Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-25-2022, 02:30 PM
 
Location: Washington DC
858 posts, read 694,777 times
Reputation: 853

Advertisements

Probably.


14-15 Million people is more accurate for the London Metropolitan Area (as Eurostat often splits up places that function as metropolitan areas or sometimes includes too much).

Pretty big but smaller than New York's 20ish Million
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-25-2022, 06:12 PM
 
Location: In the heights
37,127 posts, read 39,357,090 times
Reputation: 21212
Default 8,936.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post
The London metro area, at 8,382 km2 (3,236 m2), is far smaller than other major cities, with the exception of Shanghai, and smaller than the World City average metro size of 17,521 km2.

The London Metro Area has a population of 14,372,596 (2019), however other than Manhattan, as a whole London has a higher population density, especially when you consider the London Metro Area as opposed to the New York Metro Area.

The New York Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in 2020 had a population of 20,140,470 and covers a area of 6,720 sq mi (17,405 km2).

The New Yoirk Combined Statistical Area (CSA) in 2020 had a population of 23,582,649 and covers an area of area is 13,318 sq mi (34,493 km2).

In reality the US is actually poorly connected via public transport, and these vast metro areas are therefore meaningless, indeed it's far easier to get in to London from most of England, than it is to get to NYC from within many parts of it's own metro area, and the situation is even worse in relation to other US vast metro areas.

London has local tube and rail services, regional services, national services and international services.

Here's just the regional rail line services in relation to London and it's commuters areas including the South East of England with a population of 9.2 million and the Eastern region with a further population of 6.3 million -

South East Regional Rail Card Network - London

The ease of access in relation to train travel in to London, coupled with London's metro population density, leave US metro areas and cities trailing.

The NYC metro is not that densely populated and often has relatively poor public transport links the further you get away from NYC, and in reality these metro areas just seems like some kind of tedious effort to project the city as more vast than it's competitors.

Population Density, Myth and Reality - Savills

How Does London Measure Up? - Savills

I am also sure that if you added most of the adjoining regions that surround London in relation to the 9.2 million in South East England and the 6.3 million in East England Region to London's population of 9.2 million, you would have a similar metro area to NYC, with a similar population, but one with far better public transport access in to London.

I could not say this in relation to Tokyo or Paris or many other important global cities, which have very good train and public transport systems however I can in relation to the US and it's vast metro areas.

The way the London metropolitan area is defined is generally a bit closer to the census built-up Urban Area definition rather than the far more expensive Metropolitan Statistical Area or Combined Statistical Area which aren't even very good for comparisons among US metropolitan areas since they take as base units the county or equivalent municipalities and those can vary massively in size and population from place to place. I think that might be why there might be the mistaken idea that the NYC metropolitan area in reality isn't very dense, because it is quite dense though with high variance and the MSA and CSAs for most US metropolitan areas throw in massive amounts of areas that sometimes have very limited connections to the urban core.
In regards to the urban area, at least the 2010 US census numbers had the NYC one at 8,936.0 square km (3,450.2 square miles) which is very close to the London urban area size (though with different criteria, so it's still not quite comparable) at 18,351,295 people in 2010 with the 2020 census equivalent a bit over 19 million.

The overall arching point should be that it's often hard trying to do an apples to apples comparison among metropolitan areas. Demographia does an attempt at making apples to apples, but even then I think there are misses in there. Regardless, I think taking the London metro area population FUA figure with the NYC MSA figure puts a larger distance for the size difference than actually exists, but any attempts at reasonable apples to apples comparisons I've seen does put the NYC metropolitan area generally as somewhat more populous and overall denser than that of London, so the title of this topic strikes me as significantly off.

I also want to mention that extensiveness of rail coverage in the NYC metropolitan area, while not great compared to some other cities in the world, isn't quite as far behind that of London's. You'll notice that the map you posted for South East Regional Rail goes pretty far out to places that are over 150 miles away from London as the crow flies which in a map would for NYC start taking in SEPTA Regional Rail, Shore Line East, the Hartford Line, and various Amtrak services. While I do agree overall coverage can and should be better and is behind that of London's for the equivalent area, the problem is more that some of these services terminate where they should through-run and many of them do not have great service frequencies. One problem they both share though is that these regional rail services are both quite expensive.

Last edited by OyCrumbler; 09-25-2022 at 06:45 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2022, 04:47 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
27,151 posts, read 13,438,724 times
Reputation: 19447
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
The way the London metropolitan area is defined is generally a bit closer to the census built-up Urban Area definition rather than the far more expensive Metropolitan Statistical Area or Combined Statistical Area which aren't even very good for comparisons among US metropolitan areas since they take as base units the county or equivalent municipalities and those can vary massively in size and population from place to place. I think that might be why there might be the mistaken idea that the NYC metropolitan area in reality isn't very dense, because it is quite dense though with high variance and the MSA and CSAs for most US metropolitan areas throw in massive amounts of areas that sometimes have very limited connections to the urban core.
In regards to the urban area, at least the 2010 US census numbers had the NYC one at 8,936.0 square km (3,450.2 square miles) which is very close to the London urban area size (though with different criteria, so it's still not quite comparable) at 18,351,295 people in 2010 with the 2020 census equivalent a bit over 19 million.

The overall arching point should be that it's often hard trying to do an apples to apples comparison among metropolitan areas. Demographia does an attempt at making apples to apples, but even then I think there are misses in there. Regardless, I think taking the London metro area population FUA figure with the NYC MSA figure puts a larger distance for the size difference than actually exists, but any attempts at reasonable apples to apples comparisons I've seen does put the NYC metropolitan area generally as somewhat more populous and overall denser than that of London, so the title of this topic strikes me as significantly off.

I also want to mention that extensiveness of rail coverage in the NYC metropolitan area, while not great compared to some other cities in the world, isn't quite as far behind that of London's. You'll notice that the map you posted for South East Regional Rail goes pretty far out to places that are over 150 miles away from London as the crow flies which in a map would for NYC start taking in SEPTA Regional Rail, Shore Line East, the Hartford Line, and various Amtrak services. While I do agree overall coverage can and should be better and is behind that of London's for the equivalent area, the problem is more that some of these services terminate where they should through-run and many of them do not have great service frequencies. One problem they both share though is that these regional rail services are both quite expensive.
There are numerous rail companies and major terminus in London, and even if they do go further out, they still connect stations in the region with London, and there are
374 heavy rail passenger stations in and around London, England (338 being within the boundary of Greater London) that are accessible using Transport for London tickets and passes.

It's worth noting that heavy rail does not include London Underground or other TfL services, it means proper heavy trains and rail stations,and NYC Subway also does not meet this criteria.

Whilst the London station group is a group of 18 railway stations served by the National Rail network in central London. The group contains all 14 terminal stations in central London, either serving major national services or local commuter routes, and 4 other through-stations that are considered terminals for ticketing purposes.

As of 2022, the group is made up of:

Blackfriars
Cannon Street
Charing Cross
City Thameslink
Euston
Fenchurch Street
King's Cross
Liverpool Street
London Bridge
Marylebone
Moorgate
Old Street
Paddington
St. Pancras International
Vauxhall
Victoria
Waterloo
Waterloo East

There are also numerous stations within the London Metro Area and beyond, indeed most of the South East (9.2 million)and Eastern region (6.3 million) surrounding London has very good rail links and numerous stations, whilst Thameslink, Crossrail and London Overground run through the capital. There are also numerous mainline services, and international rail services.

The vast majority of the surrounding regions in relation to the South East and East regions have extremely good train links with London, and Thameslink even provides a rail service from Brighton to Cambridge through the very heart of London, whilst Crossrail runs services through London from Berkshire through to Essex.

HS2 is set to further improve links to London, which already has extremely good transport links, whilst in the North of England there is a growing Leeds-Manchester Liverpool metro corridor.

The two adjoining London regions have a combined population of 15,612,600, whilst London has an population of 9.2 million.

South East England - Wikipedia

East of England - Wikipedia

As for the Metro region, a metro region that has an area 8,382 km2 (3,236 m2) and population of 14,372,596 is going to be far denser than one over twice it's size at 6,720 sq mi (17,405 km2) with a population of 20,140,470 or one that covers an area of 13,318 sq mi (34,493 km2) and has a population of 23,582,649.

To have the same density as London's metro, would mean the MSA area (which is more than double that of London) would mean a population of around 29 million and not 20 million, as for the CSA it is over four times the London metro and only has a population of 23 million, would have to have a population of 57,490,384.

In reality the London Metro area is quite densely populated,

Last edited by Brave New World; 09-26-2022 at 05:43 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2022, 05:18 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
27,151 posts, read 13,438,724 times
Reputation: 19447
London’s metro has a higher population density than most European, American and Australian and it's not a low density city and nor does t have a low density metro area.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Savills

London’s population density is far higher than many believe, and well above the World City median.

It is a commonly held belief among Londoners that their city is a dwarf on the world stage and, lacking the high-rise buildings of Manhattan and Hong Kong, must be very low density. Neither of these beliefs are actually the case.

We have already shown London’s population is larger than the World City average even though its area is smaller. At the metropolitan level, London’s population density, expressed as the number of people per hectare, is well above the median for the World City Ranking and only behind the Asian cities of Singapore, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tokyo and Seoul.

London’s metro has a higher population density than all the European, American and Australian cities in the ranking. Why then does the myth of London’s low density city still persist?

Part of the answer lies with the size of areas studied when looking at density, and partly with the mistaken belief that cities with skyscrapers accommodate more people per unit of land than traditional mid-rise street patterns.

Contd.....

Population Density, Myth and Reality - Savills
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2022, 05:25 AM
 
Location: Bergen County, New Jersey
12,159 posts, read 7,989,874 times
Reputation: 10123
London stays denser for longer. NYC's is uber-dense, then drops off immensely (Like most American cities)

For example:
Literally right outside Manhattan: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8157...7i13312!8i6656
Outside Bronx: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9100...7i16384!8i8192
Queens, NYC: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7251...7i16384!8i8192
Staten Island: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6341...7i13312!8i6656

Although, NYC does have some pretty dense nodes outside, far outside NYC:
New Brunswick: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4897...7i16384!8i8192
Newark: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7352...7i16384!8i8192
White Plains: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0321...7i16384!8i8192
Stamford: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0484...7i16384!8i8192
Paterson: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9163...7i13312!8i6656
Bridgeport: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1760...7i16384!8i8192
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2022, 03:33 PM
 
Location: In the heights
37,127 posts, read 39,357,090 times
Reputation: 21212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post
There are numerous rail companies and major terminus in London, and even if they do go further out, they still connect stations in the region with London, and there are
374 heavy rail passenger stations in and around London, England (338 being within the boundary of Greater London) that are accessible using Transport for London tickets and passes.

It's worth noting that heavy rail does not include London Underground or other TfL services, it means proper heavy trains and rail stations,and NYC Subway also does not meet this criteria.

Whilst the London station group is a group of 18 railway stations served by the National Rail network in central London. The group contains all 14 terminal stations in central London, either serving major national services or local commuter routes, and 4 other through-stations that are considered terminals for ticketing purposes.

As of 2022, the group is made up of:

Blackfriars
Cannon Street
Charing Cross
City Thameslink
Euston
Fenchurch Street
King's Cross
Liverpool Street
London Bridge
Marylebone
Moorgate
Old Street
Paddington
St. Pancras International
Vauxhall
Victoria
Waterloo
Waterloo East

There are also numerous stations within the London Metro Area and beyond, indeed most of the South East (9.2 million)and Eastern region (6.3 million) surrounding London has very good rail links and numerous stations, whilst Thameslink, Crossrail and London Overground run through the capital. There are also numerous mainline services, and international rail services.

The vast majority of the surrounding regions in relation to the South East and East regions have extremely good train links with London, and Thameslink even provides a rail service from Brighton to Cambridge through the very heart of London, whilst Crossrail runs services through London from Berkshire through to Essex.

HS2 is set to further improve links to London, which already has extremely good transport links, whilst in the North of England there is a growing Leeds-Manchester Liverpool metro corridor.

The two adjoining London regions have a combined population of 15,612,600, whilst London has an population of 9.2 million.

South East England - Wikipedia

East of England - Wikipedia

As for the Metro region, a metro region that has an area 8,382 km2 (3,236 m2) and population of 14,372,596 is going to be far denser than one over twice it's size at 6,720 sq mi (17,405 km2) with a population of 20,140,470 or one that covers an area of 13,318 sq mi (34,493 km2) and has a population of 23,582,649.

To have the same density as London's metro, would mean the MSA area (which is more than double that of London) would mean a population of around 29 million and not 20 million, as for the CSA it is over four times the London metro and only has a population of 23 million, would have to have a population of 57,490,384.

In reality the London Metro area is quite densely populated,
Yes, London and its metropolitan is very densely populated and has a very high population compared to any US city aside from NYC. It's just that any reasonable attempt at apples to apples comparison, like the Demographia attempt or to a lesser extent, the US census urban area to FUA is going to put NYC as larger and for any given square km/miles of contiguous blob NYC will generally be denser. That's what I was pointing out with the urban area calculation that puts NYC at 8,936.0 square km (3,450 m2) at just over 19 million people compared to the 8,382 km2 (3,236 m2) at 14 million. Obviously, NYC is overall larger, but it's certainly not the MSA figure that should be taken because as I tried to explain, MSAs as the US census would define it are pretty ridiculous and somewhat hard to compare. Remember, US counties range from a dozen square miles to over twenty thousand square miles and both of these are "equivalent" as base units for creating metropolitan statistical areas or combined statistical areas. It's an issue when comparing US metropolitan areas, let alone such against those of other countries.

I'm decently acquainted with rail and geography in the UK and very well acquainted with that in the Mid-Atlantic US. There's actually a somewhat official difference in terminology when it comes to the term heavy rail in the British context versus the North American context where the latter does usually include rapid transit systems and would include things like the London Underground and the NYC Subway. I tend to avoid the term altogether unless it's very specifically defined and used in a conversation. I understand how you're using it and that's how I was using it when I was talking about the different rail systems in the two regions. I was *not* at all thinking about the London Underground or NYC Subway. Your map *does* include London Overground which is under TfL and which I would expect to be included given what that map says it's depicting.

The map you posted stretches really, really far geographically and it obviously includes lines that do not go through London, even rather generous common definitions of London. At such a similar stretch of land area around NYC, you'd be hitting some pretty densely populated places with similar extensiveness especially to the northeast and southwest (essentially, on and near the northeast corridor). Taking such an expansive view as that map did would have you stretching pretty far along various Amtrak services, cover the southern NJ Transit line, the many SEPTA Regional Rail services, the Hartford Line, and Shore Line East along with the usual NJT, Metro-North, and LIRR services. That's what I mentioned before and what I mean by the extensiveness of the two putting the London area ahead but not by all that much as there's decent service. I think you for some reason glossed over where the London area actually *is* better in a lot of ways though which is frequency because a lot of these lines have pretty awful off-peak frequency.

Again though, I think both systems suffer from pretty high priced tickets. Overall places like Berlin, Paris, Tokyo, Kansai region, and some others have notably better heavy rail service.

Quote:
Originally Posted by masssachoicetts View Post
London stays denser for longer. NYC's is uber-dense, then drops off immensely (Like most American cities)

For example:
Literally right outside Manhattan: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8157...7i13312!8i6656
Outside Bronx: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9100...7i16384!8i8192
Queens, NYC: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7251...7i16384!8i8192
Staten Island: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6341...7i13312!8i6656

Although, NYC does have some pretty dense nodes outside, far outside NYC:
New Brunswick: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4897...7i16384!8i8192
Newark: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7352...7i16384!8i8192
White Plains: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0321...7i16384!8i8192
Stamford: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0484...7i16384!8i8192
Paterson: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9163...7i13312!8i6656
Bridgeport: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1760...7i16384!8i8192

Yea, there's a handful of Asian cities that can maintain anything remotely close to peak NYC density for a sustained area, so it makes sense that it drops quite a bit. The thing is, even going out to some of the New Jersey satellite cities still contains significant density.

Last edited by OyCrumbler; 09-26-2022 at 04:41 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2022, 05:33 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
27,151 posts, read 13,438,724 times
Reputation: 19447
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
Yes, London and its metropolitan is very densely populated and has a very high population compared to any US city aside from NYC. It's just that any reasonable attempt at apples to apples comparison, like the Demographia attempt or to a lesser extent, the US census urban area to FUA is going to put NYC as larger and for any given square km/miles of contiguous blob NYC will generally be denser. That's what I was pointing out with the urban area calculation that puts NYC at 8,936.0 square km (3,450 m2) at just over 19 million people compared to the 8,382 km2 (3,236 m2) at 14 million. Obviously, NYC is overall larger, but it's certainly not the MSA figure that should be taken because as I tried to explain, MSAs as the US census would define it are pretty ridiculous and somewhat hard to compare. Remember, US counties range from a dozen square miles to over twenty thousand square miles and both of these are "equivalent" as base units for creating metropolitan statistical areas or combined statistical areas. It's an issue when comparing US metropolitan areas, let alone such against those of other countries.

I'm decently acquainted with rail and geography in the UK and very well acquainted with that in the Mid-Atlantic US. There's actually a somewhat official difference in terminology when it comes to the term heavy rail in the British context versus the North American context where the latter does usually include rapid transit systems and would include things like the London Underground and the NYC Subway. I tend to avoid the term altogether unless it's very specifically defined and used in a conversation. I understand how you're using it and that's how I was using it when I was talking about the different rail systems in the two regions. I was *not* at all thinking about the London Underground or NYC Subway. Your map *does* include London Overground which is under TfL and which I would expect to be included given what that map says it's depicting.

The map you posted stretches really, really far geographically and it obviously includes lines that do not go through London, even rather generous common definitions of London. At such a similar stretch of land area around NYC, you'd be hitting some pretty densely populated places with similar extensiveness especially to the northeast and southwest (essentially, on and near the northeast corridor). Taking such an expansive view as that map did would have you stretching pretty far along various Amtrak services, cover the southern NJ Transit line, the many SEPTA Regional Rail services, the Hartford Line, and Shore Line East along with the usual NJT, Metro-North, and LIRR services. That's what I mentioned before and what I mean by the extensiveness of the two putting the London area ahead but not by all that much as there's decent service. I think you for some reason glossed over where the London area actually *is* better in a lot of ways though which is frequency because a lot of these lines have pretty awful off-peak frequency.

Again though, I think both systems suffer from pretty high priced tickets. Overall places like Berlin, Paris, Tokyo, Kansai region, and some others have notably better heavy rail service.




Yea, there's a handful of Asian cities that can maintain anything remotely close to peak NYC density for a sustained area, so it makes sense that it drops quite a bit. The thing is, even going out to some of the New Jersey satellite cities still contains significant density.


I agree that some of the US Metro areas are not really that credible, and NYC does have excellent transport connections however would this also apply to every area of the vast metro areas that are sometimes cited, and even sometimes used to represent NYC population.

The main heavy rail services in relation to London are Intercity Services, which are operated on mainlines by numerous companies.

Inter-city trains from London operate out of the following London terminals:

London Euston — trains to Wales, North West England, the West Midlands and Scotland.
London King's Cross — trains to the East Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber, North East England and Scotland.
London Paddington — trains to South West England, Wales and the West Midlands.
London St Pancras International — trains to the East Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber, France, Belgium and the Netherlands.
London Liverpool Street — trains to East of England.
London Waterloo — South West of England and South East

The following train operating companies operate inter-city trains in Great Britain (operators marked with an asterisk are open-access operators):

Abellio ScotRail
Avanti West Coast
Caledonian Sleeper
CrossCountry
East Midlands Railway
Eurostar*
Great Western Railway - including the Night Riviera Sleeper from London Paddington to Penzance and back.
Greater Anglia
Grand Central*
Hull Trains*
London North Eastern Railway
Lumo*
TransPennine Express
Transport for Wales
South Western Railway

Inter-city rail in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

You then have the regional services out and across London stations, and companies running vast networks include -

Chiltern Railways
C2C
Elizabeth Line (Crossrail) - through London service from East to West.
Gatwick Express
Greater Anglia (alao operates regional services)
Great Northern
Heathrow Express
London Northwestern Railway (LNR)
London Overground (across London service and run by TfL)
Stansted Express
Southern
South Eastern
South Western
Thameslink (through London Service from North to South)

Local trains in London -visitlondon

In the United Kingdom, heavy rail refers to conventional railways forming part of the national network, including commuter, intercity, high-speed rail, regional rail and freight services, as distinct from metro, light rail and tram lines, people movers, and similar.

List of London railway stations - Wikipedia

It should be noted that the UK train system is further expanding through HS2, and that London is at the heart of this expansion with a massive redevelopment of Euston Station and a vast new transport hub at Old Oak Common, as well as possible expansion of London Underground, as well as Crossrail 2 and Thameslink 2.

On top of all this you have London Underground, the Docklands Light Railway, Buses and Trams (south London), River buses (Thames Clippers) and Victoria International Coach Station (linked to a pan-European type US Greyhound Bus Service) etc.

Last edited by Brave New World; 09-29-2022 at 06:53 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2022, 08:36 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
27,151 posts, read 13,438,724 times
Reputation: 19447

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fJ4KlzIQX0


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsztO2d9KaM


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRLL1It0w-0


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkXs0rSry9M


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thOFsjHRxLw

Last edited by Brave New World; 09-30-2022 at 08:55 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2022, 02:41 PM
 
323 posts, read 259,866 times
Reputation: 832
Quote:
Originally Posted by blanketstate View Post
Wasn't this thread debunked as a troll thread a while ago?

No. There were definitely some emotional accusations of it being a troll post, but in reality it appears to have been a few hurt NY'ers lashing out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2022, 12:46 PM
 
Location: Katy,Texas
6,470 posts, read 4,068,399 times
Reputation: 4517
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcBetrus View Post
No. There were definitely some emotional accusations of it being a troll post, but in reality it appears to have been a few hurt NY'ers lashing out.
Nah, it is a troll because I don't think there's any definition of London vs. NYC where NYC isn't the bigger city, with the exception being city limits, but even then it's obvious that all of Nassau, Rockland, Bergen, Union, Hudson, Essex , Middlesex most to some of Passaic, Morris, Westchester, Suffolk, Fairfield, Somerset and Monmouth counties are NYC sprawl.

Which if you don't include or choose to include Fairfield County because it's a CSA by itself is (18-19 million people), even if you chopped out the more rural areas mentioned above and Fairfield County that aren't directly in NY city's orbit your not getting much less than 18,000,000.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top