Quote:
Originally Posted by New Brisavoine
This last sentence means nothing. What is "can isolate the urban villages and towns, knitting them together like a web" supposed to mean? Just because French communes are smaller than English districts, it would make the Paris FUA larger? How so exactly? 
Besides, the figure I gave you for Provins is not the % of commuters in the commune of Provins, but the % of commuters in the canton of Provins (which is as large as an English district).
The London FUA is also made up of several separate cores. There is the central core of London, and then there are satellite cores:
St Albans
Harlow
Southend-on-Sea
Tunbridge Wells
Woking
Southend-on-Sea is 35 miles from London.
Any district that sends more than 15% of its workforce to Southend-on-Sea is included in the London FUA. So there is your "chain reaction" too!
Woking is treated as an urban core, satellite of the London urban core. Any district sending more than 15% of its workforce to Woking is included in the London FUA.
Brentwood is part of the commuter belt of London (it sends more than 15% of its workforce to either London or the other urban cores), so it is part of the London FUA.
That's something you've invented in your head. The principle of the FUA is precisely to be detached from administrative boundaries. Whether Slough is one English district, or 12 independent French communes, makes no difference. The 12 independent French communes would be treated as just ONE urban area, and then the % of commuters from this urban area to London would be determined (for example, the urban core of Melun is made up of 5 communes: Dammarie-Les-Lys, Le Mée-Sur-Seine, Melun, Rubelles, and Vaux-Le-Pénil, and statisticians then determine whether these 5 communes combined send more than 15% of their workforce to the central core of Paris, not whether each one individually sends 15% to the central core of Paris).
If Slough is not part of the London FUA, that has nothing to do with how it's administratively ruled, it's only because Slough sends less than 15% of its workforce to the London core and other satellite cores of London. |
Ah well done -examples of bona-fide places rightfully included in London's FUA, as evidence as to why the ones excluded shouldn't be. Slough sends over 20% of its workforce into London
https://fryford.github.io/dvc193/indexv3.html
It still stands that if Slough was included, Reading would be too and so on.
Paris's communes are so small they get to accumulate to make the threshold. Anything that doesnt, but is caught between the two will also get counted. This avoids a swiss cheese effect, but thus extends the count and reach, especially when the enclaves are so small. If 3 of the 5 communes in a town make the threshold, and the 1 in between doesn't but is sandwiched, they all get counted. Whereas a London version of the exact same town, united under one local authority encompassing the whole urban area plus surrounding countryside, will not as the overall threshold will become too low.
The Couronne affect still stands, making commute connections between nodes far more common in Paris due to the small size and thus choice of communes to hitch to. Sure London has examples -the same algorithm, but Paris really is much more of a web, than can be connected by units 30x smaller than London gets to work around.
Paris plays with nearly 1,800 units averaging 4 sq miles. London plays with only 13 of 120 sq miles. Additionally, if any of London's gets too big, they become 'cities' in their own rights, with their accordant commuters to exclude. Literally the opposite effect.
I'll keep saying it -the fact the base units counting FUAs are so wildly inconsistent between cities, creates distortions. It becomes a sliding scale.
Threaded Mode