Major cities that are weirdly overlooked and nobody seems to care about

[JManc]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

tourist visits in NYC totalled 65 million in 2018

https://www.baruch.cuny.edu/nycdata/...2470%20billion.

does Lijiang attract 65 million tourists?

It attracts 14 million tourists annually but only has about ~200,000 people. Percentage wise, this place is way more clogged with tourists. It's also probably within a day's drive of 500+ million people

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by JManc

It attracts 14 million tourists annually but only has about ~200,000 people. Percentage wise, this place is way more clogged with tourists. It's also probably within a day's drive of 500+ million people

nobody is arguing that point, but it's completely wrong to say that this city receives more tourists than NYC, as muppet did.

venice receives 30 million visitors per year, btw. so not uncommon for major historical attractions.

[muppet]

As in overseas 'tourists' - I stipulated that in my original post if you look, that I was only mentioning overseas.

NYC btw gets about 14 million overseas and 25 million domestic tourists. The 65 million figure includes daytrippers and anyone visiting from over 50 miles away, inc commuters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_New_York_City


For comparison London works out at 20 million overseas, 28 million domestic and 280 million daytrippers (for example 1/5 the country visits every few months).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_London

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by muppet

As in overseas 'tourists' - I stipulated that in my original post if you look, that I was only mentioning overseas.

NYC btw gets about 14 million overseas and 25 million domestic tourists. The 65 million figure includes daytrippers and anyone visiting from over 50 miles away, inc commuters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_New_York_City


For comparison London works out at 20 million overseas, 28 million domestic and 280 million daytrippers (for example 1/5 the country visits every few months).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_London

so london can count every tourist because being a small island they are all from overseas, even from their other tiny isles, but nyc can't count anyone visiting from the entire americas because though they cross ocean water to get to manhatan and water is a thing for you, that's not water.

oh, and england people who visit london every few months are 'daytrippers.'

well that makes perfect sense.

i guess, to a homer.

[muppet]

What on earth are you on about? Overseas means foreign passport. I thought everyone knew that. Does it mean something different in the US (serious question)? In the UK 'overseas' just means 'foreign'.

They're the same criteria:


NYC:

foreign tourists (overnight stays) 14 million
domestic visitors (overnight stays) 25 million
daytrippers (no overnighting) 65 million


London:

foreign tourists (overnight stays) 20 million
domestic visitors (overnight stays) 28 million
daytrippers (no overnighting) 280 million


London excels in daytrippers due to near 50 million in the size of Maine and a very dense rail network, as its catchment. In other words it's more doable and cheaper to visit than overnight, and with less competition/ distance from other cities.

[muppet]

Back to the subject, Lijiang is heavily touristed so not as lovely as depicted, in reality (like Venice) it's a tourist circus for many areas. There are plenty of similar, less crowded options in and around Chongqing.

The one thing if one does visit Lijiang though is proximity to some spectacular natural sites, such as Tiger Leaping Gorge (purported as the world's deepest).

This is Lijiang (in low season), still a lot of fun

• Video Link

but nearby is Shaxi, which would be a real working town, and much more chill if that's your thing:

• Video Link

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by muppet

What on earth are you on about? Overseas means foreign passport. I thought everyone knew that. Does it mean something different in the US (serious question)? In the UK 'overseas' just means 'foreign'.

They're the same criteria:


NYC:

foreign tourists (overnight stays) 14 million
domestic visitors (overnight stays) 25 million
daytrippers (no overnighting) 65 million


London:

foreign tourists (overnight stays) 20 million
domestic visitors (overnight stays) 28 million
daytrippers (no overnighting) 280 million


London excels in daytrippers due to near 50 million in the size of Maine and a very dense rail network, as its catchment. In other words it's more doable and cheaper to visit than overnight, and with less competition/ distance from other cities.

How does London distinguish daytrippers from commuters?

I also don't think people traveling from London to the EU is an apples-to-apples comparison to international travelers to New York, most of whom have to get on a trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific flight to reach the city. You can easily "daytrip" to London from various countries in the EU.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by muppet

Back to the subject, Lijiang is heavily touristed so not as lovely as depicted, in reality (like Venice) it's a tourist circus for many areas. There are plenty of similar, less crowded options in and around Chongqing.

The one thing if one does visit Lijiang though is proximity to some spectacular natural sites, such as Tiger Leaping Gorge (purported as the world's deepest).

This is Lijiang (in low season), still a lot of fun

• Video Link

but nearby is Shaxi, which would be a real working town, and much more chill if that's your thing:

• Video Link

Man I so want to visit China but the wife has zero interest in going over there so I would have to go alone.

[eixample]

Originally Posted by muppet

NYC:

daytrippers (no overnighting) 65 million


London:

daytrippers (no overnighting) 280 million


London excels in daytrippers due to near 50 million in the size of Maine and a very dense rail network, as its catchment. In other words it's more doable and cheaper to visit than overnight, and with less competition/ distance from other cities.

If that isn't an indictment of the poor state of our northeastern US rail network (frequency, cost, coverage, ease of use, etc) than I don't know what more evidence is needed.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by eixample

If that isn't an indictment of the poor state of the state of our northeastern US rail network (frequency, cost, coverage, ease of use, etc) than I don't know what more evidence is needed.

The UK + Ireland have the crappiest rail network in Western Europe, and the NE Corridor has, by far, the best rail network in the Americas, so that makes zero sense.

Also, why would there be more tourists in NYC if the LIRR had higher capacity? There would be more potential rush hour commute capacity, but it wouldn't affect tourism. You think when the new LIRR tunnels to GCT open, there will be an impact on tourism?

Also, those number Muppet posted are nonsense. There is no way to measure something like this, apples-to-apples, across jurisdictions.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The UK + Ireland have the crappiest rail network in Western Europe, and the NE Corridor has, by far, the best rail network in the Americas, so that makes zero sense.

UK's rail network is still better than ours.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by muppet

What on earth are you on about? Overseas means foreign passport. I thought everyone knew that. Does it mean something different in the US (serious question)? In the UK 'overseas' just means 'foreign'.

It's a pretty British phrase, for obvious reasons. It's a bit less clear how it corresponds to non-island countries.

In any case, the comment that Lijiang gets as many tourists total as New York does specifically foreign tourists is kind of an odd comparison to make (also if does get that many tourists then it's not really overlooked, no?).

[muppet]

Yep read my first post on Lijiang. I point out both.

In the UK I always thought 'overseas' meant abroad/ foreign etc, not really thinking about the term from whatever medieval origins and the island status. Didn't even think it was regarded differently elsewhere.

Also in the UK tourism industry (which I work in) we tend to use the term 'tourist' to mean from abroad. 'Visitor' that gets bandied about tends to mean that plus domestic. This is why worlds most 'touristed' cities lists (or even with most 'visitors') only count foreign visitors.

https://bigseventravel.com/2019/08/5...-in-the-world/

https://edition.cnn.com/travel/artic...018/index.html

Originally Posted by muppet

Lijiang (pop 210,000, County 1.2 million) is probably the most beautiful city in China - huge Old Town surrounded by beautiful scenery and absolutely riddled with mountain streams and canals.




Just one thing -it's utterly inundated with Asian tourists the entire year - 14 million, on par with NYC's overseas visitors. To be avoided entirely in peak months and national holidays





It may be a good thing it's unheard of in the West

[muppet]

Originally Posted by JManc

Man I so want to visit China but the wife has zero interest in going over there so I would have to go alone.

It's a shame, China (like India or Japan) truly is like an alternative version of the world. But sell her on the food and landscapes. Show her vids like those too.

[muppet]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

How does London distinguish daytrippers from commuters?

I also don't think people traveling from London to the EU is an apples-to-apples comparison to international travelers to New York, most of whom have to get on a trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific flight to reach the city. You can easily "daytrip" to London from various countries in the EU.

Sure, stick NYC into Europe or make all the US states foreign (eg passport control, Visas) etc and IM sure you'd get great results. I'd however hesitate to say you can easily 'daytrip' into London from abroad, at the very quickest (Eurostar from Paris) it would cost you $200 and take out 5-6 hrs still of your day, including getting to the Eurostar stations. By fastest car 9hrs return, by coach/ ferry/ Channel Tunnel would take 18 hrs return.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by muppet

Sure, stick NYC into Europe or make all the US states foreign (eg passport control, Visas) etc and IM sure you'd get great results. I'd however hesitate to say you can easily 'daytrip' into London from abroad, at the very quickest (Eurostar from Paris) it would cost you $200 and take out 5-6 hrs still of your day, including getting to the Eurostar stations. By fastest coach/ ferry/ Channel Tunnel would take 9hrs one way.

I've daytripped to Boston and Washington from New York a number of times, and they are similar distances away as Paris is from London. I think it's even easier to daytrip from Paris to London than it is from New York to Washington.

[0214685226]

Originally Posted by muppet

What on earth are you on about? Overseas means foreign passport. I thought everyone knew that. Does it mean something different in the US (serious question)? In the UK 'overseas' just means 'foreign'.

They're the same criteria:


NYC:

foreign tourists (overnight stays) 14 million
domestic visitors (overnight stays) 25 million
daytrippers (no overnighting) 65 million


London:

foreign tourists (overnight stays) 20 million
domestic visitors (overnight stays) 28 million
daytrippers (no overnighting) 280 million


London excels in daytrippers due to near 50 million in the size of Maine and a very dense rail network, as its catchment. In other words it's more doable and cheaper to visit than overnight, and with less competition/ distance from other cities.

Honestly I thought London would draw many more foreign tourists than only 20 million considering how close it is to the most dense area of Europe and European capitals. Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam and others.

The population of North America (US, Canada, Mexico) is about 495 million with the US representing about 67% of that population. In contrast, Europe has about 730 million and the UK represents 8%. If you want to scale down the European population the EU population is 445 million and with that figure the UK is 14% of that "Europe". The point is New York is much more isolated and less accessible from foreign tourists than London and still manages to compete with London.

London -> Amsterdam is 222 miles
London -> Brussels is 199 miles
London -> Paris is 214 miles

New York to the closest foreign capital; Ottawa is 340 miles away.
New York -> Mexico City 2,080 miles
New York -> London is 3,460 miles
New York -> Tokyo is 6,750 miles

[muppet]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I've daytripped to Boston and Washington from New York a number of times, and they are similar distances away as Paris is from London. I think it's even easier to daytrip from Paris to London than it is from New York to Washington.

Seriously, try it. See if you can do it. These are all one way. A combination of time and money will conspire to make the trip not worth it, leaving you only a few hours in the city.






I think the quickest way will only ever be by Eurostar train (as the coach will take 9 hrs one way, the car 10hrs return and costing $120 -$450 per person), but even then that would be 4.5 hrs out of your day provided you only went and saw the immediate locale of the train stations, and did no travelling to get to those termini. In reality the quickest route should be about 7 hrs+ including transfer, check in/ passport control. The expense would be quite something too.

However, in these trying times it IS possible. Same day returns have reduced to about $100 (down from about $260 at the cheapest normally)

[muppet]

Originally Posted by 0214685226

Honestly I thought London would draw many more foreign tourists than only 20 million considering how close it is to the most dense area of Europe and European capitals. Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam and others.

The population of North America (US, Canada, Mexico) is about 495 million with the US representing about 67% of that population. In contrast, Europe has about 730 million and the UK represents 8%. If you want to scale down the European population the EU population is 445 million and with that figure the UK is 14% of that "Europe". The point is New York is much more isolated and less accessible from foreign tourists than London and still manages to compete with London.

London -> Amsterdam is 222 miles
London -> Brussels is 199 miles
London -> Paris is 214 miles

New York to the closest foreign capital; Ottawa is 340 miles away.
New York -> Mexico City 2,080 miles
New York -> London is 3,460 miles
New York -> Tokyo is 6,750 miles

Yep but also bear in mind London has consistently been the world's most foreign visited city, or in the top 3 for decades. It's international visitor numbers spread out over the decades is significantly higher (and bear in mind it's hideously expensive too for many Europeans).

More importantly it also competes directly with Paris, Amsterdam, Barcelona, Berlin, Rome, Madrid, Vienna etc. all of which also form top 20s. Even Dublin has 6.6 million overnighting international visitors, Brussels 9 million (Chicago is about 1.5 million, San Fran 2.9 million, LA 7 million by comparison).

In short although London may have an advantage in distance, it doesn't in expense, and especially not in competition.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by muppet

Seriously, try it. See if you can do it. These are all one way. A combination of time and money will conspire to make the trip not worth it, leaving you only a few hours in the city.

I think the quickest way will only ever be by Eurostar train (as the coach will take 9 hrs one way, the car 10hrs return and costing $120 -$450 per person), but even then that would be 4.5 hrs out of your day provided you only went and saw the immediate locale of the train stations, and did no travelling to get to those termini. In reality the quickest route should be about 7 hrs+ including transfer, check in/ passport control. The expense would be quite something too.

However, in these trying times it IS possible. Same day returns have reduced to about $100 (down from about $260 at the cheapest normally)

I think it's much more common than you realize. I once had a business meeting in Amsterdam that was attended by people who lived all across the EU, including London. Not one of the people who traveled spent the night in Amsterdam. All of them traveled in that morning and went home after the meeting ended.

And, I've taken the Eurostar before. It gets you from central London to central Paris in about the same time it takes to fly from New York to Boston/D.C., and the cost is similar. When you factor in that a night in a hotel in Paris or London will cost more than a Eurostar ticket, it makes sense that many people would just opt to pop in for a day and not stay overnight.