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 is associated with the Mobile River which isn't at all comparable to the Mississippi River. Come on now.
You aren't taking the common economic foundations of New Orleans and Mobile into account (agriculture based on slavery) as well as their differing histories of immigration. And even though Milwaukee may coexist as a major city along with Chicago, the gap between those two cities is even larger than the gap between New Orleans and Mobile. And in a similar way, Houston stymied New Orleans' potential due to the former displacing the latter in importance with the energy industry.
Mobile River Basin is still among the largest in the nation, also canals have allowed a connection between the Mobile and Mississippi Basin and is now a pretty common bypass to Lower Mississippi
Also since that message, the Port of Mobile's economic impact has tripled and is now the country's fastest growing container port... which it has overtaken New Orleans in
Houston hasn't stymied New Orleans, it is New Orleans' geography
The Gulf is a part of the global ocean and is objectively the far more important waterway. The Great Lakes is linked to the ocean with the St. Lawrence Seaway. But, it is a seasonal system of locks that primarily focuses on shipping commodities.
When comparing the regions, though, the Great Lakes is the more economically important region. Chicago-Milwaukee, Detroit-Toldeo-Windsor, Tor-Ham-Buf, are three of the largest mega regions in NA. It's also far more compact and cohesive. Chicago to Toronto is like 500 miles, compared to 1000 from Houston to Tampa. The Gulf Coast for all of its importance as a shipping, recreational, military, energy production area is relatively underpopulated. You only have 2 major MSAs, 1 largish MSA and then several small MSAs.
The Gulf is a part of the global ocean and is objectively the far more important waterway. The Great Lakes is linked to the ocean with the St. Lawrence Seaway. But, it is a seasonal system of locks that primarily focuses on shipping commodities.
When comparing the regions, though, the Great Lakes is the more economically important region. Chicago-Milwaukee, Detroit-Toldeo-Windsor, Tor-Ham-Buf, are three of the largest mega regions in NA. It's also far more compact and cohesive. Chicago to Toronto is like 500 miles, compared to 1000 from Houston to Tampa. The Gulf Coast for all of its importance as a shipping, recreational, military, energy production area is relatively underpopulated. You only have 2 major MSAs, 1 largish MSA and then several small MSAs.
If we're including Toronto with Great Lakes, are we including Havana, Veracruz, and Merida with the Gulf Coast?
The Gulf is a part of the global ocean and is objectively the far more important waterway. The Great Lakes is linked to the ocean with the St. Lawrence Seaway. But, it is a seasonal system of locks that primarily focuses on shipping commodities.
When comparing the regions, though, the Great Lakes is the more economically important region. Chicago-Milwaukee, Detroit-Toldeo-Windsor, Tor-Ham-Buf, are three of the largest mega regions in NA. It's also far more compact and cohesive. Chicago to Toronto is like 500 miles, compared to 1000 from Houston to Tampa. The Gulf Coast for all of its importance as a shipping, recreational, military, energy production area is relatively underpopulated. You only have 2 major MSAs, 1 largish MSA and then several small MSAs.
Not sure how that figures into this. Comparing lake coasts to a big seashore is apples to oranges. The gulf of mexico is 600,000 sq miles, the great lakes combined are only 94k sq miles. There is a dense network of land based linkages between the various great lakes cities. By water it is probably a 1,000 mile journey from Chicago to Detroit. But, virtually all traffic is via road, air and maybe rail today.
Historically the great lakes were of strategic importance. Canadian society largely grew up along the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence coridor. For the US, the Erie Canal/Mohawk Valley was the linchpin between the North East and the Great Lakes basin. Chicago was the connection point between the great lakes and the Mississippi River system. But, railroads soon overtook water transportation as the region's industrial power took off.
Today, the great lakes are more ancillary than a critical feature of the region's economy (aside from a bountiful source of freshwater and a recreational asset). Educational institutions, airports, corporate headquarters all matter far more than shipping access. Houston and the Florida cities are the only sunbelt boomtown that have water access. The Gulf matters far more to the local economies than the GL do, but all things considered, they remain relatively unimportant as a source of growth. DFW, Atl, Phoenix, Austin, Charlotte, Nashville, Raleigh are all landlocked cities that have thrived despite the lack of commercially navigable water.
Another way to look at this-of America's three ocean coasts, the Gulf Coast is the least prolific as a commercial maritime zone right?
There's nothing remotely close to the Great Lakes and their vast freshwater reserves, so wouldn't that alone outdo the Gulf ports as an area of importance?
the gulf of mexico has so much natural gas, alot is just seeping out of the ground, in the gulf
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.