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.
I do not understand what weighted density is, but I do know with the real density numbers it's a whole different numbers.
From Seattle Transit Blog: "Weighted density counts the local density around each person and averages it over all the residents in an area. Although not without its own problems, the average is less impacted by large unpopulated areas, largely eliminating boundary games."
Therefore, Lake Michigan is not counted with Chicago, the East River and Hudson are not counted for NYC, Santa Monica Mountains count very little for Los Angeles.
It's basically a slightly more sophisticated way to measure density. As you can see from the OP's source, it the Census Bureau has begun using it so it is a pretty legitimate statistic.
Very interesting stats. It would be fun to see them do this in various directions too to see if one direction weights it lighter/heavier for each city. Most cities are not 100% uniform after awhile in all directions.
From Seattle Transit Blog: "Weighted density counts the local density around each person and averages it over all the residents in an area. Although not without its own problems, the average is less impacted by large unpopulated areas, largely eliminating boundary games."
Therefore, Lake Michigan is not counted with Chicago, the East River and Hudson are not counted for NYC, Santa Monica Mountains count very little for Los Angeles.
It's basically a slightly more sophisticated way to measure density. As you can see from the OP's source, it the Census Bureau has begun using it so it is a pretty legitimate statistic.
I still dont see why New York ranks so low at 35miles when in statistics its numbers are higher then everyone. So I dont really see this as good way to see the density, because real numbers prove otherwise.
@ 15 Miles 1. New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA 14,493 2. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL 12,429 3. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 9,468 4. Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 6,418 5. San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 6,285 6. Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI 5,041 7. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 4,551 8. Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ 4,546 9. San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA 4,380 10. Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 4,216 11. Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI 3,953 12. Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 3,930 13. Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX 3,840 14. Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 3,424 15. Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH 2,597 16. Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 2,382 17. Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA 2,371
@ 20 Miles 1. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 9,849 2. New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA 7,061 3. San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 6,451 4. Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 5,751 5. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL 5,672 6. Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI 4,561 7. Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 4,006 8. Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 3,900 9. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 3,609 10. Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI 3,319 11. Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX 3,106 12. Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ 2,989 13. Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 2,778 14. San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA 2,365 15. Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH 2,223 16. Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA 1,960 17. Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 1,469
If the above is accurate, it just goes to show planning and development patterns play a large role in the outcome of a radius population sweep. How can D.C. have a higher density at 20 miles than 15 miles? Probably because our development runs linear along our metro lines and MARC/VRE commuter rail lines. I know D.C. is built around transit and preserves area's not near transit for agriculture. Most region's just build anywhere so I don't know how to make an apples to apples comparison to region's with poor urban planning. The D.C. region grew mostly after the construction of metro and commuter rail. This has allowed development to be concentrated. The only other area where development concentrated was the Dulles Toll Road that now has Metro too so the whole region pretty much radiates in linear lines along metro routes.
I still dont see why New York ranks so low at 35miles when in statistics its numbers are higher then everyone. So I dont really see this as good way to see the density, because real numbers prove otherwise.
New York falls off sharply because even the dense parts of the metro cannot offset the Atlantic ocean waters it captures at 15+ miles from the city hall. That's why at some point even the more inland Philadelphia is denser than NYC.
I think id rather go with simple density and continuity at the tract level
Urban area needs work but i don't think they are not bad.
CSA density is pure crap because at that level it takes in so much space.
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.
