F*ck the CMA: Find Population on Map

[chris08876]

^^^^

It'll be interesting to revisit those figures in 2070, when some of those places face water rising and heat problems.

On a side note, the jump is crazy for Calcutta going from 75 to 100 km.

[wwmiv]

Sacramento is another above 4 million.

[MolsonExport]

Contest: Find the spot in the lower 48 states that yields the Lowest population within 100km, with only land mass in the radius (i.e., no oceans/great lakes, etc.)

Centered on Buttfuck, Nowhere in Montana (UL Bend Wilderness area), I got 7,069 people.

Many places in Canada have zero people in 100km radii.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Contest: Find the spot in the lower 48 states that yields the Lowest population within 100km, with only land mass in the radius (i.e., no oceans/great lakes, etc.)

Centered on Buttfuck, Nowhere in Montana (UL Bend Wilderness area), I got 7,069 people.

In the lower 48, I'm guessing it's somewhere in nevada.

Nevada has a decent population, but they're almost all in Vegas/Reno.

Get outside of them and nevada is EMPTY of people.

[dimondpark]

The Bay Area is upside down...

Population, 100-mile radius:
Oakland: 8,298,721
San Jose: 7,913,941
San Francisco: 7,575,869

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by chris08876

^^^^

It'll be interesting to revisit those figures in 2070, when some of those places face water rising and heat problems.

On a side note, the jump is crazy for Calcutta going from 75 to 100 km.

The country's population will peak mid-century and then start shrinking...we arent having enough babies to sustain population growth.

[Stay Stoked Brah]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Contest: Find the spot in the lower 48 states that yields the Lowest population within 100km, with only land mass in the radius (i.e., no oceans/great lakes, etc.)

Centered on Buttfuck, Nowhere in Montana (UL Bend Wilderness area), I got 7,069 people.

Many places in Canada have zero people in 100km radii.

found a spot in Nevada: 4,621, west of NV 318, south of US 6
to the west of NV 375, east of South Reveille Range

[dc_denizen]

A polygon would work better than a circle

[Stay Stoked Brah]

Originally Posted by Stay Stoked Brah

found a spot in Nevada: 4,621, west of NV 318, south of US 6
to the west of NV 375, east of South Reveille Range

found a location in se Oregon: 4,160

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

For shits and giggles, and likely some spirited discussion about population density, geography, and CMAs.
https://www.freemaptools.com/find-population.htm

Within 100km (62.14 miles in the ancient measurement system of cubits and pecks) of downtown_____, there are _______ people:
Toronto 8,626,831
Montreal 4,737,767
Vancouver 3,207,026
Ottawa 1,605,037
Calgary 1,238,507
Edmonton 1,148,608
Quebec City 1,084,257
Winnipeg 865,544
Halifax 558,444

No surprises except for Calgary and Edmonton. How can both of them be far below their CMA population? Neither CMA spreads out all that much.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Stay Stoked Brah

found a location in se Oregon: 4,160

Yeah, SE Oregon / NW Nevada probably wins. Centered around Stearns Mountain Wilderness I got 3,069.

[BnaBreaker]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Yeah, SE Oregon / NW Nevada probably wins. Centered around Stearns Mountain Wilderness I got 3,069.

That area is so weird to drive through... literally nothing... not even agriculture, or shrubs for miles upon miles. Looks like the high Mongolian Steppe almost.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Philadelphia bigger than Chicago? Did not expect that.

Philadelphia is smack in the middle of the East Coast megalopolis, and there’s also a bunch of northern New Jersey that is double counted for both NYC and Philly. But yeah, there’s nothing around Chicago beyond the suburbs.

[chris08876]

The U.S. for the most part is quite sparse, almost rural one might say.

With some areas, minute you leave the suburbs, literally nothing. Starts to get empty real quick.

[KevinFromTexas]

So, besides just checking out the populations within a 62 mile radius of Texas' cities and displaying them, it was interesting seeing the population density differences between East Texas and West Texas. It's funny because, despite the fact that West Texas has more large cities, the territory between them is more sparsely populated. So while East Texas has fewer big cities than West Texas, it actually has higher populations spread over it with more smaller cities spread around it.

Add Radius manually : Radius 100 km OR 62.14 miles Location :

Central Texas

San Antonio - 2,057,675

Austin - 1,962,704

Killeen - 1,840,140 - this includes portions of Austin and Waco's metros as well as the City of Temple and the US army base Fort Hood.

Waco - 922,406

San Angelo - 156,899

Brady - 125,905 - Brady is the city closest to Texas' geographic center, located about 15 miles southwest of the middle of Texas.

East Texas

Houston - 5,182,030

Galveston - 3,942,205

College Station - 1,140,636 - this includes the nearby twin city of Bryan, Texas, but this also includes extreme parts of Austin and Houston's metro areas as well as part of Waco's metro. College Station is geographically located roughly in the middle of the "Texas triangle" region - the area between Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, and Houston.

Orange - 774,352 - this includes the Beaumont metro in Texas, and also the Lake Charles metro in Louisiana. Orange is the farthest east city in Texas, located along I-10, about 120 miles east of Houston.

Nacogdoches - 627,040

Beaumont - 983,370 - this includes parts of Houston's metro and all of Lake Charles, Louisiana

North Texas

Dallas - 5,792,591

Fort Worth - 5,606,171

Wichita Falls - 423,375

Northeast Texas

Longview - 1,103,018 - this includes all of Tyler, Texas, and also most of Shreveport, Louisiana's metro.

Tyler - 933,694

Texarkana, Texas - 483,443 - this includes Texarkana, Arkansas, of course, but also part of Shreveport, Louisiana's metro.

Panhandle

Lubbock - 415,011

Amarillo - 361,090

South Texas

Brownsville - 1,943,990 - includes Harlingen, which is part of its metro, along with the cities of McAllen and Edinburg, South Padre Island, and Reynas and Matamoras, Mexico.

Laredo - 630,033 - includes Nuevo Laredo, Mexico.

Corpus Christi - 563,056

Southeast Texas

Victoria - 334,673

Southwest Texas

Del Rio - 322,177

West Texas

El Paso - 2,428,998 - includes Ciudad Juarez, Mexico and Las Cruces, New Mexico metros.

Midland - 366,722 - includes the twin city of Odessa.

Odessa - 344,799 - includes Midland

Big Spring - 343,660 - includes the Midland/Odessa metro and part of San Angelo's metro.

Abilene - 264,424

Least populated within 100km

Van Horn - 19,933 - located in Culberson County in West Texas between Sierra Blanca, Texas, and Pecos, Texas about halfway between Guadalupe Mountains National Park and Davis Mountains State Park. The two nearest cities are El Paso, 120 miles to the west, and Odessa, 163 miles to the northeast.

Most populated within 100km

Dallas - 5,792,591

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

The country's population will peak mid-century and then start shrinking...we arent having enough babies to sustain population growth.

I wonder if the immigration cap in the future will be raised as an aid towards pop growth.

I remember reading a report that said we would reach 400 million in 2039, but IDK if that will happen.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by isaidso

No surprises except for Calgary and Edmonton. How can both of them be far below their CMA population? Neither CMA spreads out all that much.

Probably the data is older....this is true for other metro results, although some cities have undoubtedly grown faster than others.

That, or maybe because the 100km radius leaves out the ridiculously distant so-called commuter towns

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by edale

Huh? I was saying that the NE corridor is more analogous to SE England than Southern California. It has nothing to do with what is and isn't counted in an MSA or CSA. There are lots of little towns and lightly populated areas in the Northeast, while in SoCal you're either part of the contiguous LA/IE urban area, or it's essentially uninhabited.

My point was that the 100 km radius around NYC is almost all the NY MSA. The 100 km radius around London touches places that are not really considered London. And eve the 100 km radius around LA touches several different MSAs.

[jbermingham123]

Originally Posted by chris08876

The U.S. for the most part is quite sparse, almost rural one might say.

With some areas, minute you leave the suburbs, literally nothing. Starts to get empty real quick.

Yeah, I find a lot of people who live in the Eastern US dont understand the true Emptiness of the US west of the Mississippi. For most of the country, the urban/rural divide is not just big city v small town.. its civilization v wilderness. "Farmland" is often far too generous a description

[bossabreezes]

Originally Posted by chris08876

I wonder if the immigration cap in the future will be raised as an aid towards pop growth.

I remember reading a report that said we would reach 400 million in 2039, but IDK if that will happen.

Not sure we need to have 400 Million. The US has the least sustainable development patterns and lifestyle on the planet, so I tend to think we should look at resolving those issues before adding another 75 million people.

Maybe it's time we work on what we've got currently before adding more issues.