U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-02-2016, 10:04 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,272 posts, read 26,286,355 times
Reputation: 11734

Advertisements

Los Angeles is one of the cleaner metros. The DC suburbs are some of the worst offenders.

http://coolclimate.berkeley.edu/maps
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-02-2016, 10:26 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,272 posts, read 26,286,355 times
Reputation: 11734
Ranking of the largest metros (from smallest to largest footprint).

02. Los Angeles
03. Portland
04. New York
05. Seattle
07. San Jose
08. San Francisco
10. San Diego
15. Chicago
18. Las Vegas
20. Boston
21. Phoenix
27. Philadelphia
28. Miami
29. New Orleans
31. Cleveland
33. San Antonio
34. Pittsburgh
37. Detroit
42. Denver
44. Milwaukee
45. Minneapolis
47. Tampa
54. Orlando
55. Austin
57. Dallas
58. Portland
67. Atlanta
69. Baltimore
72. Charlotte
76. Raleigh
77. Memphis
80. Jacksonville
89. Washington, DC
94. St. Louis
95. Nashville
98. Cincinnati
99. Indianapolis

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Res...rint_brief.PDF
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2016, 12:09 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,992 posts, read 42,048,502 times
Reputation: 14811
Metros with a milder climate and maybe less industry do better. Though I'm surprised DC does so badly. I suspect it also depends on how dirty the electricity sources are. DC gets a lot of power from Appalachian coal plants, West Coast cities get a lot of hydro.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2016, 02:12 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,272 posts, read 26,286,355 times
Reputation: 11734
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Metros with a milder climate and maybe less industry do better. Though I'm surprised DC does so badly. I suspect it also depends on how dirty the electricity sources are. DC gets a lot of power from Appalachian coal plants, West Coast cities get a lot of hydro.
The DC area does get a lot of its power from coal. But it's less reliant on fossil fuels overall than Atlanta.

http://www.pepco.com/uploadedFiles/w...14%20FINAL.pdf

https://www.georgiapower.com/about-e...es/home.cshtml
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2016, 03:02 PM
 
21,218 posts, read 30,435,315 times
Reputation: 19671
I think one needs to consider city core when considering carbon footprint. Orlando has got to have one of the highest carbon footprints in that respect with it's "core" population of 240K (and size) seriously dwarfed by it's 4,000 square miles of sprawl, that continues to evolve further and further out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2016, 03:10 PM
 
Location: St. Louis
2,482 posts, read 2,232,029 times
Reputation: 2353
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Metros with a milder climate and maybe less industry do better. Though I'm surprised DC does so badly. I suspect it also depends on how dirty the electricity sources are. DC gets a lot of power from Appalachian coal plants, West Coast cities get a lot of hydro.
The study talked a lot about density and commute times, and I think that's reflected by some of the lower rated metros. Metro St. Louis, for example, has a massive amount of its geographic area in the state of Illinois (probably less than half, but definitely more than a 1/3 of the metro's geographic area), but only 1/4 of the MSA's population.

You can go from downtown St. Louis to cornfields in Illinois in 10 minutes, and many of the suburbs on the Illinois side simply aren't contiguous in terms of development, as you'll drive down two to four lane state highways that go through cornfields in seemingly rural areas to get from one town to another in a lot of places.

This isn't to say that there isn't sprawl on the Missouri side, but the fact that the Missouri side is so much more built up than the Illinois side had to hurt St. Louis. I'd also bet that similar development hurt cities like Cincinnati, Memphis, and Kansas City as well. KC wasn't listed in BajanYankee's post, but it's in the mid 80s if you look at the link.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2016, 03:30 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,272 posts, read 26,286,355 times
Reputation: 11734
Travel Time to Work (90 or More Minutes)

New York - 6.17%
Washington - 4.35%
Baltimore - 3.76%
Chicago - 3.21%
Atlanta - 3.02%
Los Angeles - 2.99%
San Francisco - 2.95%
Philadelphia - 2.93%
Boston - 2.87%
Seattle - 2.45%
Houston - 2.09%
Miami - 2.03%
Dallas - 1.83%
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2016, 04:55 PM
 
972 posts, read 739,914 times
Reputation: 1044
The Seattle area is pretty hazy tho....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2016, 05:39 PM
 
3,071 posts, read 1,817,815 times
Reputation: 1158
Quote:
Originally Posted by PerseusVeil View Post
The study talked a lot about density and commute times, and I think that's reflected by some of the lower rated metros. Metro St. Louis, for example, has a massive amount of its geographic area in the state of Illinois (probably less than half, but definitely more than a 1/3 of the metro's geographic area), but only 1/4 of the MSA's population.

You can go from downtown St. Louis to cornfields in Illinois in 10 minutes, and many of the suburbs on the Illinois side simply aren't contiguous in terms of development, as you'll drive down two to four lane state highways that go through cornfields in seemingly rural areas to get from one town to another in a lot of places.

This isn't to say that there isn't sprawl on the Missouri side, but the fact that the Missouri side is so much more built up than the Illinois side had to hurt St. Louis. I'd also bet that similar development hurt cities like Cincinnati, Memphis, and Kansas City as well. KC wasn't listed in BajanYankee's post, but it's in the mid 80s if you look at the link.
You see, San Jose did better than Chicago when SJ is included.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top