Transition areas between metros

[Lobotomizer]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Here's Austin and Houston. I didn't realize how close they are to each other. People talk about Houston sprawling, but I guess it sprawls differently from LA. At least the way it's portrayed here, it looks compact compared to LA. Like Atlanta, I guess it's more low-density sprawl.

If you don't mind can you do one of these for Austin and San Antonio?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by edale

I wasn't comparing St. Louis to Cleveland, but more making an observation about the emptiness of Missouri compared to Midwestern states further east. Looking at a more zoomed out version of the population density maps, Ohio and the southern half of Michigan are basically all shades of green and blue, while Missouri is dominated by yellow.

the general overall trend in the midwest is that, starting in ohio, the further west, and the further north, you go, the more things just keep getting pulled further and further apart in terms of development.

Midwest county density map (2020):




i would hazard a guess that well over half of the midwest's people live inside the red oval on the map above.

8 of the region's 11 1M+ MSAs are contained within it.

[edale]

Originally Posted by westak

You made a direct comparison concerning the areas "surrounding" St. Louis and Cleveland and being surprised at the large expanse surrounding St. Louis in comparison to Cleveland. You made no mention of other Midwestern States.

I actually said this: "I assumed that rural Missouri would be similar to rural Ohio, which is basically all semi-populated as the Cleveland example shows"

A screenshot of the Cleveland area was provided upthread, as was a screenshot of the St. Louis area. That led to me looking into the population density maps of Missouri and Ohio, which is where the bigger picture differences became clear. An example showing Southwest Ohio would have yielded the same discovery. Hope that helps clear things up for you.

[westak]

Originally Posted by edale

I actually said this: "I assumed that rural Missouri would be similar to rural Ohio, which is basically all semi-populated as the Cleveland example shows"

A screenshot of the Cleveland area was provided upthread, as was a screenshot of the St. Louis area. That led to me looking into the population density maps of Missouri and Ohio, which is where the bigger picture differences became clear. An example showing Southwest Ohio would have yielded the same discovery. Hope that helps clear things up for you.

Thanks for clearing that up. You mentioning St. Louis three times as a point of emphasis in the post and Missouri just once led me to believe you were actually talking about the area surrounding St. Louis, not the whole state of Missouri, in particular, because the screenshots shared up to that point were not whole states, but regions within particular states.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Lobotomizer

If you don't mind can you do one of these for Austin and San Antonio?

Sure! Here you go. Austin and San Antonio. I am so unfamiliar with Texas geography, I didn't realize how close Austin and San Antonio are to each other. It's about what, less than a 90 minute drive? Putting these cities in scale with the LA area puts it in better perspective for me.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by dave8721

With traffic, it is usually quicker to get to Naples than West Palm Beach from Miami on a normal day.

I did not realize that. My partner's aunt lives in Naples, and for a while now, she's been bugging us to visit her and her husband in Naples. We just have not gotten around to it yet. I guess if we do visit her, we can do it as a day trip from Miami or something. We've never been to Florida, either.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by mousquet

^ Idk how you manage to do that, but it's a good sample of data easy to read.

You may add Seattle, Detroit, some more Ohio, Dallas-Fort Worth, New Orleans and some other significant or well known areas of your country.
But yeah, it is very large and doing this might take some time.

Also, geographers and demographers always say that maps must be annotated with a legend.
They are strict and want everything to be explicit.

But that's a pretty good job that I don't know how to do anyway.

I knew I should've included the legend! The colors denote the density per square mile. Steely Dan included it in his post:

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

This is Cleveland and about 1/4th of Detroit.

Thanks for pointing that out. Seeing this in scale with the LA area, I didn't realize how close Detroit is to Cleveland. It's about what, a 3-hour drive? In my mind, Detroit and Cleveland are totally far from each other. But it's like driving from LA to Pismo Beach or something.

Of the maps I posted, I have not been to Florida, Georgia, Texas, Oregon, Colorado, Ohio, or Missouri. So it's nice for me to see how those particular metro areas compare in size to Greater LA.

[BG918]

Thanks for the maps. Can you do Dallas/Ft Worth and OKC/Tulsa?

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Thanks for pointing that out. Seeing this in scale with the LA area, I didn't realize how close Detroit is to Cleveland. It's about what, a 3-hour drive? In my mind, Detroit and Cleveland are totally far from each other. But it's like driving from LA to Pismo Beach or something.

Incredibly, they're only 93 miles away from each other by air, but they're about 160 miles apart by car.

Back in the 1960s, Ohio studied constructing a 30+ mile bridge across Lake Erie to Ontario that would have shortened the drive between Cleveland and Detroit. Back then, both were Top 10 U.S. cities and still growing. Cleveland was still the HQ of the world's biggest company, Standard Oil, and the Detroit Big 3 had almost no foreign competition.

[Lobotomizer]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Sure! Here you go. Austin and San Antonio. I am so unfamiliar with Texas geography, I didn't realize how close Austin and San Antonio are to each other. It's about what, less than a 90 minute drive? Putting these cities in scale with the LA area puts it in better perspective for me.

Thank you for posting these maps.

As big as Texas is in land area, it's big cities are all in relatively close proximity to one another.

Austin - San Antonio - 79 miles
Austin - Houston - 162 miles
Austin - Dallas - 195 miles

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by BG918

Thanks for the maps. Can you do Dallas/Ft Worth and OKC/Tulsa?

Sure! Here you go.

Dallas/Ft. Worth. It sprawls differently from LA; to me it looks like a centralized blob that gradually thins out towards the edges. When you look at LA, you can see that most of the development is in the basin and valleys, with hills and mountains being sparse, as well as a lot of the desert areas.


OKC/Tulsa. I assume they're very rural in between? I've never been to Oklahoma.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Thanks for pointing that out. Seeing this in scale with the LA area, I didn't realize how close Detroit is to Cleveland. It's about what, a 3-hour drive? In my mind, Detroit and Cleveland are totally far from each other. But it's like driving from LA to Pismo Beach or something.

It's about a 3-hour drive, but the straight-line distance is 90 miles.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Back in the 1960s, Ohio studied constructing a 30+ mile bridge across Lake Erie to Ontario that would have shortened the drive between Cleveland and Detroit. Back then, both were Top 10 U.S. cities and still growing. Cleveland was still the HQ of the world's biggest company, Standard Oil, and the Detroit Big 3 had almost no foreign competition.

i remember reading about that on this forum a little while ago and doing a big WTF?

"a bridge across lake erie?!?!?! get outta here; it's 50 miles wide!"

but then i looked at a map, and if you island hop your way across lake erie from marblehead west of sandusky, over to kelleys island, then over to pelee island, and then to the tip of point pelee national park in ontario, you'd need to build 3 bridges of the following approximate lengths:

3 miles
7 miles
9 miles

that's nowhwere near as outright absurd as i had first assumed.

granted, those are still massive bridges, but the mackinac bridge across the straits of mackinac is a total of 5 miles long, and its main central suspended portion (7,400' anchorage to anchorage) crosses some very deep water (~300' deep).

Conversely, almost the entire western quarter of lake erie is less than 30' deep; a shallow pond by comparison. So you wouldn't need to do any super deep foundations or crazy-long (and crazy expensive) spans like Mighty Mac.

still, such a multi-step bridge likely wouldn't have saved that much on the drive time between detroit and cleveland, especially with two border crossing to factor in, and probably wouldn't have been worth the exhorbitant expense.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

It's about a 3-hour drive, but the straight-line distance is 90 miles.

Oh I figured it was closer in straight-line distance, but I was thinking of having to drive around the lake, so I figured about a 3-hour drive.

[Crawford]

Reminds me for the plans for the Long Island-Connecticut Bridge. NIMBYs killed it in the 60's, and it occasionally rears its head, but I cannot imagine it ever happening, due to the wealth and wacko NIMBYism on either end of the proposed span.

It's been more frequently cited in recent years as a rail crossing, per the NE Corridor's HSR plans, sometimes as a tunnel. Still cannot imagine it happening anytime soon.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i

but then i looked at a map, and if you island hop your way across lake erie from marblehead west of sandusky, over to kelleys island, then over to pelee island, and then to the tip of point pelee national park in ontario, you'd need to build 3 bridges of the following approximate lengths:

3 miles
7 miles
9 miles

that's nowhwere near as outright absurd as i had first assumed.

Point Pelee, as a national park, would almost certainly not be considered for some giant vehicle bridge. Especially bc it would primarily benefit the U.S., and have marginal benefits for Canada.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Point Pelee, as a national park, would almost certainly not be considered for some giant vehicle bridge. Especially bc it would primarily benefit the U.S., and have marginal benefits for Canada.

right, there are a whole host of practical and political reasons why such a bridge will never become a reality, i was just pointing out that, looking at the map in a "clean slate" kind of way, such an island-hopping bridge wouldn't be as outrageously ridiculous as i had first assumed.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

still, such a multi-step bridge liekly wouldn't have saved that much on the drive time between detroit and cleveland, especially with two border crossing to factor in, and probavbly wouldn't have been worth the exhorbitant expense.

I think there's a scenario where they could have built an expressway across Ontario with zero access points in order to avoid border issues. I have read that this was done back in the 1950s to connect West Berlin with West Germany. The distance from Windsor to a likely Lake Erie bridge is about 25 miles.

To really pull this off, they would have needed a second purpose-built bridge in Detroit, a big project in its own right.

[iheartthed]

Detroit had major traffic issues in the 1960s and 1970s, so I could see why the bridge idea was floated, but a vehicular only bridge over Lake Erie would've been stupid. It would make sense if there were also a rail component.