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.
You may be right but there is definatley some incremental. I am estimating with 2000 to 2009 so could be like +/-5% on volume but that would still be less than 400K on those totals
but another way to think about it for perspective, would you assume that 50% of Texas population is within a hundred miles of either, if so the numbers actually make some sense.
I would not say that.
It might be true for Dallas since it is closer to waaaaaay more cities, with bigger populations, while there isn't much near Houston (that is why Houston's CSA is pretty much the same as its MSA). But withing 100 miles of the metroplex you run into Tyler, Waco, Witchita falls, Longview, Killeen. Abileen, Texarkana. Heck 100 miles prolly puts you right outside OKC.
going from 50 to 100 for houston gives you the gulf to the south, nothing to the west, nothing to the north, so the bulk of additional people is probably coming from Lousiana instead of Texas.
I would say over 50% of Texas is withing 100 miles of Dallas but onlt about 40 % would be within 100 miles of Houston
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,565,972 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by waronxmas
I agree and the number from the OP roughly matches up with urban area populations
This is where we part ways.
I wouldn't call an extra 1 million people for Philly (because of the southern NYC burbs and northern Baltimore burbs) and an extra 3 million for DC (because of all of Baltimore) minimal. Basically, when you draw a 50 mile radius around any of those cities you'll include development that occurred because of another city.
Whereas if you drew a 50 mile radius around Chicago or Atlanta or Houston, all of the development is because of those cities and no other city. And for Miami and the Bay Area, depending on which radius you use, you only get a fraction of the idea of the developed area.
So basically if one were to say that by drawing a 50 mile radius around Dallas, and you had less people than Philadelphia or DC in same area, it would be inaccurate state that those two cities had a larger population than in the same area as a Dallas even though it is technically true. All of that population in the 50 mile area around Dallas is because of Dallas whereas in the same 50 mile radius for Philadelphia and DC there is more people there because it overlaps with the populations of the Baltimore and New York Metro.
I believe in comparing apples to apples or at least making the most fair comparison as possible, therefore taking Chicago, Miami, and the Bay Area out of this argument it is only right to compare Philadelphia and DC with other metros in which water does not prohibit development like Dallas or Atlanta. If the bottom line is that we're adding the population by drawing a circle 25 or 50 miles out around these cities from the center of the radius then let that be it. NE/Mid-Atlantic cities are simply closer in distance from each other than Southern cities. It is not DC or Philadephia's fault that Baltimore and NYC are so close to them, this is how the cities were set up and have grown to be. The Northeast just has a make up and density that the south cannot match.
In fact as seen by the stats DC and Philly dont even need the 50 mile radius to show how many people are there since they both have over 4 million in a 25 mile radius. The jump in population to 7 million is where DC's or Philly's suburbs would "sprawl" they actually "overlap" or i like to say "intertwine" with the suburbs to the next closest city i.e. Baltimore and NYC/Northern NJ. There is no 3 or 4 hour ride to the next major city on I-95 like you might see down south, from DC northward you have Baltimore in 45 mins, from there another 1:20 hrs to Philadelphia and from the top end of their suburbs another 1:15 to NYC. Meanwhile very little breaks in development across that whole stretch and you probably pass about 30 million people in the process and cross through mid size cities like Wilmington DE and Trenton NJ, Atlantic City, etc.
I agree the methodology is not perfect, but is simplistic. It measures how many people live within a distance of the core at different mileage. So for a Miami or Chicago with water etc. There are still x amount of people that live x number of miles, so in a way it still estimates the number of people within that range. There was also discussions on this topic before and never really any analysis.
I think if nothing else it gives some perspective and quantifiable metrics on populations in relative areas. I also found it interesting to look at the 100 miles radius numbers in the NE corrider, I was amazed with that metric how populated the central part is from Southern CT to Northern DE. NJ areas on this measure were the highest. Maybe that is why the Jersey Shore can get so crowded, one in ten people in the US are within a two hour drive of the Jersey Shore.
1. NYC 141K
2. SF 103K
3. Philadelphia 87K
4. Boston 80K
5. Chicago 40K
6. LA 40K
7. DC 38K
9. Miami 24K
10. Houston 22K
11. Detroit 17K
12. Atlanta 17K
13. Dallas 14K
Right, hence the low number for a metro of around 10 million that spread out in 180 degrees as opposed to 360. The 50 miles captures most people in the central metro area, as most suburbs are within 50 miles except the northern lakeshore ones, and the northwest burbs.
Other cities like Miami, Boston and San Fran have the same issue with the water. Also the exact placement of the Amtrak station. Move LA's out towards Santa Monica and it would drop down a lot more than the downtown station miles from the ocean.
Chicago's just has the largest impact population-wise. It has a large population that pushes suburbs out 50+ miles. I don't think the 50 mile radius would miss as many people for Miami or Boston. San Fran stretches down a lot to the SW though (San Jose). That's 50 miles, right?
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,877,648 times
Reputation: 2501
I know it's not a square mile, but it's pretty close and that is uber high density. I know Hong Kong, Tokyo or developing nations have density like that, but even Manhattan I thought was a little less. I'm just impressed!
I know it's not a square mile, but it's pretty close and that is uber high density. I know Hong Kong, Tokyo or developing nations have density like that, but even Manhattan I thought was a little less. I'm just impressed!
A one mile radius works out to roughly 3.14 square miles. An area of a circle is determined by pi (3.1415927......) times the square of the radius. So it sounds correct NYC having that amount of people in a one mile radius.
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.
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.
