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 think the point is that in between your "just to the south" and "just to the north" points there is about 20 miles of sparse, non-continuous development in Mercer County. That's what undercuts any argument for urban contiguity between NYC and Philly. Anyone who has ever driven from NYC to Philly knows that there is a substantial and noticeable break in suburban development south of North and East Brunswick.
There is absolutely no way there is 20 miles and if you are basing this on the NJ Turnpike, absolutely it will look that way, you enter the Pine Barrens and Fort Dix; there is reason the highway was built there, to avoid the developed places. I will say again if your only experiences traversing between these two is the NJ Turnpike (especially between exit 9 moreso 8A and exit 5) you have zero idea of where the developed connection is and 20 miles is rediculous. Trenton to South Brunswick is like 10 miles and more than half of the stretch is well developed not to mention ~10K ppsm in either of those ends.
Lastly the whole space does meet US Census UA development it is only split because of MSA cut line and the space you are describing south of North Brunswick is an area where it is not considered continuous UA; that area is west of there but the turnpike spends nearly 20 miles in the non UA portion in Fort Dix and the forrest; of which much of this space cannot be developed as it is a military base; the highway just took advantage of the open space for cheaper costs to not displace development.
There is absolutely no way there is 20 miles and if you are basing this on the NJ Turnpike, absolutely it will look that way, you enter the Pine Barrens and Fort Dix; there is reason the highway was built there, to avoid the developed places. I will say again if your only experiences traversing between these two is the NJ Turnpike (especially between exit 9 moreso 8A and exit 5) you have zero idea of where the developed connection is and 20 miles is rediculous. Trenton to South Brunswick is like 10 miles and more than half of the stretch is well developed not to mention ~10K ppsm in either of those ends.
Lastly the whole space does meet US Census UA development it is only split because of MSA cut line and the space you are describing south of North Brunswick is an area where it is not considered continuous UA; that area is west of there but the turnpike spends nearly 20 miles in the non UA portion in Fort Dix and the forrest; of which much of this space cannot be developed as it is a military base; the highway just took advantage of the open space for cheaper costs to not displace development.
There is development between Trenton and North Brunswick but it is not continuous! That's like saying there is development between Cleveland and Chicago. South Brunswick is surrounded on all sides by miles of empty space.
I challenge you to identify any one route that has continuous suburban development from Trenton all the way to North and East Brunswick.
There is development between Trenton and North Brunswick but it is not continuous! That's like saying there is development between Cleveland and Chicago. South Brunswick is surrounded on all sides by miles of empty space.
I challenge you to identify any one route that has continuous suburban development from Trenton all the way to North and East Brunswick.
Route one has at best a two mile stretch of undeveloped space in that area.
Route one has at best a two mile stretch of undeveloped space in that area.
Yes US1 is your best bet but even there you have sporadic development most of the way from North Brunswick to the 95 interchange. You'll see some gas stations, office parks and a few strip malls but if you get off at almost any point you'll be seeing empty space within a minute of exiting the highway. It's really stretching the concept of continuous development.
Last edited by Fitzrovian; 03-31-2012 at 10:12 AM..
They do meet the density and connectivity (meaning continuous census block requirements) but are seperated because of seperate MSAs in EXACTLY the same way that the UA of SF and SJ are seperated; you do realize that SF and SJ are not one UA either; right?
Im not the one making claims so these strange attempts to turn the tables on me makes no sense cause Im not upset over UA rankings---and why should I be when San Francisco and San Jose are combined into a single Combined Statistical Area.
Quote:
There is much connectivity and development sna interplay but the dynamic is different, also scale. But yes you di show the least developed section on the path.
Actually compared to SF-SJ, the area in between NY-Philadelphia is far less densely populated and developed overall:
Most of the route between SF and SJ AND Oakland and SJ is 5,000+ persons per square mile. On the other hand, huge swaths of land along the route between NY and Philadelphia are actually under 1,000 persons or just around 1,000 per square mile
Quote:
By the way by your calculation method there would be what; 718K in San Mateo county between SF and SJ
Aside from the fact that I never claimed otherwise, the density in small San Mateo county still has far greater average density along the corridor between SF and SJ than what we find in between NY and Philadelphia.
Hey - I wouldn't sweat it. You posed a question on a net forum. Just because a few people choose to be tools doesn't mean it hasn't been an interesting thread.
It hasnt been interesting. It was a foolish endeavour, redundant and obvious.
If this was DC/Balt or South Florida, fine. But this is NYC, Phil.....two separate metros totally. Everyone from NYC thinks this, its only some Philly folks who want it desperately.....but its been funny to watch, at least.
Already did give it up, as I have repeatedly stated time and time again on this thread.
All that needs to be done is admitting that Philadelphia and NYC are becoming increasingly connected and then this thread can die. As opposed to being prolonged needlessly as to not affront the egos of one or two posters.
You're from DFW, and I still consider DFW more interconnected via development than the Bay Area. Why are you pushing this?
And not to beat a dead bush, San Jose and San Francisco are, and looks like forever will be, considered two metro areas by the US Government, which knows better than all of us combined.
DFW is considered one metro
South Florida is considered one metro
San Francisco-San Jose are two metros, like Philadelphia-NYC and DC-Baltimore
And not to beat a dead bush, San Jose and San Francisco are, and looks like forever will be, considered two metro areas by the US Government, which knows better than all of us combined.
No. You just don't seem to get it repeatedly. MSAs and CSAs are awkward one-size-fits-all arbitrary cut-offs used for basic planning, but unfortunately don't make sense in every single context (and neither should it since if it was used to make sense in the Bay Area's context, then it would end up making a lot of other cities not make sense). Different metropolitan areas can and are built differently. The Bay Area is extremely polycentric, but still tightly bound. Same media market, same state, same regional governing agencies, same sports teams, same self-identification, and absolutely continuous development and commuter patterns. What about this has been so hard for you?
It hasnt been interesting. It was a foolish endeavour, redundant and obvious.
If this was DC/Balt or South Florida, fine. But this is NYC, Phil.....two separate metros totally. Everyone from NYC thinks this, its only some Philly folks who want it desperately.....but its been funny to watch, at least.
I think even when Philly and NY's suburbs eventually grow completely into each other, that the main identities will remain separate. They both have a history of being established independent, competing and important centers stretching back 100 years before this country was founded. That's not going to go away even when their urban areas sprawl completely into each other someday. It'll just be a shared area, just like NJ is shared by both now.
Until recent history San Francisco has been almost the only city that mattered in California with no real competition. Just on the idea of feeling like one absolute area it's more natural for the Bay Area. The idea of a combined NY-Philly may never catch but that doesn't mean it isn't happening on the ground in between regardless.
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.
