Global Census is merging Inland Empire into the LA MSA making new population count at 19 million

[Losfrisco]

Originally Posted by TacoSoup

If you look at the MSA of New York City then the Inland Empire should be part of Los Angeles’s. There’s countless cities/towns within Metro NYC that are much further out than San Bernardino, and unlike LA to San Bernardino, they’re separated by huge swaths of rural land. Maybe the IE is it’s own MSA because it can standalone greater than the exurbs of NYC can?

I was floored when I was visiting various members of my wife’s family that were all within the MSA of NYC, even though we drove through miles of nothing and are 2 hours from the city. If Poughkeepsie is part of NYC’s MSA, then Riverside should easily be part of LA’s, but I don’t think either should be, just my opinion.

It's been extremely obvious for a long time that LA Metro and Inland Empire are more of a cohesive metro area than sprawlburbia NYC metro. The Gold Line extension just make it impossible to ignore, which is just an addition to Metrolink and Amtrak.

[TheseGoTo11]

Forget NY, LA, Tokyo, or even the Roman Empire. Philly is the biggest MSA ever, it’s just that the corrupt census people refuse to admit that Staten Island is really a Philly suburb.

[Californiaguy2007]

Same here I never thought of the IE as a separate metro,but all part of METRO L.A.

Originally Posted by atadytic19

I never thought of the IE as a stand alone metro anyway. I don't see it as anything but a spillover of LA.

I would go as far as saying I see it more as one metro than DFW. Although DFW is more unified, both Dallas and FW are stand alone cities while the IE is LA burbs

[Californiaguy2007]

NYC METRO is very strange...NYC Metro includes other towns/cities not within New York State.

Just imagine living in Pennsylvania,Connecticut or New Jersey and saying I live in NYC

Originally Posted by Losfrisco

It's been extremely obvious for a long time that LA Metro and Inland Empire are more of a cohesive metro area than sprawlburbia NYC metro. The Gold Line extension just make it impossible to ignore, which is just an addition to Metrolink and Amtrak.

[Losfrisco]

Originally Posted by Californiaguy2007

NYC METRO is very strange...NYC Metro includes other towns/cities not within New York State.

Just imagine living in Pennsylvania,Connecticut or New Jersey and saying I live in NYC

But only Los Angeles gets characterized as "sprawl", despite being much denser and compact.

See also: Getting stuck in traffic going from point A to B because you got on the biggest freeway during rush hour-"this place is a mess!"

Exact same thing happening in NYC...."hey, thats different!...ITS NOT THE SAME!!".

[sean1the1]

Originally Posted by Losfrisco

But only Los Angeles gets characterized as "sprawl", despite being much denser and compact.

See also: Getting stuck in traffic going from point A to B because you got on the biggest freeway during rush hour-"this place is a mess!"

Exact same thing happening in NYC...."hey, thats different!...ITS NOT THE SAME!!".

The density of NYC makes up for it. I'll give NYC this the city blows LA out the water. Given that for both areas majority live in the suburbs we can see how LA is actually the densest urban area in the US. You can go down to Dana point in OC winch is 60 miles from downtown LA and still manage 5k ppsm. The same can be done to Moreno valley 75 miles yet still 4k ppsm. I think LA rightfully gets labeled as sprawl winch I don't think is all around a bad thing. LA was the first city in the US to break away from the East coast style of building cities, and every city from then on has choosen sprawl over East coast style. Contrary to popular belief LA's traffic is not due to sprawl, but due to the outright density of the metro. You have more people per square mile than any other metro logically speaking it should be the most congested.

I also don't think the I.E. is its own metro, but I understand why the census destinates it as one. The entire Temecula Murrieta area is connected to San Diego not LA making it hard to classify the entire I.E. as LA. The Coachella valley does it's own thing even though it's Creation does go back exclusively to LA.

[Texamichiforniasota]

Originally Posted by sean1the1

The density of NYC makes up for it. I'll give NYC this the city blows LA out the water. Given that for both areas majority live in the suburbs we can see how LA is actually the densest urban area in the US. You can go down to Dana point in OC winch is 60 miles from downtown LA and still manage 5k ppsm. The same can be done to Moreno valley 75 miles yet still 4k ppsm. I think LA rightfully gets labeled as sprawl winch I don't think is all around a bad thing. LA was the first city in the US to break away from the East coast style of building cities, and every city from then on has choosen sprawl over East coast style. Contrary to popular belief LA's traffic is not due to sprawl, but due to the outright density of the metro. You have more people per square mile than any other metro logically speaking it should be the most congested.

I also don't think the I.E. is its own metro, but I understand why the census destinates it as one. The entire Temecula Murrieta area is connected to San Diego not LA making it hard to classify the entire I.E. as LA. The Coachella valley does it's own thing even though it's Creation does go back exclusively to LA.

Agree there are a few outlier areas, but there are bound to be in counties as big as Riverside/San Bernardino. Suprisingly, there are a lot of people in Temecula area that commute to OC, even though people think of it more as a San Diego exurb. But without LA, Riverside-San Bernardino would probably be about 500,000 people. It wierd that both major California metros are divided into 2 MSA's be the census,, whereas places like DFW are one MSA.