[Digger 68]

Originally Posted by harry chickpea

What would you expect when the ratings are reported by a yahoo?

Vermont is what? #5? Take a read over in the Vermont forum to see how that is working out for them. Click-bait.

The problem is listening to people on this site, and believing their ideological rants without any sensible facts to support such rants.

I can routinely go to any state forum on this site and find people that hate the state they live in regardless
of any real facts.

[RocketDawg]

Originally Posted by Mississippi Alabama Line

I've never quite understood that Piedmont Megaregion, because there are VAST amounts of open space between Huntsville and Atlanta, Huntsville and Birmingham, and Birmingham and Atlanta (and Nashville and Memphis). So, I think they are just drawing lines between interstates because that's really the only link. Maybe some supply-chain economics, or business similarities going on, but that's still mainly just roads. Or, it's just based on population. With all that said, I don't see some 'link' between these cities anytime soon. The economies and drivers are so different.

So, the more and more I learn, the less I agree with the Megaregion concept. Perhaps the 'core' of it is legitimate. Really the only one I can halfway see the similarities is the Texas Triangle, or ring of fire, as some call it, and only because it's contained in the same state and the economy is VERY similar in all areas. But even those 3-4 cities are separated by many miles.

But to answer your question, no, I don't see Birmingham and Huntsville growing together anytime soon. Much more likely is Huntsville and Decatur, or long-term, Birmingham and Tuscaloosa (and even those are very distinctly separated).

If I recall correctly, the map was of developing megaregions. And yes, it seems to be a pretty loose definition. The only real megalopolis in the eastern half of the country is Boston-Washington. There's also a lot of empty space between Atlanta and Charlotte.

I suppose the Alabama part is part of the developing megaregion because of population density. I haven't looked into it, but I suspect there are more people in the NE quadrant of the state plus Tuscaloosa than there are in the rest of the state.

[jero23]

Originally Posted by RocketDawg

If I recall correctly, the map was of developing megaregions. And yes, it seems to be a pretty loose definition. The only real megalopolis in the eastern half of the country is Boston-Washington. There's also a lot of empty space between Atlanta and Charlotte.

I suppose the Alabama part is part of the developing megaregion because of population density. I haven't looked into it, but I suspect there are more people in the NE quadrant of the state plus Tuscaloosa than there are in the rest of the state.

That's correct. It's rural between Metro Atlanta and Greenville/Spartanburg/Anderson (GSP) as well as between GSP and Metro Charlotte. The megaregion is developing but it is clearly happening with time.

The concept was developed by Dr. Catherine Ross of Georgia Tech Center of Quality Growth and Regional Development (CQGRD) and White House Office of Urban Affairs from the Obama Administration. She described how these regions are on their way to developing into one continuous stream of various levels of urbanization along major corridors

The population density in the northern third of Alabama is substantially more dense than the remainder. Its continuity of development along I-20 through the Birmingham region (also known as the Birmingham DMA) of Birmingham, Tuscaloosa, Gadsden, and Anniston/Oxford along with the Huntsville area is what qualifies the area into the developing Piedmont Megaregion. It's also where the majority of commerce is being produced in the state these days.

[Mississippi Alabama Line]

Originally Posted by RocketDawg

There's also a lot of empty space between Atlanta and Charlotte.

No question.

What these maps fail to take into account is future modes of transportation. If we are still rolling along on the same roads as we see today, then eventually, in like 100 years, these areas might be starting to show some signs of growing together.

But the megaregion concept is based on population, and where population is projected to grow. It's not about an area 'growing together'.

[BeauCharles]

Originally Posted by Saskia Calico

As for Washington, it's nice that the people have such high incomes. Is the cost of living proportionately high? Or does a low cost of living help balance out the benefit of the high incomes? Does it still have earthquakes? A high income can't offset the damage an earthquake can cause.

I have nothing to say about LA's ranking. I have never had any desire to visit that state, even though some really good music has come from its residents.

I would take AL's heat and humidity any day over WA's amount of rain and lack of sunny days. I hate tornadoes, but at least they come with a warning. Earthquakes? I'd have to buy an earthquake-sensing dog. Does the state's benefits program cover earthquake-sensing dogs?

Strong Earthquakes are quite rare. You're much more like to have property damage, injury or death living in tornado or hurricane country than earthquake country. Still, that's not likely to happen for most folks either. In the West the real danger now are wildfires. I live less than 30 minutes drive from the town of Paradise in CA and it was utterly destroyed by one last November (15,000 homes and business burned and 85 people killed - mostly elderly).

Originally Posted by Huntsville_secede

The problem is it's not affordable for anyone other than the very rich anymore and California actually didn't finish that high in the ranking because the quality of life there even without factoring in the cost of living has gone done a lot recently.

Almost anywhere east of the Coast Range in California is affordable. Those out of sight prices are pretty much confined to a narrow 50 mile strip from the Bay Area to San Diego. There is a lot more to California on the other side of it. That said, the agricultural based Central Valley (where I've usually lived) may be more affordable but they also have much higher unemployment, educational attainment and poverty... pretty much like poorer areas of The South.

[wharton]

Originally Posted by GreggT

Gee I live in rural Alabama, I know of no one who dumps raw sewage into their yard. Maybe you are confused on what a septic tank is.

I guess when the UN director of world poverty recently called rural Alabama a shocking display of the worst impoverished conditions in a first world county he has ever witnessed, AND highlighted on ground sewage dumping, he was just making stuff up, eh? Or when I'm spending the winter in Gulf Shores and reading articles about how 50% of all low income rural dwellers in some areas of the state have on site waste disposal that essentially dumps raw sewage in the yard, I'm making that up too? BTW, I mentioned my career in my post. I've spent hundreds of thousands building on-site systems in a first world state, with extensive regulations and oversight during the process. I'm pretty clear exactly who is confused here.

[GreggT]

Originally Posted by wharton

I guess when the UN director of world poverty recently called rural Alabama a shocking display of the worst impoverished conditions in a first world county he has ever witnessed, AND highlighted on ground sewage dumping, he was just making stuff up, eh? Or when I'm spending the winter in Gulf Shores and reading articles about how 50% of all low income rural dwellers in some areas of the state have on site waste disposal that essentially dumps raw sewage in the yard, I'm making that up too? BTW, I mentioned my career in my post. I've spent hundreds of thousands building on-site systems in a first world state, with extensive regulations and oversight during the process. I'm pretty clear exactly who is confused here.

I guess you could consider a septic tank dumping raw sewage in the ground. I'm sure with you spending the Winter in Gulf Shores and being from an enlightened state, you feel that the method of waste disposal (which is highly regulated by the way) reeks of a third world country.
Just a couple added notes:
One in five US households make use of a Septic tank system.
I don't think I can give much credibility to a UN report on Alabama!

[FireStation46]

1st the author has a conclusion so they cook the data to suit their needs and then issue an earth shattering report.

The world keeps spinning, the sun circles the earth. All unimpeded by the latest doom sayer report

[wharton]

Originally Posted by GreggT

I guess you could consider a septic tank dumping raw sewage in the ground. I'm sure with you spending the Winter in Gulf Shores and being from an enlightened state, you feel that the method of waste disposal (which is highly regulated by the way) reeks of a third world country.
Just a couple added notes:
One in five US households make use of a Septic tank system.
I don't think I can give much credibility to a UN report on Alabama!

You have got to be playing dumb here, right? PLEASE tell me that this is a failed attempt at trolling? I would find it hard to believe that anybody, with above a third grade education, would equate dumping raw sewage on the ground with having a functioning, in ground, on site sewage system. Since basic concepts elude you, your opinion on the report of a leading expert in world poverty is probably of little value.

There are multiple sources in the news recently, including an Alabama county level official, who admit that dumping sewage ON THE GROUND is common in the poorer rural areas of ALABAMA. Dumping human waste on the ground is a serious health issue, and has NOTHING to do with installing an on-site sewage system that has one, or more in ground septic tanks.

To put it in simple terms. While building new rural homes or upgrading existing systems in the northeast, I pay a licensed professional to design a system, based on the results of a soil testing report done by another professional. The system installation is inspected roughly 6-7 times, by a state licensed inspector, during the construction process. The systems typically have three tanks, a pump system and a elevated sand bed, with a distribution manifold to uniformly inject nearly clear liquid effluent that is largely particle free. I have paid for, and overseen the installation of, dozens of these systems over the last 35 years. OTOH, there are thousands of poor, most minority people in rural Alabama that can flush a bowel movement, and run out side to see it dumping out the pipe, into the yard. If, in your mind, you can equate the process of providing a safe, reliable and effective on-site sewage treatment system, to dumping raw human waste in your yard, there is literally no hope for you.

[southernnaturelover]

It’s not a widespread rural Alabama problem as it’s mostly isolated to a handful of very poor counties (Bullock, Macon, Wilcox) in the middle of the state. Most Alabamians have never even step foot in those counties.

I’m not sure what can be done when some of the houses look so bad that they are barely habitable. You’re talking entire counties with populations under 15k, so there’s probably not much in the way of inspections. Even if it were inspected, where are these people going to get money for repairs?