Would a Los Angeles-San Diego megalopolis ever be possible?

Dariusb · #1 Posted **Sep 18, 2020, 4:22 PM**

I was chatting with someone concerning this said no because of Camp Pendleton. A couple others said while it couldn't happen along I-5 it could along I-15. What are your thoughts?

sopas ej · #2 Posted **Sep 18, 2020, 4:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dariusb

I was chatting with someone concerning this said no because of Camp Pendleton. A couple others said while it couldn't happen along I-5 it could along I-15. What are your thoughts?

As someone from LA and continuing to live in LA, my question is, why would anyone even want this to happen? The whole region would be an even bigger sprawly mess, with no natural open spaces.

The 15 has already become really congested going down to Temecula, with more development having been built over the years. The 15 has also been widened in the last several years, and interchanges and on/off-ramps have been reconfigured to handle the growing amount of traffic.

I'm not sure of the boundaries of the various Native American reservations, but I would think that overdevelopment along the 15 might (thankfully) be curbed by the reservations.

jd3189 · #3 Posted **Sep 18, 2020, 4:37 PM**

I always gone down to San Diego via the I-15. Parts of the Inland Empire in Riverside county does stretch down but there are many gaps after Murrieta before reaching into SD county and some gaps in SD county before you finally get into the city.

If the IE area continues to grow, it could stretch down to SD county but would that be favorable with the standard sprawl that already exists? It would be even more congested than it is now. Plus, it’s nice to see that stretch of mostly rural land in a place that is largely built out. It gives you a peak of what LA looked like before it became a major metropolis.

homebucket · #4 Posted **Sep 18, 2020, 4:45 PM**

I don't think so. It's such a huge distance with not much in between, like SF and Sacramento. If the distance was closer like SF to SJ and the economies were more intertwined then it's possible, but I feel like SD is its own thing, separate from LA.

Buckeye Native 001 · #5 Posted **Sep 18, 2020, 4:51 PM**

Not happening, at least along the 5. Camp Pendleton pretty much guarantees that's a no-go, and the Riverside County cities (Temecula, etc) along the 15 are on the other side of a mountain range (Ortegas?).

edale · #6 Posted **Sep 18, 2020, 4:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by homebucket

I don't think so. It's such a huge distance with not much in between, like SF and Sacramento. If the distance was closer like SF to SJ and the economies were more intertwined then it's possible, but I feel like SD is its own thing, separate from LA.

The only gap along the 5 today is Camp Pendleton. Granted, that is a pretty large gap (about 15 miles), but if it was removed, I have to believe it would be quickly developed and there would be no break between San Diego and LA.

iheartthed · #7 Posted **Sep 18, 2020, 4:55 PM**

Isn't it already a megalopolis? The boundaries of the two MSAs are directly adjacent to each other.

saybanana · #8 Posted **Sep 18, 2020, 5:09 PM**

There has been a lot of development along I-5 and I-15 in recent decades. I remember driving down decades ago and seeing a lot more open spaces, but not you just see a lot of new development. I believe it will continue in the future decades especially as major employment areas start to grow in southern Orange County like Irvine. Or major employment areas in North county SD or in Riverside County. It just gives people options to where to live. Just because Downtown San Diego and Downtown LA are so far apart, doesn't mean the areas between them are wasteland suburbs. They are actually quite desirable and expensive.

I think Riverside County is a major piece to connect the LA-SD Metros despite being a separate Metro. It is connected to via freeways and the plan is to connect high speed rail from LA to SB/Riverside and down to San Diego. Metrolink/Amtrak connects north SD to Orange County/LA. Riverside still has the most undeveloped land and potential to see millions of people in the coming decades.

suburbanite · #9 Posted **Sep 18, 2020, 7:14 PM**

I don't know if filling in the remaining gaps with sprawl fundamentally changes the relationship between the two cities to consider them one metropolis. Other than looking at a map and seeing some continuous form of development along I5 so that we can argue here for years whether it's a contiguous urban area or not.

MolsonExport · #10 Posted **Sep 18, 2020, 7:22 PM**

The laws of gravity won't allow it, so it is impossible.

Joking aside, yes this is possible, but so what?

Dariusb · #11 Posted **Sep 18, 2020, 8:18 PM**

Do a sizable number of people commute between LA and SD for work or no?

BG918 · #12 Posted **Sep 18, 2020, 8:35 PM**

Demolition Man already envisioned this happening in 2035. The combined metro was called San Angeles. Of course that was because the cities were destroyed in a earthquake in 2010.

JManc · #13 Posted **Sep 18, 2020, 8:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BG918

Demolition Man already envisioned this happening in 2035. The combined metro was called San Angeles. Of course that was because the cities were destroyed in a earthquake in 2010.

And Taco Bell won the fast food wars.

dc_denizen · #14 Posted **Sep 18, 2020, 8:44 PM**

San Angeles.

homebucket · #15 Posted **Sep 18, 2020, 8:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dariusb

Do a sizable number of people commute between LA and SD for work or no?

I don't think so. That would be horrific.

C. · #16 Posted **Sep 19, 2020, 12:36 AM**

I'll start by saying I know nothing about California or the terrane, but I assume there must be conservation efforts or local land use restrictions along I-5 and I-15 that has prevented excessive amount of development from happening. Otherwise, why hasn't entrepreneuring developers by up all the vacant land and sprawl?

I know there is a lot of mountains which would make development unfeasible, but there also looks like there is a lot of land that looks like it's been set aside for conservation.