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.
I think the most important measure is land mass, as in square miles or km2, and also public transport connection.
London is designed differently, it has green belts and suburbs, and is more attractive for it, however the rail network is extensive and covers most towns and villages, and allows for commuting.
In terms of the US some of the large metro areas are just laughable, and I don't always them seriously.
The resident population of Greater London and those counties including the Metropolitan Green Belt was 18,868,800 in 2011, however the population of London and it's surrounds have grown over the last ten years.
I disagree with land mass being the most important measure--I think it's more about accessibility. Some place further away but with frequent, fast and inexpensive transport to other parts of the urban area can very well be more tied to the urban area than some place closer in, but without such. Not so much in this instance, but that's also true for boundaries, especially international boundaries making accessibility more difficult.
I'm sure London has its differences in design of its metropolitan area. Both London and NYC have extensive commuter rail connections so I was curious about what was being defined as that poster's London "CSA". I agree that some US metro areas are just laughable because the sheer land mass of some of the counties which are the base component used for such are massive and very heterogeneous so that some places with very different patterns within the same county can be tied into a CSA or MSA that doen't make much sense as well as create massive metropolitan land areas--which is part of why I disagree that the most important measure is land mass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by masssachoicetts
Its only 75 miles away
Torrington CT, which is 111 miles away is in New York CSA. Montauk is 123 miles away... ocean county nj is up to 105 miles away. So apples to apples, right?
Torrington / Litchfield County doesn't have frequent commuter rail service so I think that one's a bit weird. Montauk is 123 miles away and rather few commute to the city daily from there though it is a popular visit both ways, but Montauk is part of Suffolk County where a very large portion of people commute to NYC or Nassau County. Ocean County is a bit like the eastern half of Suffolk County part in commuting, I think.
I do wonder what the frequency, trip duration, and cost of a Southampton to London commute is. Is it more like a New Haven / Ronkonkoma / Poughkeepsie / Long Branch to Manhattan commute in those terms or more like a Montauk / Bay Head commute or more like a Philadelphia using Amtrak commute.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,175 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19472
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
I disagree with land mass being the most important measure--I think it's more about accessibility. Some place further away but with frequent, fast and inexpensive transport to other parts of the urban area can very well be more tied to the urban area than some place closer in, but without such. Not so much in this instance, but that's also true for boundaries, especially international boundaries making accessibility more difficult.
I'm sure London has its differences in design of its metropolitan area. Both London and NYC have extensive commuter rail connections so I was curious about what was being defined as that poster's London "CSA". I agree that some US metro areas are just laughable because the sheer land mass of some of the counties which are the base component used for such are massive and very heterogeneous so that some places with very different patterns within the same county can be tied into a CSA or MSA that doen't make much sense as well as create massive metropolitan land areas--which is part of why I disagree that the most important measure is land mass.
Torrington / Litchfield County doesn't have frequent commuter rail service so I think that one's a bit weird. Montauk is 123 miles away and rather few commute to the city daily from there though it is a popular visit both ways, but Montauk is part of Suffolk County where a very large portion of people commute to NYC or Nassau County. Ocean County is a bit like the eastern half of Suffolk County part in commuting, I think.
I do wonder what the frequency, trip duration, and cost of a Southampton to London commute is. Is it more like a New Haven / Ronkonkoma / Poughkeepsie / Long Branch to Manhattan commute in those terms or more like a Montauk / Bay Head commute or more like a Philadelphia using Amtrak commute.
In terms of Pennine Metroplex, I am sure he will go ion to further detail if you want, as he seems very knowledgeable in this area.
On average, London workers who live outside the capital commute 38.5 miles (62 km) to their job, with 790,000 making the daily commute in to London in 2011, however how commuting is effected by Crossrail and a much easier commute coupled with a move towards increased working from home, is anyone's guess.
As for 123 miles, I certainly would not like to be commuting that distance in a morning and at night.
I disagree with land mass being the most important measure--I think it's more about accessibility. Some place further away but with frequent, fast and inexpensive transport to other parts of the urban area can very well be more tied to the urban area than some place closer in, but without such. Not so much in this instance, but that's also true for boundaries, especially international boundaries making accessibility more difficult.
I'm sure London has its differences in design of its metropolitan area. Both London and NYC have extensive commuter rail connections so I was curious about what was being defined as that poster's London "CSA". I agree that some US metro areas are just laughable because the sheer land mass of some of the counties which are the base component used for such are massive and very heterogeneous so that some places with very different patterns within the same county can be tied into a CSA or MSA that doen't make much sense as well as create massive metropolitan land areas--which is part of why I disagree that the most important measure is land mass.
Torrington / Litchfield County doesn't have frequent commuter rail service so I think that one's a bit weird. Montauk is 123 miles away and rather few commute to the city daily from there though it is a popular visit both ways, but Montauk is part of Suffolk County where a very large portion of people commute to NYC or Nassau County. Ocean County is a bit like the eastern half of Suffolk County part in commuting, I think.
I do wonder what the frequency, trip duration, and cost of a Southampton to London commute is. Is it more like a New Haven / Ronkonkoma / Poughkeepsie / Long Branch to Manhattan commute in those terms or more like a Montauk / Bay Head commute or more like a Philadelphia using Amtrak commute.
I still dont get how those places like Montauk, Torrington and the bottom of Ocean County are in New York MSA. There's maybe 100 people at most who commute into NY in Torrington. And about 2/3 of the people living there grew up liking Boston sports (Yes, the town is 40% BOS sports because of migration in from NYS in the 80s-00s, and again now), that coupled with little/no rail service... how is NYC any form of representative to Torrington CT? lol
But that being said, we need to cut off a few counties and make it apples to apple land area to get a fair comparison.
However, good question. I know someone who lives in Torrington (Thats why I brought it up) and they know absolutely 0 people who commute into NYC.. they say its very very far. Probably up to 3hours by rail including drive/wait times at the closest station. Im assuming Southampton would be like Norwalk? London has stellar services.
They feel about the same. Less about numbers, but what might tip London over is the growth on the East side by Docklands and the City, which is extending the area where you see dense pedestrian areas.
I still dont get how those places like Montauk, Torrington and the bottom of Ocean County are in New York MSA. There's maybe 100 people at most who commute into NY in Torrington. And about 2/3 of the people living there grew up liking Boston sports (Yes, the town is 40% BOS sports because of migration in from NYS in the 80s-00s, and again now), that coupled with little/no rail service... how is NYC any form of representative to Torrington CT? lol
But that being said, we need to cut off a few counties and make it apples to apple land area to get a fair comparison.
However, good question. I know someone who lives in Torrington (Thats why I brought it up) and they know absolutely 0 people who commute into NYC.. they say its very very far. Probably up to 3hours by rail including drive/wait times at the closest station. Im assuming Southampton would be like Norwalk? London has stellar services.
Some far flung places have commuter rail which is okay in frequency and cheaper than intercity costs so there's a measure of weighing massive commutes versus lower housing costs per square foot, but that's not all of it.
Montauk is NYC MSA because these are all split by county divisions and the bulk of Suffolk County (which Montauk is part of) has its population closer in to NYC so Suffolk County rightfully is part of the MSA even though the size and spread of Suffolk includes Montauk where people rarely are daily Manhattan commuters though they do have commuter rail. If for some reason the forks were divided into a separate county, then they almost certainly wouldn't be part of the MSA. Torrington/Litchfield are part of the CSA, not MSA, and even then I think that's a bit of a stretch given the lack of easy access to business center. Ocean County's a bit more like Suffolk County in that parts of it do feed commuters with those services clustered in the northern, closest to Manhattan bits.
I wonder where New Haven, CT would fit into this and its London equivalent. Relatively frequent commuter service, but not as close to NYC as say Stamford. New Haven is definitely very much tied to NYC though compared to Torrington or Hartford, which Hartford is not in the NYC CSA and more Boston focused.
I think the most important measure is land mass, as in square miles or km2, and also public transport connection.
London is designed differently, it has green belts and suburbs, and is more attractive for it, however the rail network is extensive and covers most towns and villages, and allows for commuting.
In terms of the US some of the large metro areas are just laughable, and I don't always them seriously.
The resident population of Greater London and those counties including the Metropolitan Green Belt was 18,868,800 in 2011, however the population of London and it's surrounds have grown over the last ten years.
The NYC Metro has the NJ Palisades and parts of Upstate NY and Connecticut that are protected from development - so they essentially function as a "greenbelt" and are quite attractive. London, as much as I love the city, is not unique here.
The NYC Metro has the NJ Palisades and parts of Upstate NY and Connecticut that are protected from development - so they essentially function as a "greenbelt" and are quite attractive. London, as much as I love the city, is not unique here.
It's too bad that they didn't do more of such with Long Island. I would've liked to have seen at least half the island as a nature preserve.
I've lived in NYC (Manhattan) and still travel there regularly, and have travelled to London dozens of times on business and pleasure trips. In my experience, there is no where in London that matches the dense, frenetic, dynamism of Manhattan. Not a knock on London by any means. I love being in London. But it's just not on the same level as NYC from this perspective.
I’m a born and raised Londoner, but I’m inclined to agree with you.
I love my city, and I’m proud to call it home, but I get such a buzz out of NYC, whether it’s visiting friends on Long Island, or getting off the subway at 14th St / Union Square, walking across Union Sq Park, up Broadway, past the Flatiron Building to Madison Sq Park, it’s all good, and there’s always something to see, or a good bar to spend some happy time in.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,175 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19472
Quote:
Originally Posted by norcal2k19
>> re: greenbelt
The NYC Metro has the NJ Palisades and parts of Upstate NY and Connecticut that are protected from development - so they essentially function as a "greenbelt" and are quite attractive. London, as much as I love the city, is not unique here.
I think the concept of the Metropolitan Greenbelt is different to upstate greenery, and NYC does have greater urban sprawl especially in relation to North Jersey and Connecticut.
However the green belt does not mean that London doesn't have a significant metro area and metro population, although the Home Counties are generally suburban with some major towns.
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.
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.
