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.
Which city is the most centrally located as in linking all parts of the country through its location and infrastructure?
Well, if that's the stated criteria, Chicago is the only logical answer. And it would be even if Kansas City and St. Louis had been listed.
But in the runner-up category, I think a strong case could be made for KC. Even though it's not an air hub thanks in part to its unusually ill-suited-for-the-task airport* (Dallas/Fort Worth International is actually KCI on steroids, but the architects who designed both avoided a couple of fatal mistakes they made the first time around with the later airport), it is located at a major highway junction - the principal east-west and north-south Interstates through the country's midsection** meet there, and a new one's just been completed heading due south to New Orleans - and as I noted before, it handles more rail freight than any other city in the country but Chicago.
In the air traffic department, no other airport handles passenger traffic to as many different US cities as O'Hare does. Add Midway, a major hub for the largest US passenger carrier, Southwest, and the margin grows even larger. But in the realm of air freight, the honor goes to FedEx's headquarters city, Memphis, which is otherwise not really a competitor in this derby.
*This problem will be fixed about five years from now when the city opens a new, single-terminal finger-pier airport on the site of mothballed KCI Terminal A. Maybe this time they'll finally do something every other major airport in the country does and put the arrivals and departures traffic on separate roads.
**Despite its location and route, many might say that Interstate 80 rather than Interstate 70 is the principal east-west Interstate through the nation's midsection because 70 doesn't make it all the way across the country; it ends in Utah, well away from the Pacific coast. But once past the Illinois line, 70 connnects all three of the largest cities in the general Central Plains area: St. Louis, Kansas City and Denver. The cities 80 serves - Davenport, Des Moines, Omaha - are a good bit smaller. Trucks out of Chicago are as likely to take I-55 to St. Louis and I-70 or I-44 west from there as they are to use I-80, especially if their ultimate destination is Southern California or Texas. In the days before the Interstates, only three cities were located on the two transcontinental U.S. highways through the center of the country: St. Louis, Kansas City and San Francisco. (The routes in question are U.S. 40 and U.S. 50.)
Geographically, the perfect answer for the contiguous lower 48 states of the United States would have been a major city located slightly right of center in the state of Nebraska and aligned with the same latitude as Colorado's northern state line (Omaha is still too far East in Nebraska). Basically the exact spot that North Platte, Nebraska is located would be the ideal exact center of the United States' 48 contiguous states, at least when speaking geographically. However, no major city exists out there. So I'll go with Omaha and Kansas City. Wichita for a smaller city with an area less than 1 million people might also apply well for this topic.
For seriously major cities, Chicago and Dallas.
Chicago skews a bit too far east and a bit further north; in contrast Dallas is close to the center line of the country with regards to its longtitude but tends to skew a bit further south in latitude than the ideal geographic center of the contiguous lower 48 states of the United States.
As for the question on which place is the center of the population in the United States, the census bureau answers that question each decade as they change it to a location that is considered the mean center of population of that entire country:
Currently a place in Missouri and moving further south and west each passing decade, basically reflecting the same two directions that the people are migrating to in the United States.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 07-23-2018 at 05:03 PM..
Not sure why LA is included in the poll. It’s not even centrally located in California much less the US.
"Centrally located" does not only mean the literal interpretation of geographic location. New York and Los Angeles have massive rail, seaport, and air infrastructure and as such are included in the poll.
Definitely has to be a midwestern city and of this list it’s chicago. But I can see it being an Ohio city instead as they’re closer to both east coast and sunbelt cities.
There are cities in the midwest approaching 1 million population that still don't have what the rest of the developed world would recognize as serious infrastructure. I don't see why it has to be a midwestern city.
This time, I really am going to haul off on someone - namely, you, OP, for leaving BOTH Missouri cities off this list.
In a U.S. context, they ought to be on there, for not only are they geographically central in the country, they also have major airports with lots of connecting flights (St. Louis' is busier than Kansas City's) and are hubs for rail freight transport like Chicago is (here it's the other way around - and Kansas City is second only to Chicago nationally in the amount of rail freight its rail yards handle).
But I will grant that you said you were looking at "centrality" from a perspective other than geographic. In which case, what sort of "centrality" were you measuring?
Geographically speaking, no Eastern Seaboard or Pacific Coast metropolis should be on this list, though Atlanta probably deserves inclusion simply because just about everyone headed anywhere in the Southeastern US passes through it en route from where they came from to where they're going.
You might argue that St. Louis and Kansas City are secondary to Chicago, and you'd be right. But in that case, I'd also leave the Twin Cities off this list, for no other city in or near the Central Plains is as key a transportation hub as Chicago is. St. Louis and Kansas City both belong if the Twin Cities do.
But I'm still confused, and maybe going back through the posts on this thread will help me get unconfused: Just what sort of centrality did you wish to assess?
I came up with the idea for this thread by living in lots of different places and always hearing, no matter where I lived, how ideal the location was from boosters. Sometimes, when a city doesn't have that much to promote, they'll play the location card. I've lived in the complete middle of nowhere, and sure enough, you'll have people saying "this is an ideal location, because it's only two hours from X." Located in the midwest? Well, now you can play the "we're six hours from %60 of the U.S. population" card, even if your city lacks basic infrastructure like Amtrak.
I am a native Pittsburgher. I could have made the case that Pittsburgh came up as THE vital link between the east coast and Great Lakes mega regions. It's not on the poll because times have changed. Finding a direct flight from California to Pittsburgh is a six month in advance research project. I'm guessing people flying around the region aren't stopping in Pittsburgh too much. Speaking of flights, in searching flights from San Diego to Pittsburgh (there is no direct service) the stopover option will almost ALWAYS be ORD or DFW. I've never even seen STL or KC airports offered as stops.
A more abstract way to think about centrally located is to ask "what city am I interacting with the most without even planning to?" Even though I voted Chicago, I would say my answer to that question would be Dallas. Whether it be the airport or dealing with corporate offices there, it just always seems to be in the way.
It seems to me that the obvious answer is Kansas City or Omaha, the 2 most centrally located big cities in the country. Unfortunately, neither of them are on the poll list.
However, if you take a look at the map of the Lower 48, it should be obvious that Kansas City and Omaha are pretty much smack-dab in the middle of the country. Not DFW or MSP or STL, CHI, DEN, IND, or ATL are so centrally located.
If at some point in the future, the US Capital should be re-located from DC to a more central location, without a doubt, it would be moved to KC or Omaha.
It seems to me that the obvious answer is Kansas City or Omaha, the 2 most centrally located big cities in the country. Unfortunately, neither of them are on the poll list.
However, if you take a look at the map of the Lower 48, it should be obvious that Kansas City and Omaha are pretty much smack-dab in the middle of the country. Not DFW or MSP or STL, CHI, DEN, IND, or ATL are so centrally located.
If at some point in the future, the US Capital should be re-located from DC to a more central location, without a doubt, it would be moved to KC or Omaha.
So, we have the literal meaning of "centrally located" (geographic center) and the more practical meaning (flights, commerce, rail lines, etc.). Since every place I've ever been to claims to have the best location, I thought this might be a good poll.
Which city is the most centrally located as in linking all parts of the country through its location and infrastructure? Only U.S. travel/commerce etc. counts.
Its Dallas. End of discussion. Where ppl are getting philly from must be high.
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.
