Sorry, but you need to catch up with the variety of measuring methods.Jeff Rosenberg says "Stop. Enough. Los Angeles is not even CLOSE to being one of the most densely populated urbanized areas." about my statement about urbanized area population density.
Sorry, but you need to catch up with the last few decades. See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-ds_name=DEC_2000 for the complete table.
"Population Density per square mile of land area - In urbanized area"
Los Angeles 7,068.3
New York 5,309.3
Twin Cities 2,671.2
National av 2,670.4
From the same web site (http://factfinder.census.gov):
"Population Density per Square Mile of Land Area"
Primary Metropolitan Statistical Areas
8,158.7 New York 2,344.2 Los Angeles 489.7 Twin Cities
Geographic Metropolitan Areas
Rank* Density Location
1 2,028.7 New York 15 489.7 Twin Cities 2 482.2 Los Angeles -- 320.2 National Average
*rank = in total population
Using "urbanized area" is a completely ridiculous way of comparing transit areas. An "urbanized area" in the very specific following way by the censur bureau:
"An area consisting of a central place(s) and adjacent territory with a general population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile of land area that together have a minimum residential population of at least 50,000 people."
The definition for Primary Metropolitan Statistical Areas, on the other hand, states that it "consists of one or more counties that have substantial commuting interchange."
Given the random mathematical relationship between the figures from the UAs, and the PMSAs and Geographic Metropolitan Areas above, one can only conclude that the UA boundaries are highly unusual, and essentially useless for transit discussion. Having actually lived and commuted in Los Angeles (proper) and Minneapolis (proper), and having flown over both metro areas at low altitudes (helicopter), I can safely say the PMSA numbers bear the closest resemblance to human reality as experienced by residents and commuters. Although I have not lived in or flown over New York, a few aerial photographs and some maps are easy evidence that the density in the New York metro area which matters to commuters is far higher than that of Los Angeles -- there's just plain no comparison. And the PMSA numbers and Geo numbers bear that out.
By virtually all measures, New York City and the New York City metro area are far more densely population than Los Angeles. In the "greater" metro areas, even the Twin Cities are denser than Los Angeles -- which is no surprise because it's darn hard to build high density housing and shopping centers on mountain sides, something they have in abundance in Los Angeles County, Riverside County and Orange County.
Chris Johnson Fulton
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
