I just noticed something odd about the US northern east coast…
Washington D.C., Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston all seem to lie on a straight line.
Coincidence or design?
Mostly coincidence. But you may be interested in the concept of the fall line.
Considering that they’re all located on the coast at places that are ideal for ports, it’d be more surprising if there weren’t major cities in those locations.
That just moves the question back one step: Why are the best locations for ports all in a line? And Mr Downtown has the answer: mostly coincidence.
BTW, this phenomenon was noticed years ago. Also the line extended to a Great Circle crosses the area of Europe where several important western European cities are, especially London. I think there’s a name for this particular flight path, but can’t remember it. It’s probably the most heavily used transcontinental flight path in the world.
Now that transportation is mostly on roads it’s conceivable that city centers tend to gravitate towards a main axis. Note that the “center” of NYC is just barely within city limits on the maps, but close to the interstates connecting Philadelphia and Boston.
BTW, what appears to be “in a straight line” or not on your map is affected by the projection used, although it probably doesn’t make much of a difference for that short a distance. FWIW, if you take “straight line” to mean great circle, here a plot of Dulles to Logan:
Yeah, it’s very close.
Or, as I once heard my uncle tell a state trooper when asked why he wasn’t going straight home that night “The earth is round, so you can’t go straight anywhere!”.
A lot depends on how loose an interpretation of a straight line you’re willing to work with. For example, if you draw a line through the centers of Washington and Baltimore and then project the line, you’d don’t end up in Philadelphia or New York or Boston. You end up closer to Allentown, Pennsylvania and Albany, New York and Montpelier, Vermont.
The OP refers to the Northeast Megapolis, the 2nd largest megapolis in the US. You can compare it to other megapolises using this map.
The largest megapolis in the US includes Chicago and Detroit, and spills into Toronto, Minneapolis and Cleveland. It is called the Great Lakes Metropolis.
and if you extend it the other way, Atlanta, New Orleans, and Houston are fairly close to the line. Depending how close to the line you need to be.
In terms of air routes, New Orleans and Atlanta are close enough , but not Houston. The Great Circle between Houston and London goes well north of the BosWash area.
Another one: Atlanta, Greenville, Spartanburg, Charlotte, Raleigh. About 10-11 million people by metro areas.
For some perspective on this, England is smaller in area than Illinois and so is only a fraction of the size of this megalopolis. However it almost matches it for population. Other parts of northern Europe are also as densely populated.
Even if you add the less densely populated areas of the UK, the UK itself is considerably smaller in area the Great Lakes Megalopolis but actually has a larger population.
This is pretty much the same as discussions about “Ley Lines”* In at least one skeptical book debunking the concept, there’s a detailed mathematical discussion about the probability of multiple points chosen at random falling on or near the same line. I can’t recall the book, but here’s an identical discussion:
Bottom line – even points chosen at random are pretty likely to fall near a line that can be drawn, so there’s no point in ascribing significance to that fact. It doesn’t mean that there is some underlying “energy potential” there, or some “National Treasure”-like intent of the Founding Fathers.
- Ley Lines –
I like that the Wikipedia article illustrates this point with a map of eight pizza restaurants in London lying on a line.
There are a lot of big cities in the USA and Canada, so one could draw many lines connecting them. If you randomly sprinkle dots on a page, you’ll be able to draw plenty of lines that go near a bunch of them.
And of course city distribution is not wholly random, since cities will generally be placed in logical ways, like coastlines and rivers. Half of the population of Canada lives on or near a line that runs from Quebec City to Windsor, and that line catches a few million more people in Detroit, but I think it’s pretty easy to see on a map why that is.
I had heard of Ley Lines, believing them to be some ancient, mystical map coordinate which has to do with the flow of magic…not of geographic orienteering.
But, if you have a flat-screen monitor and a ruler, you can see how these Major Metropolitan Municipalities line up.
If by design, who had a hand in founding these cities…and for what purpose?
The Freemasons?
Is anyone else concerned that a poster who’s username is taken from a famous WWII bomber is asking if targets, um, I mean cities are all lined up?
If you want a real coincidence, consider that Sacramento, Denver, Kansas City, St. Louis, Cincinnati and Baltimore are all located pretty much at 38-39 degrees latitude.
Also interesting that the longitude lines which define each of the time zones in North America have major cities on or close to them: Eastern time is defined at 75 degrees west, where Philadelphia is. Central time, based on 90 west, St. Louis. Mountain time at 105 West, Denver. Pacific time is a little off, 120 west is west of LA and east of SF.Atlantic time (eastern Canada) is 60 west, Louisburg N.S. (not a major city, but neat anyway.) Alaska time based on 150 west, the longitude of Anchorage. It’s also called Hawaii time further south, but no city. All of the islands are west of 150 west. All coincidental.
I seem to recall from a human geography a zillion years ago - in the 80s, so forgive me - that cities on the east cost end up either near ports or at the point where inland heading rivers become unnavigable. So Washington DC is near Great Falls on the Potomac and other major cities - i.e. large commercial centers - are located at similar spots depending on the river. This cause them to appear to ‘line up’ in specific ways. But it’s controlled by the location of navigable waterways into the interior.