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.
If Memphis had stayed on its path of being the largest Southeastern city, it would have been a good candidate with a balance of size and location today. Unfortunately, the city basically ran out of gas in the 70s and watched as other Southern cities rose.
Although cities like Denver are geographically central, the history and population of the US is very Eastern stacked which is why I would've voted for Philadelphia as being the most "centrally located" smack dab in the middle of the Mid-Atlantic region along the East Coast.
For example, Philadelphia is within a days drive of 40% of the entire US population. 60% of the population of US and Canada is less than a 2 hour flight from Philadelphia. Besides Philadelphia International Airport, there are 5 International Airports within a 1.5 hour drive. A 150 mile radius from Philly City Hall has a population of nearly 40 Million, and much of that radius is in the Atlantic Ocean.
Out of the options given, I like Chicago the best, with DFW a close second. The absence of Either St. Louis OR Kansas City would be a better option than any city in this poll. The absence of either choice intrigues me
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.
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?
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.
