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.
Double post, I know but it's different information.
I don't think Boston's Metro is inaccurate.
The boundaries outlined are pretty fairly done in terms of commuters and suburban area. People complain that it extends north all the way to Concord NH and South all the way to Newport RI but both of those cities (and the areas in between Boston and those cities) contain a large population of people who do commute to Boston. In fact, much of Southern Maine and Southern Vermont commutes to Boston yet isn't even included in the metro (I'm not making an argument for them to be included, just making a point). I can't look at a map of the Boston metro area and see an area that doesn't have a measurable number of commuters to Boston. Boston's influence beyond commuters is very evident throughout the metro as well. Boston's services, sports teams, cultural institutions, airport hub, etc. are the primary institutions for the entire metro. I would say Boston's Metro is very accurate and fair.
The fairness of the boundaries is evident when you compare the metro area numbers with the urbanized population numbers. Boston ranks similarly in both lists (5th on one, 7th on the other I think). It's also worth noting that the "counties" in New England are mostly smaller than they are elsewhere so the Boston area doesn't include many counties that only have a small portion of commuters to Boston. Most places listed on that metro have a very solid number of commuters to Boston.
There are, however, other cities that fall victim to political boundaries and geographic locations that seem to be a bit unfair (disadvantageous is probably a better word). Philly is a larger metro area than it gets credit for. It really is. Unfortunately for Philly, it's sandwiched right in Between Baltimore, Washington and New York. It's tough to argue that places like Trenton are more of the New York City area than they are Philly, but it's tough to argue that they aren't either. That section of the country (NYC to DC) overlaps heavily and as a result is hard to calculate which areas are SPECIFICALLY part of each metro area. It seems Philadelphia gets the worst of this indecision, though most people would have a hard time arguing against Philly's size, economic significance and political reach.
Personally I think that some of the counties included in the Cleveland-Akron-Canton statistical area don't belong there. Ashtabula County is 60 miles away from the center of Cleveland and maybe except for along the lakeshore is rural. Also, Medina County I think doesn't belong either. Even if you take away some of the counties included in the St. Louis Metro Area, they do little to reduce the size of the city. Either way, I still don't think the metro is overextended. Your opinion is your opinion, until you can do something to convince whoever makes these metro areas that they're full of it.
Ashtabula is not even included in the Cleveland metro, although it should be. You must not know a lot about Cleveland if you dont think Medina County should be included. Medina County is actually bordering Cuyahoga County where Cleveland is located, and is completely connected to Cleveland. I have no idea why you would think it shouldnt be included when you think that counties 70 miles, and 3 counties away from St. Louis city should be included in its metro...Doesnt make any sense.
Lammius, you ole' Birdcage officianado you! As for the ones who think that L. A. takes the cake for this thread, realize that NO ONE lives in eastern San Bernardino County! And for the one that says New Jersey is symbiotic with new york well.... I don't live in your particularly small fishbowl. Rachel is right! All statistical areas should be relegated to their respective state boundaries, or else call these MSA's and CSA's something else entirely. For example, the fabled Bos-Wash. (yuch..) It should just be referred to as the Northeastern area.
Haha. That is sooo true. Especially about BosWash lol, it's the whole northeastern area lol. Eastern San Bernandino is pretty empty. Like someone said earlier it almost stretches to Arizona, so technically that would mean LA Metro is almost at Arizonas border. But like you said NOONE lives there.
Re BosWash, BosWash actually is often referred to as the Northeast Corridor. That's more accurate than applying the term Northeastern Area to the BosWash megalopolis. There is a lot of the Northeast region that lies outside of that densely populated strip.
Something to keep in mind with all this debate about whether it's appropriate to include this or that area in a metro is that the Census Bureau bases their categoriztion of metropolitan areas on objective numbers. The Census Bureau acknowledges that identifying metro areas by commuting patterns has its flaws. Check the link in post 52. The later pages of that report discuss the pros and cons of various methods for defining metropolitan areas. However, all models discussed in the report are based on some kind of objective criteria. If people want to question the current boundaries of a certain metro area, it would be useful if they would suggest some viable criteria for defining metro areas, not just base it on personal perception about which places "seem" to be connected to a certain city, or whether it's "fair" for one metro area to have more land area than another.
BosWash, commuting patterns, NJ as part of NYC metro
A question worth asking is just what is the best way to identify a metropolitan area. Is it just an unbroken sprawl of population density? If someone sees it that way, okay, though I tend to think that some functional interconnectedness between communities in an area is needed to identify something more like my picture of a metropolitan area. That's one reason that the Census Bureau's models, based on commuting patterns, works pretty well, even if it's not perfect. Commuting patterns identify a connection between people's residences and their workplaces, and workplaces are centers of economic production. Thus, commuting patterns do indicate economic ties between local communities in proximity to each other.
Without some close connection between local communities, BosWash would be all one huge CSA. (I'm not absoulutely certain of this, but I belive it's correct that, depending on the route taken, it is possible to drive the length of the BosWash corridor and be within the boundaries of metropolitan areas the entire trip.) In reality, despite some common Northeastern culture, each major city along the Northeast corridor functions as a distincty center of economic activity and cultural identity. Somehow, the idea that the extent of unbroken sprawl defines a metro area's boundaries does not quite work for me.
Several people have expressed the opinion that northeastern New Jersey should not be included in the NYC metro area, because those suburbs within New York State are "enough" of a metro for NYC. However, that northeastern NJ area has a close connection to NYC, many of the towns and cities in the area being commuter suburbs of NYC. It would seem inaccurate, then, to exclude them from the metro area because of some arbitrary situation like the existence of a state border that runs through NYC's de facto suburbs. This goes for any metro that happens to have a location where there are state borders close to the principal city--Chicago's metro extending into Indiana, a portion of Boston's MSA extending into to New Hampshire, the DC MSA including counties in both Maryland and Virginia, etc. People's use of the local landscape is not limited by state borders.
A question worth asking is just what is the best way to identify a metropolitan area. Is it just an unbroken sprawl of population density? If someone sees it that way, okay, though I tend to think that some functional interconnectedness between communities in an area is needed to identify something more like my picture of a metropolitan area. That's one reason that the Census Bureau's models, based on commuting patterns, works pretty well, even if it's not perfect. Commuting patterns identify a connection between people's residences and their workplaces, and workplaces are centers of economic production. Thus, commuting patterns do indicate economic ties between local communities in proximity to each other.
Without some close connection between local communities, BosWash would be all one huge CSA. (I'm not absoulutely certain of this, but I belive it's correct that, depending on the route taken, it is possible to drive the length of the BosWash corridor and be within the boundaries of metropolitan areas the entire trip.) In reality, despite some common Northeastern culture, each major city along the Northeast corridor functions as a distincty center of economic activity and cultural identity. Somehow, the idea that the extent of unbroken sprawl defines a metro area's boundaries does not quite work for me.
Several people have expressed the opinion that northeastern New Jersey should not be included in the NYC metro area, because those suburbs within New York State are "enough" of a metro for NYC. However, that northeastern NJ area has a close connection to NYC, many of the towns and cities in the area being commuter suburbs of NYC. It would seem inaccurate, then, to exclude them from the metro area because of some arbitrary situation like the existence of a state border that runs through NYC's de facto suburbs. This goes for any metro that happens to have a location where there are state borders close to the principal city--Chicago's metro extending into Indiana, a portion of Boston's MSA extending into to New Hampshire, the DC MSA including counties in both Maryland and Virginia, etc. People's use of the local landscape is not limited by state borders.
Very true. But if I recall you said BosWash would be one huge CSA. I mean that would probably be the largest CSA in the world in terms of land area. Is it true that the whole BosWash is unbroken sprawl all the way through, because i've never driven through the whole corridor. I've driven from Washington DC to NYC, but havent driven up to Boston or Conn. It dosent get at least a little bit rural and spaced out in Connetticut?
Actually, depending on what level of density you view as constituting sprawl, there are gaps in BosWash without a lot of sprawl. I was using the notion of BosWash as one mega-metro to make the point that a metropolitan area needs to involve some sort of interconnectedness between its communities, not be defined only by the boundaries of extended population density. My intention was to say that BosWash is NOT all one metro. The entire corridor does not have the same kind of local interconnectedness among all its communities as would be found, for example, between Westchester County, western Long Island, and northeastern New Jersey, which have enough ties to each other to all be legitimately part of the NYC metro area, regardless of state borders. As BosWash is not a metro area, because a spread of dense population in itself is not enough to constitute a metro, neither would be ChiPitts or Charlanta (or would that be Ralanta, or even Richlanta?).
Actually, depending on what level of density you view as constituting sprawl, there are gaps in BosWash without a lot of sprawl. I was using the notion of BosWash as one mega-metro to make the point that a metropolitan area needs to involve some sort of interconnectedness between its communities, not be defined only by the boundaries of extended population density. My intention was to say that BosWash is NOT all one metro. The entire corridor does not have the same kind of local interconnectedness among all its communities as would be found, for example, between Westchester County, western Long Island, and northeastern New Jersey, which have enough ties to each other to all be legitimately part of the NYC metro area, regardless of state borders. As BosWash is not a metro area, because a spread of dense population in itself is not enough to constitute a metro, neither would be ChiPitts or Charlanta (or would that be Ralanta, or even Richlanta?).
Ok. Now I understand. I agree you would find a major connectedness between someone in long island and someone in norhtern jersey. Especially with sports, NY JETS and GIANTS fans in northern jersey through long island. People in Bostan are not connected with people in Phili. So it wouldnt constitute a metro.
What about CHI-PITTS? Could that become a CSA one day. Or Charlanta?
What??????
Pittsburgh becoming part of Chicagoland???
God, if that happens the world has no limits.
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.
Misc. thoughts
