GDP per capita of the European and North American metro areas

[New Brisavoine]

To compare the metro areas of Paris and London, I've made these two maps below based on the 2011 UK census and the 2010 French census. They show the percentages of workers in the ceremonial counties of England and the departments of France who commute to Inner London and to the City of Paris + inner suburbs.

How to read the map:
- 12.3% of the residents of Essex (ceremonial county, including Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock) who had a job at the time of the April 2011 UK census worked in Inner London
- 31.5% of the residents of Outer London who had a job at the time of the April 2011 UK census worked in Inner London
- 12.4% of the residents of Oise who had a job at the time of the January 2010 French census worked in either the City of Paris or its inner suburbs (the red area on the map)

The maps are at the same scale.

As you can see if you measure distances on the maps, the pull of Paris extends further away than the pull of London. I can see two explanations for that:
1- faster TGV high-speed trains in France
2- the low density of France, which means no sizable city within a large radius from Paris counteracts the pull of Paris, whereas the high population density of England means there are many cities with important local job markets counteracting the pull of London

The map of England also suggests that the London metro area is much smaller than usually thought. People from Buckinghamshire, for example, are less attracted to Inner London than the people from Eure-et-Loir (Chartres, Dreux) are to Paris and its inner suburbs, yet most definitions of the London metro area include Buckinghamshire, whereas Chartres, Dreux, and most of Eure-et-Loir are never included in the metropolitan area of Paris (only small fringes of Eure-et-Loir are included by INSEE in the Paris metro area).

[dimondpark]

There is a massive differenc between the "Inner Bay Area" and the "Outer Bay Area"

Inner Bay Area
San Francisco & San Jose MSAs combined:
2013 Population: 6,435,917
2013 GDP: $585.101 Billion
2013 Per Capita GDP: $90,911

Remainder of the CSA:
2013 Population: 2,033,937
2013 GDP: $79.586 Billion
2013 Per Capita GDP: $39,129

Total Bay Area CSA
2013 Population: 8,469,854
2013 GDP: $664.687 Billion
2013 Per Capita GDP: $78,476

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

A fraction of the population, but a significant part of its economy.

Alberta, Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Newfoundland produce 20% of Canada's economy. Add in Saskatchewan (also a very high GDP per capita), and you've got 23.5% of Canada's economy.

Without these 6 provinces/territories, the GDP per capita of Canada in 2011 wouldn't have been US$51,791, but it would have been US$47,148, which is only slightly higher than the GDP per capita of Detroit CSA (US$46,802).

So strip out the 6 richest provinces/territories and leave the poorest 7 and Canada is still wealthier than France? Looks like Canada doesn't owe it's wealth to oil and resources like some people like to think.

[isaidso]

The Canadian oil sands might get huge amounts of press internationally vs. other segments of the Canadian economy, but do people not realize that 31 million out of our 35 million people DO NOT live in Alberta?

I'll use the last year for which I can find numbers for Canada and Alberta: 2012.

Canada
Population: 34,754,000
GDP: $1.820 trillion
GDP per capita: $52,368

Alberta
Population: 3,874,000
GDP: $312 billion
GDP per capita: $80,537

Canada without Alberta
Population: 30,880,000
GDP: $1.508 trillion
GDP per capita: $48,834

It's a crude calculation above, but Canada without Alberta would have had GDP per capita of roughly $48,834 in 2012. Canada would still be considerably wealthier than Germany, France, the UK, and almost every other nation in Europe save Switzerland, Luxembourg, Norway, and a few others.

The idea that Canada owes its wealth to oil doesn't hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. The vast majority of Canadians live in jurisdictions which have an economy that's similar to Illinois or Virginia. I might add that there's an awful lot of industry in Alberta besides oil as well. It has a well diversified economy dominated by the services sector!

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by muppet

THAT I have no idea, I'd leave that to the squabbling geographers. But I definitely do have an opinion on a margin as low as 7% or lower, and that opinion would be it does NOT connect it enough to the city to make it relate.

That isn't how CSAs work. It isn't "connecting to the city". It has nothing at all to do with cities.

You're also not getting that CSAs can be totally urban and contiguous, while MSAs can be totally scattered. The land development patterns play no role whatsoever.

And you aren't getting that, in most U.S. metros, your choice of metric doesn't matter too much. The sprawl at the fringe is a tiny proportion of the overall metro in terms of population, and only a huge proportion of the overall metro in terms of land. You can eliminate half the NYC CSA land and only lose a tiny proportion of NYC CSA population.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by isaidso

It's a crude calculation above, but Canada without Alberta would have had GDP per capita of roughly $48,834 in 2012. Canada would still be considerably wealthier than Germany, France, the UK, and almost every other nation in Europe save Switzerland, Luxembourg, Norway, and a few others.

In output, not necessarily in household income/wealth.

I think people are still conflating economic output with household level income or wealth. They're different things. The richest cities are usually not those with the highest output.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The numbers show that Midland, TX is the most productive metro in the U.S., and the next most productive metros are also smaller ones. There are no big metros at the top, same as Canada.

Technically this is a Census issue because these "smaller" metros are really thought of as part of bigger metros (so Bridgeport and Trenton as part of NYC metro and San Jose as part of Bay Area metro) but, going by the strict Census MSA definitions, the biggest metros are not the most productive.

And Houston is one of the most productive of the biggest city metros.

But I just wanted to parse out the distinction that economically productive does not mean "rich" in the conventional definition. Houston, for example, is more economically productive than Boston. But Boston is a richer city than Houston. The median household and mean household income in Boston is significantly higher than that of Houston.

If you consider purchasing power, is that still true? I don't know the answer to my question, but maybe you or someone else does.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by isaidso

So strip out the 6 richest provinces/territories and leave the poorest 7 and Canada is still wealthier than France? Looks like Canada doesn't owe it's wealth to oil and resources like some people like to think.

Getting tired of SSC?

Your comparison with France is invalid. Canada is in North America, and North America functions differently from Europe (Europeans prefer more free time even if it means less money; productivity in France, i.e. GDP per hour worked, is higher than in Canada).

The only country with which you can compare Canada is the US, since they have the same sort of socio-economic organization, culture, approach to work and leisure, etc. And what the figures show is once you remove the resource-rich parts of Canada, the remaining provinces, which host the vast majority of the Canadian population, have a GDP per capita lower than the US, and in fact barely higher than the Detroit CSA, which is not really thought of as a the most dynamic or prosperous metro area in the US.

[nei]

Originally Posted by 10023

In North America, however, it's hard to argue that all of this:

https://goo.gl/maps/4LtMR

... is not one urban area. The CSA definition may extend to cover some of those small rural towns that are clearly beyond the borders of the urban area, but these contribute so little population that it hardly matters.

In Europe if you start adding every town that's within 30 minutes by fast train, pretty soon London and Munich are part of the same "CSA".

It has similar issues in the US, too. Where does NYC end going along the CT coast? Stamford? Bridgeport? New Haven? low density development continues northward from New Haven? When can we stop?

Is Providence really part of Boston. Worcester For Boston, the urban area peters out before Providence. However, in many cases American cities are so decentralized it might not always make sense to look to look at center city commuter pattern but just region inter-connectedness. For both the Bay Area and Los Angeles, this might be the most sensible way.

[muppet]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

To compare the metro areas of Paris and London, I've made these two maps below based on the 2011 UK census and the 2010 French census. They show the percentages of workers in the ceremonial counties of England and the departments of France who commute to Inner London and to the City of Paris + inner suburbs.

How to read the map:
- 12.3% of the residents of Essex (ceremonial county, including Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock) who had a job at the time of the April 2011 UK census worked in Inner London
- 31.5% of the residents of Outer London who had a job at the time of the April 2011 UK census worked in Inner London
- 12.4% of the residents of Oise who had a job at the time of the January 2010 French census worked in either the City of Paris or its inner suburbs (the red area on the map)

The maps are at the same scale.

Great work, this is what I mean about the irrelevance of a city core to the outer rings of a CSA.

By the way you've compared Greater Paris with Central London. Can you do an equivalent for Greater London (I know it's sprawly) with Greater Paris?

[muppet]

Originally Posted by Crawford

That isn't how CSAs work. It isn't "connecting to the city". It has nothing at all to do with cities.

You're also not getting that CSAs can be totally urban and contiguous, while MSAs can be totally scattered. The land development patterns play no role whatsoever.

And you aren't getting that, in most U.S. metros, your choice of metric doesn't matter too much. The sprawl at the fringe is a tiny proportion of the overall metro in terms of population, and only a huge proportion of the overall metro in terms of land. You can eliminate half the NYC CSA land and only lose a tiny proportion of NYC CSA population.

Gawd, how many times do I have to say this YES I UNDERSTAND CSA's ENCOMPASS LARGE AREAS OF NOTHING. AND DEER. AND WINDMILLS. AND VAST FIELDS OF MUSHROOMS. And that they are useful. And that the reason that is so 'allowed' is due to their purported commute patterns, questionably tied to a central node.


And agreed, CSA's, coined by the Office of Management & Budget, definitely have nothing at all to do with cities, although you might want to point that out to a few geographers who have pounced on using them disingenuously. CSA's, adorable and innocent as they are, do however purport to be based on these commute patterns - of which I've disbounded in terms of any relevance to the main city with their levels so low. -And despite knowing the difference they do somehow find themselves, handily, in about a zillion stats and lists on city comparisons, from population through to GDP (like here), that inflates one city's count but does not point itself out/ does not extend the same generous criteria to the other cities listed. And especially when those other cities resemble it/ have just as untenuous a link to their edge city exurbs, out where mushrooms go gallivanting.

That would be the main underlying problem imo that the CSA is handily used as 'The City+satellite towns', rather than 'The City+satellite towns+their counties+their accordant satellite towns+all their counties+and so on three more times'.


And yes, those reaches do add up, there have been no less than 5 increases in the decade. For example the size of the NYC 'metro' (note the umbrella term despite the periodically differing levels of catchment area) has grown 5.4 million although in that actual metro area the population only grew by 133,000 between censuses.

In 'reality' I would give NYC it's 18.1 million count, not the 23.5 million one - that's a 5.4 million difference which is very sizeable imo. If you wanna push it for more satellite towns based on commutes, 19 million shwaa - but not the 23.5 million. Nope, not with those low levels.
Deer stay out.

[dimondpark]

^CSAs actually are not a matter of opinion.

MSAs are based on county-to-county(not city to city) commuting patterns and CSAs are based on MSA-to-MSA commuting patterns, not what individuals feel is plausible or believable.

MSA: When 25%+ of a county's residents commute to jobs in another county or to the core counties of another MSA, then those 2 counties become a MSA or said county is added to the existing MSA.

CSA: When 15%-24.99% of an MSAs residents commute to jobs in the core counties of another MSA, then those 2 MSAs are merged into a CSA.

The same formula applies to every region and the results are what we see now.

[muppet]

^ yep, as stated before.

As I mentioned they of course have their uses, especially from the US Office of Management & Budget.

However, it's when they're used in tallies with other cities (that don't use CSA) that the 'CSA problem' rears its head. (Reread my post).

[Miu]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

^CSAs actually are not a matter of opinion.

MSAs are based on county-to-county(not city to city) commuting patterns and CSAs are based on MSA-to-MSA commuting patterns, not what individuals feel is plausible or believable.

MSA: When 25%+ of a county's residents commute to jobs in another county or to the core counties of another MSA, then those 2 counties become a MSA or said county is added to the existing MSA.

CSA: When 15%-24.99% of an MSAs residents commute to jobs in the core counties of another MSA, then those 2 MSAs are merged into a CSA.

The same formula applies to every region and the results are what we see now.

Unless this has recently changed, CSAs are actually based on something called the commuter interchange figure. Two MSAs form a CSA if the percentage of workers from the smaller MSA commuting to the larger MSA and the percentage of jobs in the smaller MSA held by commuters from the larger MSA adds up to at least 15.

[nito]

These threads always tend to make an appearance every quarter going over the same matters. A few points; the first is that as noted in the Euro-section of the website the economic outlook of the UK was completely different back then (the situation has changed remarkably since), so it comes as no surprise to see the position of many UK cities.

A second point is that these comparisons of metro areas never really make sense; there is simply far too much of a deviation in definitions, the methodology and the data. I recall reading sometime ago that if ONS urban area standards were applied to US cities, the New Jersey urban area would be entirely separate for the New York urban area because of the width of the Hudson River acting as a physical barrier.

The morphology of British urban areas also developed on a tangent due to the prevalence of green belts relative to other countries which (and in some instances continue to) embrace sprawl. In summary many of these comparisons are rather meaningless and don’t really tell much about the cities themselves.

Originally Posted by 10023

American metro area definitions are more expansive because American metros ARE bigger. People commute longer distances. When I tell people that I used to drive 3-3.5 hours each way every weekend between Manhattan and Montauk, they look at me like I'm crazy. Here it's 4 hours by train to Edinburgh, but no one (at least not a statistically relevant number of people) commutes to Birmingham, let alone the North of England or Scotland. It's partly cultural and it's partly due to sparse population between urban centers in the US (away from the Northeast US at least).

Finding specific data on time spent commuting varies, but apparently the average American spends 25mins commuting. That compares with 54mins on average with Brits. Your borderline insane commute of 6-7hrs each day is a substantial outlier, much like the 38 and 46 crazy clowns that commute to London daily from Antrim in Northern Ireland and the Scottish Highlands respectively.

London certainly has the broader and more comprehensive commuter network whilst New York has more substantial road infrastructure.

Originally Posted by 10023

Extending London all the way to Peterborough is not. That's like extending Chicago's metro to Rockford.

You say "it's one hour by train" as if, in a densely populated country with fast trains, that was the only determinant of what is or isn't a single urban area.

Whether Peterborough is in London’s metro is highly debateable, as it is for many other instances in other countries and cities.

I would add that Peterborough isn’t simply an hour from Central London by train, it has a high frequency service (when I last counted two years ago based on spring timetables) of some 13 trains arriving in Central London between 0800-08:59. Rockford for comparison doesn’t even have a train connection to Chicago, you have to drive.

Originally Posted by 10023

Ask a person from Elgin, IL who's traveling abroad or in a different part of the US where they're from and they'll say "Chicago area" or just "Chicago". Someone from Swindon or Cambridge or Brighton is very unlikely to mention London, other than to perhaps say that it's so far west, north or south thereof. This isn't so important in itself but it does, I think, seep into all aspects of how the regional population and economy works.

What you refer to is surely a consequence of identity and global recognition rather than a tangible connection.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by nito

Whether Peterborough is in London’s metro is highly debateable, as it is for many other instances in other countries and cities.

I would add that Peterborough isn’t simply an hour from Central London by train, it has a high frequency service (when I last counted two years ago based on spring timetables) of some 13 trains arriving in Central London between 0800-08:59. Rockford for comparison doesn’t even have a train connection to Chicago, you have to drive.

Only 1.8% of the residents of Peterborough who have a job work in Inner London. In my map above, I've included Peterborough in Cambridgeshire (the aggregated figure for Peterborough and Cambridgeshire is 2.4%).

1.8% is frankly extremely low. That's the percentage of residents of the Somme department (Amiens, Abbeville) who work in the City of Paris and its inner suburbs.

What's the percentage of residents of Rockford in employment who work in the City of Chicago?

[10023]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

What's the percentage of residents of Rockford in employment who work in the City of Chicago?

I have no idea how to find a census number, but this article says 13,700 people:

http://m.rrstar.com/article/20120422/News/304229961

Rockford has a population of 150k but the workforce would be much smaller. Let's just say for argument's sake that 50% are actively employed (exclude kids, retirees, stay at home parents, the unemployed)... that would be 1.8% of the workforce, so pretty similar. And without a practical rail connection.

And this is commuters into the city of Chicago, not other big employment centers that are clearly within the contiguous metro area like Schaumburg.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by 10023

I have no idea how to find a census number, but this article says 13,700 people:

In Peterborough, 1,590 people commute to work in Inner London.

Originally Posted by 10023

Rockford has a population of 150k but the workforce would be much smaller. Let's just say for argument's sake that 50% are actively employed (exclude kids, retirees, stay at home parents, the unemployed)... that would be 1.8% of the workforce, so pretty similar.

Actually that would be 18%. 10 times more than in Peterborough.

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by 10023

ShiRo, NYC is undoubtedly more crowded than London, both in fact and in feel.

Nope...not in fact and "feel" is subjective. The facts are that the populations are the same, the amount of inbound commuters are the same and the area of both cities are rougly the same when subtracting water area for NYC and Green Belt areas for London. I'll grant you that Manhattan's day time population and the fact that it is an island with also a high resident population makes it more dense than any area of the same size within London, on the other hand London has more tourists walking around, so neither city is significantly or noticably more crowded.

There are huge crowds on Oxford Street because London's pedestrian traffic is extremely concentrated in certain areas. Go a couple blocks north into Marylebone or south into Mayfair and it's quieter than any neighborhood in Manhattan. That's actually the nice thing about London - even in the center, when you get off the main thoroughfares you're in human-scaled, liveable neighborhoods. There are only a few areas (like Soho) where street after street is bustling with activity (and there it's kind of like the Village during the day and LES at night).

Part of it may have to do with being a tourist vs being a resident. I avoid places like Oxford street or Leicester Square at all costs. They are my hell. I also avoided walking up Fifth Ave or setting foot in Times Square when I was in NYC. (Keep in mind that with offices at Rock Center and now in Mayfair, I am very familiar with all of the above.) The difference is that NYC feels pretty crowded wherever you go, even if you're the type of person who does what they can to avoid the crush of humanity, whereas London is full of quiet spaces throughout its urban fabric.

New York and even Manhattan have plenty of quiet places and neighbourhoods (Chelsea, Meatpacking District, Hell's Kitchen spring to mind at least when I was there). Central Park was deserted all the times I've been there, although I'm sure it's pretty crowded when the weather is good and at specific times. And there is no concentrated nightlife in NYC like there is in London with overwhelming crowds.

Anyway, stop accusing others of trolling and then saying things like "I visited London, New York and Paris within a month and I disagree." Dude, I've lived in 2 of the 3, I'm in NY at least every two months and have visited Paris for work and leisure 3x this year. You are not the only one on the forum with firsthand knowledge of these places, and you have only a tourist's knowledge of New York and London but insist on arguing with a bunch of NY and London forumers.

How precious... no I do not have "only a tourist's knowledge of London". Apart from Dutch and Belgian cities and Barcelona it is the city I know best. I have extensive knowledge of the city in many different ways. You may have the experiences of living there for awhile (which obviously doesn't make you an expert), but your ignorance on facts speaks for itself.

"London forumers" agree with me and my positions and vice versa, you on the other hand have been in arguments with them from since before you started living there and that extends all the way to this thread!
Only recently your opinions have started to resemble reality more, the first six months you lived there they were so outlandish that it is hard to imagen that anyone took you seriously.


So maybe if you started to acknowledge some of the facts, in particular those you yourself brought to this thread but now seem to deny , we can move on.

I've asked you before but I guess answering would either be admitting you were wrong or maintaining a obvious ridiculous position. I'm going to insist though...

http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/defau...es-note-17.pdf

As per this study, which is official by the GLA and mentions specifically it is intended to establish a London metro area comparable to US Census defined MSAs... does it not make clear that using 2001 population figures, such a metro area would have had a 13-14 million population? And updating these figures to most recent, does that not mean that metro area contains 14.5-16 million today?

What's it going to be 10023? Admitting you are off with your 11.9 million/13 million claim, or retracting the source you yourself posted (thanks for that btw!)?

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by Minato Ku

UK does not calculate any metro area.

Minato, we can put that claim to rest on this forum for good now. Thanks to 10023 who provided this link:

>>> http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/defau...es-note-17.pdf <<<


I didn't know it existed and always went by the 2007 ESPON study which calculated a metro area for London of 13.7 million, but now we don't have to anymore because there is this undeniable official source!

Thanks 10023 and Minato I would appreciate it if you would not deny such a blatant fact in the future anymore.