Sources: Joel Kotkin (boundaries and names of 7 mega-regions); Forbes
Magazine; Regional Plan Association; Census Bureau; United States
High Speed Rail Association; Clare Trainor/University of
Wisconsin-Madison Cartography Laboratory
A New York Times opinion piece urges the U.S. Congress to support regional planning and economic growth by looking beyond state and even national lines. Concentrating instead on 7 Mega Regions, the author urges that Federal and State legislators direct policies and funding based on regional infrastructure lines and metropolitan clusters.
One of the author’s primary concerns is that the current 50 state model system disseminates resources to an often small and isolated capital city. It is argued that this holds larger cities back and cuts the smaller cities off from the national agenda.
Examples highlighted of where regional coordination, policy, and funding are necessary are: 1. Tampa and Corpus Christi port collaboration since their future is more connected than say Tampa and Tallahassee even though the latter are in the same state and the former are not; 2. Rust Belt high-speed rail between Southern IL and Southern MI in order to better connect high unemployment cities to where jobs are; 3. The already established highs-speed rail alliance between Phoenix, Denver, and Salt Lake City.
China, England, and Italy are already shifting their thinking from provinces to metropolitan regions. These 26 Mega City Clusters, 14 Metropolitan Cities, and the new Leeds to Liverpool corridor, respectfully, are seeing government attention more so than capital cities are. To achieve economic development, their focus is on strategic regional infrastructure lines, supply chain, telecommunications, and manufacturing land use instead of efforts within borders.
Encouraging the U.S. government to leave its antiquated state centered policies behind, the author makes a terrific point by stating, “The 21st Century will not be a competition over territory, but over connectivity.”
One of the author’s primary concerns is that the current 50 state model system disseminates resources to an often small and isolated capital city. It is argued that this holds larger cities back and cuts the smaller cities off from the national agenda.
Examples highlighted of where regional coordination, policy, and funding are necessary are: 1. Tampa and Corpus Christi port collaboration since their future is more connected than say Tampa and Tallahassee even though the latter are in the same state and the former are not; 2. Rust Belt high-speed rail between Southern IL and Southern MI in order to better connect high unemployment cities to where jobs are; 3. The already established highs-speed rail alliance between Phoenix, Denver, and Salt Lake City.
China, England, and Italy are already shifting their thinking from provinces to metropolitan regions. These 26 Mega City Clusters, 14 Metropolitan Cities, and the new Leeds to Liverpool corridor, respectfully, are seeing government attention more so than capital cities are. To achieve economic development, their focus is on strategic regional infrastructure lines, supply chain, telecommunications, and manufacturing land use instead of efforts within borders.
Encouraging the U.S. government to leave its antiquated state centered policies behind, the author makes a terrific point by stating, “The 21st Century will not be a competition over territory, but over connectivity.”
The full article can be found at: A New Map for America, New York Times
No comments:
Post a Comment
Any comment containing profanity will not be published.