It mainly depends on what problem you want to tackle when it comes to dividing these regions. Scale is important here and decides the classification, sadly not mentioned in the article. 1) I think the article mainly wants to point out that regions should get more attention than they do now, so strict borders aren't really necessary. Besides, how would you compare this to Asia and Europe? 2) I'm a third into Geography of Nowhere. I should read further, quite like his decimation of the suburbs, albeit mostly anecdotal. US freeways are only beaten by the Japanese, but then again, those are heavily tolled roads and the US's sheer quantity is unmatched. I don't know if you know, but nearly all of Europe has passport-free border crossings. Schengen for the win. 3)Not sure what you're trying to say here, but the map is just a really vague, overall grouping of the areas based on what sorta fits on multiple areas. Not a map that has something to say about the subdivisions it claims to encompass.
1) FTA: "Our competitors in Asia and Europe" are contending with political borders. That's the point of the discussion. America2050 is all about rail: "Starting in 2009, America 2050 has shaped the national debate on high-speed rail and developed recommendations on how national investments should be focused in corridors with the greatest demand for ridership. America 2050's research has also highlighted international lessons on high-speed rail for U.S. policy makers." The whole impetus of the map is to make you care about Europe and Asia. 2) The Schengen Area took 20 years to ratify because France and Germany were busy pissing all over each other's shoes and remains the primary deadlock keeping Turkey out of the EU. It is also the reason Spain and Greece are dragging down the European Economy. Judt for the win. 3) The map is a really vague, overall grouping of the areas that a lobbying group is attempting to use to shape public policy. It is entirely about "saying something" about the subdivisions it claims to encompass.In other words, these are the areas in which residents and policymakers are the most likely to have shared common interests and policy goals and would benefit most from co-operation with each other. It's especially important, because as the Regional Plan Association notes, "Our competitors in Asia and Europe are creating Global Integration Zones by linking specialized economic functions across vast geographic areas and national boundaries with high-speed rail and separated goods movement systems."
I reread it, can't believe I missed that sentence. I do agree with the A2050 that the regional aspect is working here in Europe and also in Asia, but that has I think also to do with the fact that the Megaregions as on the map are almost the same size as whole countries here. What's national here is regional on the East Coast. Yeah, Turkey isn't going to get in because of it. But I can't complain about what we have now, the open borders system has increased the cross-national trade and cooperation and is a step closer to an EU that actually means something. How are you liking that massive book? I just started reading books on the geopolitical history and geography of Europe, too, but they are more academic than yours I'm certain. I misunderstood what you tried to say, to me this seems mostly as a map to get regional thinking to a bigger audience than to say something about the subdivisions agriculture, mineral, manufacture etc. I thought you wanted to take this map and apply it to the subdivisions, which isn't really possible when there are too many differences between this overall map and the qualities of those subdivisions. An agricultural megaregion would look vastly different than this map.
The stupid thing is that Americans have been talking about "the great lakes REGION" and the "mid-Atlantic REGION" and the Gulf Coast REGION" for a hundred years or more. Putting it on a map doesn't really accomplish much other than going "yep, that's what it looks like from space." As a driver of policy, it's lacking. Postwar is a great book. I'd put it up there with Bible and Sword and The Dead Hand. What's really interesting is he blows 800 pages (or so - I did it as an audiobook) basically laying out the chronology and causes of every move in post-war Europe, then finishes it all up with an "epilogue" paper that says, in no uncertain terms, "it's all because Europe hates Jews." And damned if he doesn't make some salient points. I bought the first 7 volumes of Toynbee. That's gonna be a mutherfucker.
The map, or giving the region more attention? The former I agree with, it is not the best way to do this, but the latter I have to disagree. There is an underlying driver behind the regional approach, and it is the problem-centered policy. What I hope this article might accomplish -to what degree is debatable- is that policymakers or people active within the democratic system learn to value the region as a good geographical scale, to approach a plethora of problems. I'm not informed enough about those regions to know how they approach this. Of course it is not the naming itself that is beneficial: just calling something a region isn't gonna make much of a change. What can be useful is the way the region is used. The noun region doesn't matter, it's important whether it is used as a tool or not. The region as a tool is what America2050 aims for, I think: to view the highspeed rail network ideas not on the nation scale as it is usually proposed, but on the scale that matters more to those actually using that rail network. The scale that can compete with the ubiquitous road and air infrastructure that is already laid down. Competing with the 3 to 4 hour trips, like it does in Asia and Europe. I hope that some people will see this map and realize that focussing on the regions will be better for a lot of problems. Could have been done better, but hey, I didn't make it and it did spur some discussion.As a driver of policy, it's lacking.
I'm not sure if I agree or disagree. I'll say that American domestic policy is an utter shambles. I'll say that local is far easier to connect with than regional, and that "national" is antagonistic. It's far too easy to blame the other side of the country with everything that's wrong with policy. Well, speaking from a standpoint of high speed rail, addressing things as "regions" is fucked. I can get from Seattle to Portland on Amtrak for $30. It takes just barely as much time as driving. I can get from Los Angeles to San Diego for $25. It takes less time than driving. But from Los Angeles to Seattle takes four.fucking.days and costs twice what it costs to fly. Our rail system is regional, and it's completely broken. The other industries I can think of do not think regionally, and they're a lot more functional. Airlines are "regional" but there isn't a single one that isn't part of some partner fleet. Airlines think globally/nationally, rather than regionally, and they function. Amtrak thinks regionally and it's a catastrophe.The former I agree with, it is not the best way to do this, but the latter I have to disagree.
What can be useful is the way the region is used. The noun region doesn't matter, it's important whether it is used as a tool or not.