as Nick... or maybe you are the same person ...?? :D
This will explain why you hassle me with your PMs :D

PS: the signature is gone, happy?

PS: nick, just do any research and you will see that apart GLA (the most authorative source in the subject according to you and Shiro :| ) NO OTHER SITE/SOURCE will stat London's metro is 18M.

But again, if you wish to believe that's the London metro, fine for me. (ps: how it comes the "most authorative source" CANT define excatly how big is this metro "region" (I finally notice you dont use any longer the term "area" since I let you notice in the other thread :D ) ? You quote a figure between 22-27,000km²?!?!?

5,000km²are not peanuts! It's more than 3 times the area of Greater London!! So, how the "most authorative source" explains this 5,000km²??So now your claiming that me and SHiRO are the same person? Can't prove me wrong, so you decide to pick on a moderator now, eh?

Also why do I need to do the research? It is you that needs to prove yourself to me and others (using referrals to authoritative sources) of this apparent metro area that London has that the GLA seem to have got all wrong! Yet, like usual you fail to be able/willing/capable/competent enough to do the work - probably because your a troll and that's the 'pattern' they tend to follow!

Also area/region are principally the same - commuter and connectivity are the same (look at the methodology!). 27,224 km² is a figure given on wikipedia, but its nowhere to be seen on the GLA's website or in the London Plan. 22,000km² is a figure sometimes floated around.

And another reminder: no matter how many: ":|'s" you do, it won't get you out of trying to argue against the 18mn figure set by the GLA - the people who actually govern London and the people that commute into it!




nick that sources that says that moscow is 13-14mln also says that london 11-13mln. and it is agglomeration, because metro area is not existed.

and that 14mln for moscow is 2000-2500 sq km in maximum (only big cities, that borders with moscow and nothing else). may be it is even less that 2000 sq km.

since officially nobody define population of Moscow metro area.
you have next figures
1. Bus suburban network
2. Rail suburban local network (you can use full however)
3. Populations
etc
you can calculate round figure yourself


and SHiRO, The GLA does not says that metro area is 18 million.


@pm, yeah, London is a center of universe )The only place I can think of that claims that is the likes of Demographia using an unknown methodology (not the CMA/MSA methods used in the US) and is non-academic source or sources using figures for an 'area' that has high commuting.

Also why on earth would I need to use bus figures for long distance commuting? Moscow and the surrounding areas already have far less stations in a far larger area! Unless these are nuclear powered super-buses, I don't quite see how Moscow's 'metro' can balloon to over 30mn without taking in hundreds of thousands of km², or at least an area the size of Japan!

Yes Coth, the GLA does say 18mn: http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/london_plan/lon_plan_all.pdf - PAGE 103

Thanks for agreeing that it is the centre of the universe! Theres a few neurons making connections afterall!

nick just read carefuly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_area
area that covered by local suburban rail network and suburban bus network fills into definitions.
again you refering to area.
so i again say you. if takes all area it is big. but settlments on it is very rarely. over 42% of moscow region covered by forests, another 40 is just unused area. most of settlements located on rail ways. some cities located in outside of railways, but catched by bus network. if take on area of settlements it will not be bigger of 10 000 sq km.

and forget 30mln. i was stated it to stress on your nonsense statements.

At the regional level, London is at the centre of a potential market of
around 18 million people, by far the largest in the UK.
and?

again. no one source state metropolitan area for london and for moscow. everywhere cities stated with their agglomeration areas.

i'm off

^.... your rocker....

Are still in this fight?! For how many more days you wanna continue? Why not just say that according to most definitions and their combinations Moscow has a bigger area but a more concentrated urbanisation while London's urban sprawl is bigger in size. London city is smaller than Moscow's and it's metro bigger than the latter... easy, superficial, cleaned up and pronto! :lol:

Coth - Just say it: you think Moscow has a larger metro, even though this metro is poorly connected due to dated and slower transport routes that cover immense distances when compared to London which has greater connectivity, faster and more modern transportation routes of a greater number in a smaller area. Its not that hard to say it. How you manage to commute 400km one-way is another question though!

Nick you moving discussion to another points now. Now everthing depend on quality of commuter transport, which is pretty high in Moscow?

LOL :laugh:

as i said i'm off.
don't care of this discussion anymore.

So now your claiming that me and SHiRO are the same person? Can't prove me wrong, so you decide to pick on a moderator now, eh?

:|

Nick dont :cry:

It was a "joke" and nothing seriuos .... where's yr british humour gone??

Also why do I need to do the research? It is you that needs to prove yourself to me and others (using referrals to authoritative sources) of this apparent metro area that London has that the GLA seem to have got all wrong! Yet, like usual you fail to be able/willing/capable/competent enough to do the work - probably because your a troll and that's the 'pattern' they tend to follow!

Also area/region are principally the same - commuter and connectivity are the same (look at the methodology!). 27,224 km² is a figure given on wikipedia, but its nowhere to be seen on the GLA's website or in the London Plan. 22,000km² is a figure sometimes floated around.

And another reminder: no matter how many: ":|'s" you do, it won't get you out of trying to argue against the 18mn figure set by the GLA - the people who actually govern London and the people that commute into it!


Again, what I wrote was the only source stating London's area is 18mil is GLA, while all the other sources state London's area is roughly 11/13M. Again you are twisting my posts :|

And, again, if the GLA is such an "authorative source", how it comes it DOESN'T DEFINE how big is the London's area??

As, if I understood, the GLA doesn't specify this area?? How it comes? A such "authorative source" doesn't mention which area has been taken in consideration, but it has limited to give a 18M figure? (as apparently your "27,224 km²" figure comes from Wikipedia - I wouldn't be suprised if you were the one to have entered such figure in wikipedia :laugh:

Again, you believe what you want to, I will keep on believing what I see it's the most accepted (and the most reported in the most of the websites) figure for London(11/13M).

:|

:|

Nick dont :cry:

It was a "joke" and nothing seriuos .... where's yr british humour gone??



Again, what I wrote was the only source stating London's area is 18mil is GLA, while all the other sources state London's area is roughly 11/13M. Again you are twisting my posts :|

And, again, if the GLA is such an "authorative source", how it comes it DOESN'T DEFINE how big is the London's area??

As, if I understood, the GLA doesn't specify this area?? How it comes? A such "authorative source" doesn't mention which area has been taken in consideration, but it has limited to give a 18M figure? (as apparently your "27,224 km²" figure comes from Wikipedia - I wouldn't be suprised if you were the one to have entered such figure in wikipedia :laugh:

Again, you believe what you want to, I will keep on believing what I see it's the most accepted (and the most reported in the most of the websites) figure for London(11/13M).

:|Where is the 'joke' when you fail to provide a case. You'd never act like this in reality!

So just because they don't define its boundaries, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or isn't the population of a metro area equivalent. I suspect if someone was to ask the GLA for the exact boundaries they would actually be very welcoming in divulging such information. That said just because it doesn't go into detail, it doesn't mean that you automatically shrink its area down to areas defined by websites which are trying to define boundaries without the data that the GLA has access to. These people know more than anyone and that is where it should be left at than hypothesising other claims.

You will learn that sometimes the accurate stats don't show much, but varied stats tend to show up various figures and the like but lots of questions. The best comparison though is with New York City and its metro where more people commute in from just outside the city boundaries than London (due to the Green Belt), but in turn more people commuts into London from a bit further out than London from the immense new towns and old-market towns than New York. Sometimes you have to accept the facts from authoritative sources even if they don't meet all your demands. Then again the day of you accepting anything that London could be 'higher' or 'bigger' in the day you'd be on your death bed!




Coth - You won't 'participate' after putting forward ridiculous claims - firstly 18mn, then 20mn, then 30mn! The larger you went, the more insane the claims became!

Nick, you better to stop. It's a shame you can't reading in english.

So just because they don't define its boundaries, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or isn't the population of a metro area equivalent. I suspect if someone was to ask the GLA for the exact boundaries they would actually be very welcoming in divulging such information. That said just because it doesn't go into detail, it doesn't mean that you automatically shrink its area down to areas defined by websites which are trying to define boundaries without the data that the GLA has access to. These people know more than anyone and that is where it should be left at than hypothesising other claims.


:|
Sorry but I dont get it: you have been claiming GLA is the most authorative source, but this source CANT define London's area??

Moreover I find your point "if someone was to ask the GLA for the exact boundaries they would actually be very welcoming in divulging such information" ... a quite ridiculous statement :| : so they just wait for someone to ask for it?? :| Not what I would call an authorative source or a statement made by some "experts": they make a claim but then it's up to you to find out more???

How can you accept a statement without knowing what they are talking about?? :|

Sorry but I just accept what it can be proved or what it comes with more information and not just a claim... but then you are free to believe whatever you wish but dont try to force everybody to believe it.

btw, why do you pretend from Coth detailed information on Moscow's metro when you are not so "fussy" with the London's one??

ImBack you have been provided links which are from the GLA, yet you still think you seem to know more about London than the GLA.

You don't seem to grasp the concept of a travel to work area either.

:|
Sorry but I dont get it: you have been claiming GLA is the most authorative source, but this source CANT define London's area??

Moreover I find your point "if someone was to ask the GLA for the exact boundaries they would actually be very welcoming in divulging such information" ... a quite ridiculous statement :| : so they just wait for someone to ask for it?? :| Not what I would call an authorative source or a statement made by some "experts": they make a claim but then it's up to you to find out more???

How can you accept a statement without knowing what they are talking about?? :|

Sorry but I just accept what it can be proved or what it comes with more information and not just a claim... but then you are free to believe whatever you wish but dont try to force everybody to believe it.

btw, why do you pretend from Coth detailed information on Moscow's metro when you are not so "fussy" with the London's one??So websites which have no authority or academic background are more solid than . Also why is it ridiculous? Anyone could ask - I have no need to as the GLA states 18mn and thats pretty much okay with me.

Also you still have yet to provide sources that say otherwise and I mean credible sources, but basically what your saying to everyone here is that the GLA don't know what they're talking about....but you do - you know the intricacies of London and surrounding areabetter than them - even though they hint towards the area being 18mn?

Also we do know what they are talking about, because it notes that in the London Plan:


The centre of a metropolitan region – inter-regional collaborative working

London is part of a metropolitan region of over 18 million people. This
forms a ‘mega-city region’ in which there are a vast number of linkages
and networks between all the urban settlements. Within this wider region,
London performs the functions characteristic of the central city. It is the
main generator and source of jobs as well as of culture, leisure and
higher-level shopping activities. The interactions within the mega-city
region are increasing. The Mayor supports polycentric development across
the mega-city region in which Central London, London’s town centres and
the towns in the other two regions develop in a complementary manner.
He also supports the government’s proposed growth areas4 in Milton
Keynes, Thames Gateway, London-Stansted-Cambridge and Ashford
as important contributions to dealing with the pressures on land and
development in the mega-city region and sees these as complementary
to the growth strategy for London set out in this plan.

:laugh:

So again I request sources - you seem to be unable to do so when I request so!

I drill Coth for the pure fun - just to watch how he tries to worm his way up and out of the situation, only to get stuck into another hole. I can only assume though, that you're with him when it comes to 400km suburban express services and 'metros' the size of England or Japan?

Again you keep resorting to ":|'s" - as if you think you have the high ground, yet fail to provide any figures or sources which a body such as the GLA would recognise! :laugh:

So websites which have no authority or academic background are more solid than . Also why is it ridiculous? Anyone could ask - I have no need to as the GLA states 18mn and thats pretty much okay with me.

:| no need to comment this (not any longer)
(How it comes you, "Mr-I-know-everything", "Mr-I-dont-believe-it-if-you-dont-provide-evidences-of-your-claim", are not so keen on finding out how big is the area stated by GLA?? :|

Ps: btw, which "academic background" has GLA?? :|



I can only assume though, that you're with him when it comes to 400km suburban express services and 'metros' the size of England or Japan?


Again twisting my posts and making up stories?? :|
Pls show me where I agreed with Coth on the "400km suburban express services and 'metros' the size of England or Japan"... :|

Nevertheless, you let me realize he has came up, at the least, with a defined area (which I agree it's far too big), while for London's metro we still dont know... :|

Seriously, IU haven't read a word of what you said as those fucking rolling your eyes things - 6 of them, makes it just to distracting to read.

^:| well I did read, probably you haven't? :|

Come Englishman just be objective, just because is Nick, it doesn't mean you have to agree with him. ;)

PS: Just 2 :| for u :D

@I'mBack
leave him alone with his nonsense. follow your advice :)

:| no need to comment this (not any longer)
(How it comes you, "Mr-I-know-everything", "Mr-I-dont-believe-it-if-you-dont-provide-evidences-of-your-claim", are not so keen on finding out how big is the area stated by GLA?? :|

Ps: btw, which "academic background" has GLA?? :|




Again twisting my posts and making up stories?? :|
Pls show me where I agreed with Coth on the "400km suburban express services and 'metros' the size of England or Japan"... :|

Nevertheless, you let me realize he has came up, at the least, with a defined area (which I agree it's far too big), while for London's metro we still dont know... :|Still no sources to prove your point, yet you still find the ability to post more smilies! If you paid more attention to your sourcing and posts then you wouldn't have to worry about smilies!

Note that I stated: authority or academic background (forgot that when you quoted me did you?): the GLA is the Greater London Authority and the authority over London and the commuters into London!

I hypothesized that you supported Coth, as you were afterall targetting me even though there was a figure from an authority that is recognised globally and you originally failed to note Coth's 'figures'. There is though a difference between a hypothesis and a factual statement I'mBack! Actually Coth did not provide one defined area: he provided many - increasing from 18mn - 20mn - 30mn....

There is a map of the 17 million INSEE figure...

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/6702/londoninsee7ah.png

Happy now?

^ :|
but as you say that's an INSEE map not the one by GLA... :|

Sorry not happy yet

INSEE says 17 million and it has stricter standards than the US Census.
Either way, it is bigger than 14 million (your claim) and bigger than Moscow.

SHiRO you don't know how big is Moscow but you state that this one is bigger... :hilarious

I'm in Moscow now. Sorry Coth but the Moscow region is obviously much less densely populated than London/SE England. The commie blocks end and then there's nothing. There is no equivalent of the suburbanisation and commuter belt development than surrounds London. There are towns in the Golden Ring etc but they're tiny.

But this is what I said already: Moscow is very densly planned - also because the motorway ring was the city border (I think it's bigger now, but not much). Big-area urban planning with New Towns, Green Belt etc was never a topic in Moscow afaik. London metro has a bigger population, but on a bigger area as well. But it's anyway impressive how much space Moscow inside of the city still has - the big avenues, parks etc.

What are you doing in M.? A friend of mine works there and maybe I will also visit him again - if I find the money for it ;)

Monkey, as I said - region has very low dense. Even City of Moscow has very low dense outside of historical center. Commieblocks sleeping districts has very low dense.

You can't comparing London to Moscow saying in London we have real suburbanisation and Moscow don't because it's not like our. We have different standards on planning. It's like saying that commieblocks is not European architecture, because it's not typical for UK.

Have you been to such cities like Serpukhov, Klin, Kolomna, Mozhaisk, Borodino etc?

And what Golden Ring having to do with Moscow metro area? It is touristical route around central Russia through historical cities.

http://www.zolotoe-koltso.ru/images/ring_big1.jpg

I have difficulties in believing in the likes of "Rheir-Ruhr" and "Delta-metropolis" metro areas... We're talking about two different types of agglomerations!!! They should be in another league!

It's because in the title it's written "polycentric" and that's what they are ;)

Sorry guys was reading bits and pieces of this thread, couldnt help but notice that Glasgow's Metro was almost entirely neglected from most lists:

Glasgow City pop: 652,000

Greater Glasgow Area pop: 1,700,000

Glasgow Strathclyde Region pop: 2,200,000

Glasgow Metro Area pop (Which includes Edinburgh - the 2 cities are only 35miles apart from boundary to boundary) : 3,700,000

Monkey, as I said - region has very low dense. Even City of Moscow has very low dense outside of historical center. Commieblocks sleeping districts has very low dense.

You can't comparing London to Moscow saying in London we have real suburbanisation and Moscow don't because it's not like our. We have different standards on planning. It's like saying that commieblocks is not European architecture, because it's not typical for UK.

Have you been to such cities like Serpukhov, Klin, Kolomna, Mozhaisk, Borodino etc?

And what Golden Ring having to do with Moscow metro area? It is touristical route around central Russia through historical cities.

http://www.zolotoe-koltso.ru/images/ring_big1.jpgIf the density is so low and connectivity to Moscow slight then I don't see how these vast tracts of land can be considered part of Moscow's metro region. I flew into both Domodedovo and Sheremetyevo Airports. You can see the surrounding region from on high and it's forest and farmland. The equivalent distance from central London is much more built up.

Domodedovo is nearest suburb of Moscow. Sheremet'yevo situated between two city districts.

The density is not low by Russian standards. You can get a map to see where is settlements located.

MILANO 1.250.000
MILANO METRO AREA 2.400.000

Milano metro is more like 3.6mio and the economical area more than 5mio (including also the southern part of Ticino and Varese area. The problem is that Italy doesn't make metro statistics - don't know why and never will understand it, especially that without how they want to solve the problems of commuter traffic.

I thought Milan's metro region was more like 7 or even 8 million?

^^
It's difficult to define the bigness of Milan metro

Shortly: as I said at the beginning of this thread, simply if we consider a Radium of 50 kms from the center of the city we can comprehend a population of about 7.3 mio hinabitants

If we cohomprend even Ticino in Switzerland, Brescia Province 75 km East, and Piacenza and Cremona on the South we can reach a population of about 10 mio

But I think a more appropriate (the most apropriate) size for the metro area is the first one :)

ISTAN YORK CITY

City center: 1991 km2
Metro area: 5712 km2

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/6445/gayretepe17lx.jpg

http://wowturkey.com/tr56/can_a_P72600401i.jpg

https://extranet.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2004/08/292100.jpg

Big three

Moscow -15 million
Istanbul -13.3 million
London - 13.1 million

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

Warsaw

Population
City 1 705 300 516.9 km² (199.6 sq mi)
Urban Area 2,251,474 876,43 km²
Metro area 2,700,000 3,897 km2
by officia estimates while some much higher unofficial estimates are often published is about 3 000 000 in City and Urban (information from Warsaw Transport Authority,Central Statistical Office)

Poland's biggest metro regions (polycentric and city regions):

http://img60.imageshack.us/img60/6273/aglomeracjebn0.png

Metro area 2,700,000 3,897 km2
according to Eurostat Warsaw had 2,660,406 ppl on 5,198.52 km2 in 2004
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larger_Urban_Zones_(LUZ)_in_the_European_Union

Metropolitan Region Ostrava-Rybnik-Katowice-Cracow - about 7-8 mln with density 300-400 people per square km

for Warsaw according to GUS (Central Statistical Office ) in 2008:
city-1 707 981
metro-3 370 000
density-3 302 p/km

Metropolitan Region Ostrava-Rybnik-Katowice-Cracow - about 7-8 mln with density 300-400 people per square km

Sure, only if you count whole Silesian Voivodship (4,6 mln) with Częstochowa, Bielsko Biała, and a big part of Małopolskie Voivodship (3,2 mln). Wiki says that velká ostravská aglomerace has about 800 000 ppl. So I can't believe in that 8 mln unfortunately.

according to Eurostat Warsaw had 2,660,406 ppl on 5,198.52 km2 in 2004
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larger_Urban_Zones_(LUZ)_in_the_European_Union

In an another article are different data
Area
- City 517 km2 (199.6 sq mi)
- Metro 6,100.43 km2 (2,355.4 sq mi)

Population (2009)
- City 1 706 724
- Density 3,291/km2 (8,523.7/sq mi)
- Metro 3,350,000
- Metro Density 549.19/km2 (1,422.4/sq mi)

in Portugal it is more like.

Lisbon city area - 2,1 million
Lisbon polycentric region 3 million

Porto city area - 1 million
Coastal North polycentric region 3 million

Polycentric Northern Portugal
http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg64/karlussantus/IndicedeCentralidadedosCentrosUr-1.jpg

this map has very gross errors for my city, but it shows more or less the region.