The Megaregions driving the global economy

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Handro

^yes, they probably should have asked you first.

you're right, they should have.

forgive my skepticism, but i've never really bought into this "MEGA-REGION" nonsense.

Originally Posted by Handro

the joint group of planning agencies of each of these metro areas (The Great Lakes Regional Transportation Operations Coalition (GLRTOC))

the GLRTOC is an association of midwestern state transportation depts. (along with ontario's) that works to coordinate transportation planning throughout the region.

just because these states see value in coordinating with each other on regional transportation planning, that does not equate to proof of some made-up "MEGA-REGION" nonsense in my eyes.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i've never really bought into this "MEGA-REGION" nonsense.

Maybe because Chicago and the Midwest are the most awkward one?

The basic idea--that clusters of nearby metro areas with interdependent economies are increasingly important geographical things--seems obviously sound to me. The half-baked exact details of this particular map notwithstanding.

[Cirrus]

OK new game: Redraw the "Great Lakes" megaregion to better reflect how you think it should work. No "Megaregions are trash so here's a blank map" responses! Be a sport or just don't play!

Here is a blank map to mark up:




Here's my first stab at it:

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Maybe because Chicago and the Midwest are the most awkward one?

possibly.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

The basic idea--that clusters of nearby metro areas with interdependent economies are increasingly important geographical things--seems obviously sound to me. The half-baked exact details of this particular map notwithstanding.

MEGA-REGIONS may be things, but they seem so poorly and inconsistently defined that any use of them for comparison purposes seems pretty damn meaningless to me.

every city between toronto and kansas city gets an orange circle drawn around it and BOOM!, it's now a MEGA-REGION, but SoCal and NoCal are somehow separate MEGA-REGIONS?

i guess i struggle to see the worth of the term when it appears that it can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean.

[iheartthed]

The Great Lakes mega-region looks fine if it's centered on Detroit.

[lio45]

A Great Lakes (Canusa) grouping makes at least some sense, but a grouping that has Buffalo in an entirely different group from Cleveland, and with Toronto instead, makes no sense. Buffalo is more similar to Cleveland than to Toronto in every metric conceivable.

Reminds me of that "Nations of North America" map that has Ottawa in the same region as the Texas Panhandle, while Gatineau is in an entirely different one. Riiiight.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

OK new game: Redraw the "Great Lakes" megaregion to better reflect how you think it should work. No "Megaregions are trash so here's a blank map" responses! Be a sport or just don't play!

Here is a blank map to mark up:

I'm mostly impressed that Sherbrooke is a Quebec-City-sized dot on that map

[Boisebro]

the Salt Lake City dot on that map seems small.

SLCers demand a larger dot.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by JManc

Most realistic ones are within the Schengen Area.

Delhi-Lahore seems a little suspect considering the two countries are at odds. Same with Cairo-Tel Aviv.

Paris-Munich and Lyon-Barcelona but not Paris-Lyon...? Pure nonsense.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Boisebro

the Salt Lake City dot on that map seems small.

SLCers demand a larger dot.

They have three dots (one for Ogden and one for Provo). Some of us have only one dot. They're complaining with their mouth full

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Here is the most current data for NorCal and SoCal...

2018 GDP, Population & Per Capita:
Southern CA $1,646,208,000,000...23,917,306 $68,870
Northern CA $1,351,524,000,000...15,639,739 $86,602

I have a preliminary estimate for 2019 based on Q2 data and a simple projection by me based on 2018 growth rates. Take this with a grain of salt

2019 Projected GDP
SoCal $1.764T +7.1% year-over-year
NorCal $1.478T +9.4% year-over-year

[The North One]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

These things are kind of “broken telephone” chains of economic connectedness.

Toronto has economic ties with Detroit because of the auto industry;
Detroit has economic ties to cities further west in Michigan;
The westernmost Michigan cities kind of fall into Chicago’s orbit
Milwaukee has definite ties to Chicago.

What’s the value of Milwaukee-Toronto trade? Probably no different than trade between another city pair of 1.5 M -6 M+ on opposite sides of the continent in two different countries.

So, like the volume of trade between Ottawa and Houston or Edmonton and Miami.

IDK how you could separate Detroit from Canada when it sits on the busiest trade border between the two countries and Canada is the biggest trade partner of the US. It's a transborder metropolis, many people live and work between the two and have family. It's also not hard to cross, you only need an enhanced drivers license.

I agree it's kinda like overlapping chains, what is the connection between Richmond and Boston? But to separate just on borders doesn't make sense to me.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

you're right, they should have.

forgive my skepticism, but i've never really bought into this "MEGA-REGION" nonsense.






the GLRTOC is an association of midwestern state transportation depts. (along with ontario's) that works to coordinate transportation planning throughout the region.

just because these states see value in coordinating with each other on regional transportation planning, that does not equate to proof of some made-up "MEGA-REGION" nonsense in my eyes.

Well they operate under the assumption that these agencies represent members of a single "megaregion", right there on their homepage:

Our Great Lakes Megaregion has a population of nearly 70 million across the GLRTOC members, and the importance of the cross border economy of the Chicago and Upper Midwest areas cannot be overstated.

[Razor]

I see this Mega region concept as geographical, where borders are imaginary.
It's based on continuous built up areas of population no?
Detroit and Windsor is just a gate in a fence really..Toronto is connected to Detroit as much as it is with Buffalo and Rochester. Having said that, the 401 corridor from Toronto to Windsor, and crossing into Detroit is not as continuous, as the NYC Bos-Wash corridor, but it's there.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Razor

It's based on continuous built up areas of population no?

if that's the main criteria, then the alleged great lakes "MEGA-REGION" completely falls apart.

for example, the VAST majority of the drive between detroit and chicago looks like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2831...7i16384!8i8192

driving from chicago to indianapolis on I-65 mostly looks like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7406...7i16384!8i8192

here's a typical scene on the 401 between toronto and detroit: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7570...7i13312!8i6656

it is most definitely NOT a "continuous built-up area of population" like BOS-WASH.

[Cirrus]

That's not what it's based on. That criteria is irrelevant.

From Wikipedia:
There is no single definition of a megaregion... The general agreement is that a megaregion is a large network of metropolitan regions that share several or all of the following:
- Environmental systems and topography
- Infrastructure systems
- Economic linkages
- Settlement and land use patterns
- Culture and history

Even the NE is not continuous. One could argue it's continuous between Delaware and Connecticut, but there are undeniable gaps between Delaware and Baltimore, and between Connecticut and Boston.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

if that's the main criteria, then the alleged great lakes "MEGA-REGION" completely falls apart.

for example, the VAST majority of the drive between detroit and chicago looks like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2831...7i16384!8i8192

driving from chicago to indianapolis on I-65 mostly looks like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7406...7i16384!8i8192

here's a typical scene on the 401 between toronto and detroit: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7570...7i13312!8i6656

it is most definitely NOT a "continuous built-up area of population" like BOS-WASH.

no but as midwesterners we sort of think of these long stretches between cities a bit differently than some other parts of the u.s. this "interstellar space" means less than other places, not as big of a deal. for instance I-55 between st. louis and chicago basically looks and feels the same most of the way, unlike say I-44 in missouri where the landscape changes to clearly a different region pretty fast.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Razor

Toronto is connected to Detroit as much as it is with Buffalo and Rochester.

Toronto is a long way from Detroit, and not really connected. London to Windsor/Sarnia is basically empty. In contrast, there's continuous development between Toronto and Buffalo.

Originally Posted by Razor

T
Having said that, the 401 corridor from Toronto to Windsor, and crossing into Detroit is not as continuous, as the NYC Bos-Wash corridor, but it's there.

It isn't even as continuous as the midwest corridors, like Detroit-Chicago. It's a rural route past London.

[iheartthed]

There is zero wilderness on the corridor between Toronto and Detroit. It's all suburbs, satellite cities, and farmland. Compared to the NE Corridor, there is more farmland for sure, but it's not disconnected. The same is true going the other way around Lake Erie from Detroit towards Cleveland. There probably isn't a square inch of land that isn't accounted for around Lake Erie from Toronto to Detroit to Cleveland.

[The North One]

Detroit to Toronto is a 4 hour drive. About the same as Boston to New York.

long way my ass.

A mega-region doesn't have to have perfectly continuous sprawl development in order to be connected.