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.
In February 2005, the Finnish cabinet gave its permission to TVO to construct a new nuclear reactor, making Finland the first Western European country in 15 years to order one.[14] The construction of the unit began in 2005. The start of commercial operation was planned for 2010,[15] but has been pushed back several times. As of January 2016, the estimate is 2018.
Final approval for a 13.5-kilometre (8.4 mi) route was granted on 4 April 2007, and the construction began in November 2009. In February 2014, rock blasting was complete, and the fitting out of the tunnels and construction of the stations was ongoing.[3][4] The extension was planned to open on 15 August 2016[5][6][needs update] but is currently delayed for an unknown time.
Preliminary plans, made in 2000 and 2001, cited the cost of building the infrastructure for the metro extension to Matinkylä to be about €400 million. When the Espoo city council decided on construction of the metro in 2004, the estimated cost was €452 million. In September 2007, the estimated cost of the Länsimetro was at least €530 million.[17] In December 2007, Olavi Louko estimated that the cost will rise to at least €600 million. According to Louko, the cost of the excavation work has risen a third more than that of other ground construction work, due to security requirements and to the increase in simultaneous excavation work elsewhere, including the construction of the Kehärata (Ring Rail Line) in nearby Vantaa.[18] By January 2008, the estimated cost had risen to over €800 million,[19] and by February 2014, to about €1 billion.
In our city, there has been a proposal from the municipality to connect a last piece of road so that there's a complete ring road around the city since 2008, but it's been appealed against many times in a row and so it still hasn't started getting built lol.
London is the biggest if you look at metro area population.
London: 18.4 million
Moscow: 16.1 million
Istanbul: 14.7 million
Metro areas include places outside the city though. Stevenage for instance isn't in London, nor would anybody from Stevenage suggest that. And there's plenty of other examples like that.
Moscow itself seems to be quite a lot larger than London. Obviously London is still huge, but it isn't as big as Moscow.
Metro areas include places outside the city though. Stevenage for instance isn't in London, nor would anybody from Stevenage suggest that. And there's plenty of other examples like that.
Moscow itself seems to be quite a lot larger than London. Obviously London is still huge, but it isn't as big as Moscow.
Would you consider NYC to have a larger population than London? It does by metro area (22m vs 18m), but London is the bigger city when city limits are considered (8.7m vs 8.4m).
It's also more useful for places like LA, Chicago or Paris, which have a tiny 'city' of 2-3 million, yet have metro area populations around 9m (Chicago), 12m (Paris), 17m (LA).
Would you consider NYC to have a larger population than London? It does by metro area (22m vs 18m), but London is the bigger city when city limits are considered (8.7m vs 8.4m).
If it's a continuous built up area, and still part of the city then yes. If it isn't, and has a metro like London, then no. Paris city only has a population of a 2.5 million or so, but in reality it's very similar in size to London.
If London's metro was a continuous built up area, with no big gaps of countryside, then I'd accept the metro population.
The NYC metro is pretty spread out though. London's metro area has a far greater population density. London will never have an unbroken urban area due to the green belt.
Anyway, this country should be more active when it comes to major infrastructure projects. No votes, just get on with it.
In our city, there has been a proposal from the municipality to connect a last piece of road so that there's a complete ring road around the city since 2008, but it's been appealed against many times in a row and so it still hasn't started getting built lol.
That's indeciviness. Here they start the projects all right, but the budgets go trough the roof. The Olkiluoto 3 plant is currently the 3rd most expensive structure ever built by man, and it's not even close to being finished!
The NYC metro is pretty spread out though. London's metro area has a far greater population density.
Is it? If that's the case, then I'd go by city limits and say that London is a bigger city.
I can find London's size a bit too much when visiting. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a fantastic city. One of my favourite cities in the world, but coming from York, it just feels enormous. For instance, I can jump on a train and be in Leeds in 30 minutes or so, but in London you can spend 30 minutes on the tube, and you're still in a busy and bustling part of London. Travelling around London is when I really feel it's size.
London is the biggest if you look at metro area population. Istanbul is the biggest by city limits (but most on the Asian side).
London: 18.4 million / 8.7 million
Moscow: 16.1 million / 11.9 million
Istanbul: 14.7 million / 14.7 million
Where does that 18 million figure come from? The metro is officially around 14 million.
Ok, so that's London + Essex + Kent + Surrey + Berkshire + Hertfordshire + Buckinghamshire + Bedfordshire + West Sussex + East Sussex + Hampshire, right? So pretty much the entire Southeastern England, from Dover to far beyond the Chilterns and from the New Forest to Colchester... That's not London.
Last edited by Rozenn; 03-03-2017 at 05:45 AM..
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.