Will Columbus become largest Ohio metro? (Cleveland, Cincinnati: houses, to move, pollution)

[goofy328]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

True subways are the most expensive form of rail, and are typically reserved for the most densely populated cities. None of the 3-Cs need that, and in Ohio, just building a simple trolley is a political nightmare.

As far as Columbus goes, just wait. I suspect we'll be hearing something on the rail subject soon.

Someone gets it. What about that "transit oriented development" people love to talk about.

[Panther79]

Hopefully not! I pray very hard each and every day that Nationwide Insurance, AEP, Motorists Mutual Insurance, Worthington Industries, and Chase Bank move their operations to another city, or a serious natural disaster makes the area unlivable. I might actually like it if 500,000 people or more just up and left!

[motorman]

Originally Posted by midwest1

...This approach to gauging the relative sizes of the worlds agglomerations is actually more precise and logical than the lazy limitation of county-only measurement of metros the Federal bureaucrats employ. They have no real motivation to actually measure such things as they are just tools in a government-expenditure machine...

Yes. As you implied, the World Agglomerations website ( straight out replaces the preponderance of arbitrary, biased data offered up by the U.S. Census bureaucracy as Holy Writ with a simpler, more accurate representation of population spread as applied to the 3-Cs.

Originally Posted by goofy328

Same games different day. Cincinnati and Dayton you have continuous development. Same with Cleveland and Akron. Northeast Ohio and Southwest Ohio are urban regions of the state, not rural regions with a few large cities. It has been this way in both regions since the nineties.

Agreed. Although this nighttime satellite photograph (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/f...635d38a1_o.jpg) is dated, it nevertheless documents the continuous set of developments you mentioned. Obviously, the light sources don't actually represent people, but such a photo closely mimics the population spread portrayed by the World Agglomerations graphics. To examine how similar these two sources are, locate the 3-Cs by their rankings (#173/189/321), select and click the city and then the third box from the left that will appear (with the red tear drop shaped pointer and labeled"Google Maps Street Map"). Finally, view the yellow areas enclosed by peach outlines.

[goofy328]

Originally Posted by Panther79

Hopefully not! I pray very hard each and every day that Nationwide Insurance, AEP, Motorists Mutual Insurance, Worthington Industries, and Chase Bank move their operations to another city, or a serious natural disaster makes the area unlivable. I might actually like it if 500,000 people or more just up and left!

For what that's worth you could just move to another metro where that has already happened, like Cleveland. There are no signs of Columbus slowing down anytime soon.

[motorman]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

So again, it's just made up. The word "contiguous" is not some abstract concept. It has a real meaning. Urbanized Area uses that in its definition and population. For the record, Columbus would be the smallest of the 3-Cs in Ohio using UAs, so this has nothing to do with its ranking on that site. It has to do with the seemingly arbitrary way they come up with the populations. They state at the bottom of the page where they got them, but they don't really apply that definition across the board. It's not just Ohio cities- I looked at others and they were all off.

As you say, if they were combining Cincinnati and Dayton, the given population would be higher, but it's not. Yet they're clearly using a CSA-like definition for Cleveland. And they don't even use an MSA or UA for Columbus. It's totally random, which makes the site pretty useless in my opinion. Just because they give some lip service to the "Cin-Day" thing, that doesn't make it an accurate site for population figures. You're letting your bias ignore the problems.

In turn, however much you continue to discredit the World Agglomerations website, you're failing to recognize that it publishes viable population stats not censored by the U.S. Census Bureau, an agency fraught with bias of their own. All one needs to do is scrutinize the bureau's MSA/CSA/UA gobbledygook for evidence. The World Agglomerations website manages to cut through all that crap with a much compacted, simplified presentation that I really appreciate. (See Post #183.)

[jbcmh81]

Ok.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by motorman

In turn, however much you continue to discredit the World Agglomerations website, you're failing to recognize that it publishes viable population stats not censored by the U.S. Census Bureau, an agency fraught with bias of their own. All one needs to do is scrutinize the bureau's MSA/CSA/UA gobbledygook for evidence. The World Agglomerations website manages to cut through all that crap with a much compacted, simplified presentation that I really appreciate. (See Post #183.)

Lol... why would the Census censor a random internet site’s arbitrarily created population figures? This is hardly the only site out there that has its own population figures. It’s not special in any way.

Making extraordinary claims requires extraordinary proof. I assume you have all kinds of supporting evidence that the Census’ numbers are biased against cities... well specifically, I can only assume you’re talking about the fact that it doesn’t support the CinDay claim, so it must be a conspiracy. Come on. Do you really think the Census gives two craps about that? They’re not there to boost the ego of ConDay boosters. Also, you already admitted the numbers weren’t right, now you’re attempting to treat them as gospel. Make up your mind.

[jbcmh81]

But satellite photos guys! Satellite photos!!! Highly scientific stuff.

[motorman]

Originally Posted by motorman

In turn, however much you continue to discredit the World Agglomerations website, you're failing to recognize that it publishes viable population stats not censured by the U.S. Census Bureau, an agency fraught with bias of their own...

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Lol... why would the Census censor a random internet site’s arbitrarily created population figures? This is hardly the only site out there that has its own population figures. It’s not special in any way...

I'm in agreement with you concerning my questionable wording of not censured by. It should have read other than those sanctified by, which would have given this sentence the meaning I actually intended.

[woxyroxme]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

But satellite photos guys! Satellite photos!!! Highly scientific stuff.

Satellite photos prove that most of South Korea is Seoul and Pyongyang does not exist.