AARoads Forum

Discussion in some other threads got me thinking about capital cities, and how some are so obvious, while others are real head-scratchers.
So I thought I'd rank them from most obvious to most obscure, and maybe this could be an opportunity to discuss the history of our state capitals and what caused them to be located where they are. So, without further ado:

The No-Brainers
1. Oklahoma City
2. Indianapolis
3. Boston
4. Atlanta
5. Phoenix
6. Denver
7. Columbus
8. Nashville
9. Honolulu
10. Salt Lake City
Prominent Statewide
11. Little Rock, AR
12. Des Moines, IA
13. St. Paul, MN
14. Boise, ID
15. Jackson, MS
16. Providence, RI
17. Hartford, CT
18. Columbia, SC
19. Charleston, WV
20. Cheyenne, WY
Mid-Sized, Centrally Located
21. Montgomery, AL
22. Richmond, VA
23. Albany, NY
24. Lansing, MI
25. Madison, WI
26. Springfield, IL
27. Lincoln, NE
28. Bismarck, ND
29. Sacramento, CA
30. Austin, TX
The Far and Small
31. Baton Rouge, LA
32. Raleigh, NC
33. Harrisburg, PA
34. Dover, DE
35. Tallahassee, FL
36. Trenton, NJ
37. Topeka, KS
38. Salem, OR
39. Santa Fe, NM
40. Helena, MT
The Head-Scratchers
41. Concord, NH
42. Pierre, SD
43. Jefferson City, MO
44. Olympia, WA
45. Augusta, ME
46. Montpelier, VT
47. Annapolis, MD
48. Carson City, NV
49. Frankfort, KY
50. Juneau, AK

Agree? Disagree? Create a list of your own!
EDIT: Changed the names of the first and fourth categories.

Other than the head-scratchers, the other 40 in your list are head-scratchers under their headings.  I would say none of the 1st ten are doozies.  11 - 30 are all midsized, and many from 31 - 40 are right on the beaten path, with major limited access highways going thru or just an easy exit from the major limited access highway.

The first 20 are all bigger or major cities in their states and the next 20 are all have some central location in their states. And in the giant states they tend to stay that way because those states all have different regions and some tensions. The only real head scratchers to me are AS and AK.

I fail to see how Harrisburg, which is probably close to the center of the state when weighted by population–and is at the confluence of four two-digit interstates connecting nearly all of the state's metro areas plus a US route that's part of an international corridor–qualifies as "off the beaten path".

In school, I remember learning that for the colonies at least, capitals were specifically positioned inland to avoid easy invasion via water - Boston was for some reason an intentional anomaly.

Quote from: webny99 on May 18, 2020, 10:16:37 PM
The Doozies
1. Oklahoma City

"the freebie"

Also the bait to get you to put down Kansas City, KS.

Because I've never spent time in either area, I start to blend Charleston, SC and Charleston, WV, especially because of the SC city's greater prominence over Columbia.

I'm sure more than a few people would say Minneapolis is our capital if put on the spot, between the penchant of the media to refer to "Minneapolis-St. Paul"  and most people generally aware that Minneapolis is larger, which for some reason means "capital"  in many minds even though the capital and largest city are only the same in probably about 1/5 of states (AR, AZ, CO, GA, IA, IN, MA, OH, OK, UT being most of that list - oh, and ask how many people can name the largest city in Ohio while they're at it, they'll probably be wrong :) )

Also, Austin isn't "mid-sized"  - isn't is second to Phoenix in state capital population? It just gets lost in the shuffle somehow between the more famous San Antonio and all of Texas's other massive cities.

Juneau AK is not a "head-scratcher" for historical reasons -- when it was established in the early 20th century (moved there from the out-of-the-way original territorial capital of Sitka), it was where the population was back then as well as much of the gold. (Anchorage didn't overtake Juneau until after World War II.) Alaska would probably be in a category of its own for "most serious effort to relocate the capital city" -- though if that had been successful, the move would've been to Willow (rather than the much-hated Anchorage), which would itself have been a bit of a head-scratcher.

Another precious metal, silver, was part of the rationale for Carson City NV as its state's capital. But its location isn't nearly as inconvenient as Juneau's.

Many of the other "head-scratchers" are probably due to a traditional antipathy to big-city sin and corruption. What they got instead was small-city sin and corruption :).

I was told that Connecticut had a split dual capitol of both Hartford AND New Haven at one time.

Montpelier, VT is one of the two smallest state capitols, but still has direct access via I-89. I think Pierre, SD is the smallest state capitol of them all. :confused:

Maybe if you hadn't decided each category had to have 10 capitals, we might like some of your suggestions better.

Like others I'd move St Paul down and Austin up.  Although Austin's population has jumped dramatically since back when I was in elementary school learning all the capitals.  (Do they still teach that?)

If by Doozies you mean "the only possible thing people would think of", maybe some would think of Memphis instead of Nashville.

I assume "prominent in the state" means biggest or maybe 2nd biggest city in the state.  And "mid sized" means mid-sized compared to other cities in the state.  I can live with that.  Still, that would move some up from "off the beaten path" to "mid sized" - like Harrisburg and Raleigh.  (I think a lot of people if asked to name a city in NC would say Raleigh, possibly more than would say Charlotte.  Course if it was on Family Feud, you'd get answers like Norfolk and Atlanta.)

Maybe "off the beaten path" could be changed to "small cities in small states", after you move some to mid sized.  And the leftover "head scratchers" could be renamed "historical choices".

Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 19, 2020, 08:48:12 AM
I was told that Connecticut had a split dual capitol of both Hartford AND New Haven at one time.

Montpelier, VT is one of the two smallest state capitols, but still has direct access via I-89. I think Pierre, SD is the smallest state capitol of them all. :confused:

Montpelier has about half the population of Pierre (slightly more than half, but close enough–around 7,800 in Montpelier and around 13,600 in Pierre).

Olympia, Washington, could easily be placed in the "mid sized, centrally located" category.  It doesn't empty down to nothing when the legislature's not in session.  It's in the middle of the I-5/Pacific Highway corridor, the most populous corridor in the state.  It's accessible by water, in small to medium sized boats.

A few comments:

Re Doozies:  I would subdivide that into "Second/Third Tier Global Cities" (Boston, Atlanta, Phoenix, Austin, Sacramento, Nashville), and "Other Cities of National Significance" (Indianapolis, Columbus, Honolulu, SLC).

OKC shifts to Prominent Statewide.

St. Paul could have a claim on "Second/Third Tier Global Cities" if you look at the MSP metro as a whole, but then you'd need to consider what to do with Olympia and Annapolis.

Hartford ought to be down at the bottom of "Prominent statewide" or top of "mid-sized, centrally located", especially if you go by the city itself, rather than its metro area.

Harrisburg is probably the third-most-important city in PA, centrally located, and very much on the beaten path.

Missouri's state capital used to be in St Louis. Had it stayed that way, I would rank it "prominent statewide".

If the capital was 25 miles to the north in Columbia, It would be in the "Mid-sized, centrally located" section.

Quote from: J3ebrules on May 19, 2020, 12:18:00 AM
In school, I remember learning that for the colonies at least, capitals were specifically positioned inland to avoid easy invasion via water - Boston was for some reason an intentional anomaly.

That's why Lansing was chosen for Michigan's capital.  It had originally been Detroit (until 1847).

Illinois's was chosen, in part, by a push from Abraham Lincoln.  It had been in Vandalia (on I-70), and the city even built a new state capitol building in an attempt to keep the state capital in town.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalia_State_House_State_Historic_Site

Quote from: 3467 on May 18, 2020, 11:16:14 PM
The only real head scratchers to me are AS and AK.

??

American Samoa ??

I would put Sacramento higher simply because it has an NBA team, which gives it more notoriety.

I think a better way to frame this ranking is, "If you took 100 people who were generally familiar with the US, but somehow didn't know any of the state capitals, rank them by the largest number of people who could correctly answer based on what they know.

Oklahoma City and Indianapolis rank high because the state is right there in the name. Juneau ranks really low because of where it is and Topeka ranks really low because of Kansas City.

I would move Columbus and Nashville below Honolulu and SLC because, even though they're in the middle of their states, there are other large, well-known cities in the state. There aren't really viable alternatives for Hawaii and Utah.

I might rerank the top 10 like this:

Oklahoma City
Indianapolis
Boston
Altanta
Honolulu
Salt Lake City
Denver
Phoenix
Nashville
Columbus

Quote from: Brandon on May 19, 2020, 02:32:53 PM

Quote from: J3ebrules on May 19, 2020, 12:18:00 AM
In school, I remember learning that for the colonies at least, capitals were specifically positioned inland to avoid easy invasion via water - Boston was for some reason an intentional anomaly.

That's why Lansing was chosen for Michigan's capital.  It had originally been Detroit (until 1847).

Illinois's was chosen, in part, by a push from Abraham Lincoln.  It had been in Vandalia (on I-70), and the city even built a new state capitol building in an attempt to keep the state capital in town.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalia_State_House_State_Historic_Site

Richmond is located where it is because it's on the fall line, and it became the state capital because it was central to the population in the 1700s and further inland than the previous capital at Williamsburg, so it was thought to be a more defensible location. Williamsburg itself became the capital because it was further away from the James River than Jamestown and was thought to be less susceptible to some of the diseases that plagued the colony in the early years.

The thing about Richmond that I recall from some of the history classes is that it became the Confederate capital primarily because it was on a lot of the railroad lines and because it was an industrial center for manufacturing weapons and munitions. Growing up in Virginia, we all thought it was odd that the capital was moved from a location like Montgomery that was a lot farther from the North, and was centrally located relative to most of the rest of the country aside from maybe Texas, to a place like Richmond that's so close to the Northern armies (even recognizing the 100 miles to DC was not the quick trip then that is now) and relatively far from most of the rest of the country, but Virginia's industrial output apparently roughly equalled the entire rest of the Confederate states' output, and it was a lot easier for members of the Confederate Congress to reach than Montgomery was. (A more sinister reason for moving the capital to Richmond was that its population of 38,000 was more than 60% white, whereas Montgomery's population of about 9,000 was maybe half white at most.)

Quote from: cabiness42 on May 19, 2020, 03:07:24 PM
I think a better way to frame this ranking is, "If you took 100 people who were generally familiar with the US, but somehow didn't know any of the state capitals, rank them by the largest number of people who could correctly answer based on what they know.


I might rerank the top 10 like this:

Oklahoma City
Indianapolis
Boston
Altanta
Honolulu
Salt Lake City
Denver
Phoenix
Nashville
Columbus

Which, ultimately, translates to "Which states use their largest city as the state capital?"  ...right? If my quick glance is correct, that's exactly what your list translates to (excluding those stares in which the most populous city is not well known).

Quote from: kphoger on May 19, 2020, 02:35:16 PM

Quote from: 3467 on May 18, 2020, 11:16:14 PM
The only real head scratchers to me are AS and AK.

??

American Samoa ??

Well, AS is the IATA code for Alaska Airlines. (AirAsia has AK).

Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 18, 2020, 10:45:34 PM
Other than the head-scratchers, the other 40 in your list are head-scratchers under their headings.

Try it, it's tougher than it looks. I could have just omitted headings altogether, but that was part of the fun.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 18, 2020, 10:45:34 PM
I would say none of the 1st ten are doozies.  11 - 30 are all midsized, and many from 31 - 40 are right on the beaten path, with major limited access highways going thru or just an easy exit from the major limited access highway.

In this case, I'm considering doozy to mean essentially, super obvious.

The difference between 11-20 and 21-30 is that the former are mid-sized but still large or prominent within their state, while the latter are much less so, usually because there are multiple larger cities. That's why Boise is ranked much higher than Austin, for example.

"Off the Beaten Path" is perhaps the most clumsy title for what I was trying to convey. Yes, I know Tallahassee is right on I-10, and I know Topeka is right on the Kansas Turnpike. Everything in that category was either quite small, or significantly off-center location-wise, preventing it from being ranked higher.

Quote from: webny99 on May 18, 2020, 10:16:37 PM
Discussion in some other threads got me thinking about capital cities, and how some are so obvious, while others are real head-scratchers.
So I thought I'd rank them from most obvious to most obscure, and maybe this could be an opportunity to discuss the history of our state capitals and what caused them to be located where they are. So, without further ado:

The Doozies
1. Oklahoma City
2. Indianapolis
3. Boston
4. Atlanta
5. Phoenix
6. Denver
7. Columbus
8. Nashville
9. Honolulu
10. Salt Lake City
Prominent Statewide
11. Little Rock, AR
12. Des Moines, IA
13. St. Paul, MN
14. Boise, ID
15. Jackson, MS
16. Providence, RI
17. Hartford, CT
18. Columbia, SC
19. Charleston, WV
20. Cheyenne, WY
Mid-Sized, Centrally Located
21. Montgomery, AL
22. Richmond, VA
23. Albany, NY
24. Lansing, MI
25. Madison, WI  Chosen because it was halfway between the two population centers at the time.  The Lake Michigan shore and the miners in the SW portion of the state.
26. Springfield, IL
27. Lincoln, NE
28. Bismarck, ND
29. Sacramento, CA
30. Austin, TX
Off the Beaten Path
31. Baton Rouge, LA   Its about an hour west of New Orleans on I-10.  Is that really off the beaten path?
32. Raleigh, NC    Right in the middle of the state in a large metro area.  Off the beaten path?
33. Harrisburg, PA
34. Dover, DE
35. Tallahassee, FL   Made sense when most of Florida's population was in the panhandle.
36. Trenton, NJ
37. Topeka, KS
38. Salem, OR
39. Santa Fe, NM   I think this was chosen for historic reasons more than anything.
40. Helena, MT
The Head-Scratchers
41. Concord, NH
42. Pierre, SD
43. Jefferson City, MO   Halfway between St. Louis and Kansas City.  Maybe it should have been in Columbia where the University of Missouri is?
44. Olympia, WA
45. Augusta, ME
46. Montpelier, VT
47. Annapolis, MD   I would say more "off the beaten path" then a head-scratcher.  Old city that is home to the Naval Academy.
48. Carson City, NV   
49. Frankfort, KY  Halfway between Louisville and Lexington, but I think that's by historical accident.  I don't think there were many obvious choices when Kentucky became a state.
50. Juneau, AK  There have been plenty of movements to move it, but they have never succeeded.  My understanding is the governor rarely works from there anyway?

Agree? Disagree? Create a list of your own!

Quote from: briantroutman on May 18, 2020, 11:25:32 PM
I fail to see how Harrisburg, which is probably close to the center of the state when weighted by population–and is at the confluence of four two-digit interstates connecting nearly all of the state's metro areas plus a US route that's part of an international corridor–qualifies as "off the beaten path".

Harrisburg was really tough to rank, probably one of the hardest. And it's a prime example of the clumsiness of that heading, in particular, which I will revise as soon as I can come up with a better name.

The problem is that Harrisburg is the #9 city in PA, which is quite low. Lower than 45 other states, in fact. Only New Jersey, Kentucky, Missouri, and Washington have capitals that are #9 or further down the list by population.
Even Annapolis, MD is only #7, while Pierre, SD is #8.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_capitals_in_the_United_States

Harrisburg certainly punches above its weight in terms of being a strategically located, major crossroads. But I just couldn't put it in the same league as Albany and Lansing because it really is not that well known nationally and is even under 50K in population.

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 19, 2020, 05:07:36 AM
I'm sure more than a few people would say Minneapolis is our capital if put on the spot, between the penchant of the media to refer to "Minneapolis-St. Paul"  and most people generally aware that Minneapolis is larger, which for some reason means "capital"  in many minds even though the capital and largest city are only the same in probably about 1/5 of states...

St. Paul was also tough to rank. It's obvious to me, as someone who's spent a bit of time in Minnesota, and I figure most people would correctly identify the capital as being in the Twin Cities area, even if they forget which is the capital, or even forget that St. Paul is the other twin.  :)
St. Paul also sounds like the capital. If you gave the choice of Minneapolis or St. Paul in a vacuum, I would pick St. Paul, 100%.

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 19, 2020, 05:07:36 AM
Also, Austin isn't "mid-sized"  - isn't is second to Phoenix in state capital population? It just gets lost in the shuffle somehow between the more famous San Antonio and all of Texas's other massive cities.

Right... the reason it's not ranked higher is that it's not that well known nationally, has only recently exploded in population, and is far from the first thing that comes to mind when you think of Texas.

Quote from: kkt on May 19, 2020, 10:35:37 AM
Olympia, Washington, could easily be placed in the "mid sized, centrally located" category.  It doesn't empty down to nothing when the legislature's not in session.  It's in the middle of the I-5/Pacific Highway corridor, the most populous corridor in the state.  It's accessible by water, in small to medium sized boats.

But unless Wikipedia is incorrect, it's the #24 city in Washington. No other capital city is below #15.  :-o

And being part of the larger Seattle corridor is partly what makes it so obscure.. it's indistinct, location-wise, and doesn't really have its own identity, certainly not nationally.

Quote from: webny99 on May 19, 2020, 04:34:58 PM

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 19, 2020, 05:07:36 AM
I'm sure more than a few people would say Minneapolis is our capital if put on the spot, between the penchant of the media to refer to "Minneapolis-St. Paul"  and most people generally aware that Minneapolis is larger, which for some reason means "capital"  in many minds even though the capital and largest city are only the same in probably about 1/5 of states...

St. Paul was also tough to rank. It's obvious to me, as someone who's spent a bit of time in Minnesota, and I figure most people would correctly identify the capital as being in the Twin Cities area, even if they forget which is the capital, or even forget that St. Paul is the other twin.  :)
St. Paul also sounds like the capital. If you gave the choice of Minneapolis or St. Paul in a vacuum, I would pick St. Paul, 100%.

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 19, 2020, 05:07:36 AM
Also, Austin isn't "mid-sized"  - isn't is second to Phoenix in state capital population? It just gets lost in the shuffle somehow between the more famous San Antonio and all of Texas's other massive cities.

Right... the reason it's not ranked higher is that it's not that well known nationally, has only recently exploded in population, and is far from the first thing that comes to mind when you think of Texas.

I think most people unfamiliar Saint Paul would guess Minneapolis as the capital.  However, considering it's one of the Twin Cities, it's also not at all obscure.  For example, if you replied, 'Actually, it's the other "twin",' it's not like they'd be all that surprised.

And I both agree and disagree that Austin isn't well known nationally.  I think a lot of people know about Austin as an up-and-coming city with a lot of entertainment and stuff.  But that doesn't mean people would guess it's the capital.

Quote from: webny99 on May 18, 2020, 10:16:37 PM
Discussion in some other threads got me thinking about capital cities, and how some are so obvious, while others are real head-scratchers.
So I thought I'd rank them from most obvious to most obscure, and maybe this could be an opportunity to discuss the history of our state capitals and what caused them to be located where they are. So, without further ado:

35. Tallahassee, FL

Tallahassee was chosen as it was midway (there's interestingly enough a town called "Midway" that's a Tallahassee suburb) between Pensacola, then the capital of West Florida, and St. Augustine, then the capital of East Florida.  Very few lived south of Gainesville at the time.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 19, 2020, 04:18:04 PM
32. Raleigh, NC    Right in the middle of the state in a large metro area.  Off the beaten path?

It's not on any major long-distance corridors. I-95 bypasses the metro far to the east, whereas I-85 runs through the western tip of Durham and requires connections through other routes to reach Raleigh which is on the other side of the metro.

I-40 connects Raleigh to I-95 South and I-85 South, I-87 / US-64 connects Raleigh to I-95 North, and the future I-885 and East End Connector will connect it to I-85 North, along with a planned upgrade of US-1 in the next decade.

Yes, I-40 runs through Raleigh, though the only real through traffic would be from Greensboro / Winston-Salem and points northwest bound to Wilmington and vice versa.

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 19, 2020, 05:07:27 PM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 19, 2020, 04:18:04 PM
32. Raleigh, NC    Right in the middle of the state in a large metro area.  Off the beaten path?

It's not on any major long-distance corridors. I-95 bypasses the metro far to the east, whereas I-85 runs through the western tip of Durham and requires connections through other routes to reach Raleigh which is on the other side of the metro.

Yes, I-40 runs through Raleigh, though the only real through traffic would be from Greensboro / Winston-Salem and points northwest bound to Wilmington and vice versa.

Raleigh is quite a major city though, and it has an NHL team.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2020, 05:08:52 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 19, 2020, 05:07:27 PM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 19, 2020, 04:18:04 PM
32. Raleigh, NC    Right in the middle of the state in a large metro area.  Off the beaten path?

It's not on any major long-distance corridors. I-95 bypasses the metro far to the east, whereas I-85 runs through the western tip of Durham and requires connections through other routes to reach Raleigh which is on the other side of the metro.

Yes, I-40 runs through Raleigh, though the only real through traffic would be from Greensboro / Winston-Salem and points northwest bound to Wilmington and vice versa.

Raleigh is quite a major city though, and it has an NHL team.

Agreed, my point is that it's not on a major through corridor in the state like I-95 or I-85. It has relatively easy connections to these routes though through other interstates and freeways.

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 19, 2020, 05:11:35 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2020, 05:08:52 PM

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 19, 2020, 05:07:27 PM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 19, 2020, 04:18:04 PM
32. Raleigh, NC    Right in the middle of the state in a large metro area.  Off the beaten path?

It's not on any major long-distance corridors. I-95 bypasses the metro far to the east, whereas I-85 runs through the western tip of Durham and requires connections through other routes to reach Raleigh which is on the other side of the metro.

Yes, I-40 runs through Raleigh, though the only real through traffic would be from Greensboro / Winston-Salem and points northwest bound to Wilmington and vice versa.

Raleigh is quite a major city though, and it has an NHL team.

Agreed, my point is that it's not on a major through corridor in the state like I-95 or I-85. It has relatively easy connections to these routes though through other interstates and freeways.

Right, but it's not exactly "off the beaten path" like say, Pierre, SD. And don't forget about future I-87 from the west.

Quote from: webny99 on May 19, 2020, 04:24:05 PM
Harrisburg certainly punches above its weight in terms of being a strategically located, major crossroads. But I just couldn't put it in the same league as Albany and Lansing because it really is not that well known nationally and is even under 50K in population.

I assumed you went down the rabbit hole of "...t can't be that important...look at how low the population is" . But that also doesn't take into account the fractious nature of municipalities in much of the East and in Pennsylvania in particular. Harrisburg itself may be just under 50K, but it anchors a metro area of 575K. For comparison: Lansing metro - 464K, Montgomery metro - 373K, Springfield (IL) metro - 211K...etc. etc.

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 19, 2020, 05:07:27 PM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 19, 2020, 04:18:04 PM
32. Raleigh, NC    Right in the middle of the state in a large metro area.  Off the beaten path?

It's not on any major long-distance corridors. I-95 bypasses the metro far to the east, whereas I-85 runs through the western tip of Durham and requires connections through other routes to reach Raleigh which is on the other side of the metro.

I-40 connects Raleigh to I-95 South and I-85 South, I-87 / US-64 connects Raleigh to I-95 North, and the future I-885 and East End Connector will connect it to I-85 North, along with a planned upgrade of US-1 in the next decade.

Yes, I-40 runs through Raleigh, though the only real through traffic would be from Greensboro / Winston-Salem and points northwest bound to Wilmington and vice versa.

So it is on a major e/w interstate in I-40, and both I-85 and I-95 go through its metro area.  But it is off the beaten path?  In a metropolitan area of over a million people?

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2020, 05:14:13 PM
Right, but it's not exactly "off the beaten path" like say, Pierre, SD. And don't forget about future I-87 from the west.

I-87 would connect Raleigh to I-95 North and to the Hampton Roads region, though still wouldn't be a major through corridor itself for long distance interstate traffic. It serves more as an intrastate route for traffic originating / destined in Raleigh.

It could see traffic coming through from the east headed to the I-85 corridor though.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 19, 2020, 05:26:19 PM
So it is on a major e/w interstate in I-40, and both I-85 and I-95 go through its metro area.  But it is off the beaten path?  In a metropolitan area of over a million people?

I-40 mainly serves traffic from the Piedmont-Triad bound to Wilmington more than anything, not necessarily long distance traffic in the sense that I-95 and I-85 do. It just happens to be on the eastern end of the cross-country I-40 corridor which picks up long distance interstate traffic largely west of I-26 and Asheville, then taking in long-haul I-81 traffic in Tennessee where it merges into it. East of there, it's pretty much in-state traffic.

I-95 does not run in or near the metro. You have to connect via I-40 (to the south) or I-87 / US-64 (to the north).

I-85 slivers through the edge of Durham on the west side of the overall Raleigh-Durham metro, but does not actually run through Raleigh.

In the original interstate system, Raleigh was not served by an interstate highway. I-40 originally terminated at I-85 in Greensboro. In 1968, an extension eastwards overlapping I-85 to Durham, then following a new location routing through Raleigh down to I-95 was approved. In the 1970s, it was to either extend further east to either Morehead City or Wilmington, then Wilmington was chosen as the preferred path. It was not completed through Raleigh and to I-95 until the late 1980s and completed to Wilmington in phases from the 1980s until after 1990. Today, US-70 serves the Morehead City routing never built, and will over the next decade be replaced with the newer I-42.

Would have used "no-brainers" instead of "doozies".  All of these cities, with the exception of Boston, are the largest, or at least one of the largest, cities in the state, and are centrally located in the state.

Little Rock and Des Moines probably deserve to be in the top ten, probably at the expense of Atlanta and Boston.

Either the University of Missouri should have been in Jefferson City or the capital should have been at Columbia.  I'd vote for both at Jeff City because it's on the Missouri River.  Ditto with Kentucky.  Capital should have been Lexington.

Austin probably belongs closer to Nashville and Columbus than where it is.  The difference is that instead of being the most centrally located  of three large cities, it's that of five or six.

Quote from: Konza on May 19, 2020, 05:48:45 PM
Would have used "no-brainers" instead of "doozies".  All of these cities, with the exception of Boston, are the largest, or at least one of the largest, cities in the state, and are centrally located in the state.

Little Rock and Des Moines probably deserve to be in the top ten, probably at the expense of Atlanta and Boston.

Either the University of Missouri should have been in Jefferson City or the capital should have been at Columbia.  I'd vote for both at Jeff City because it's on the Missouri River.  Ditto with Kentucky.  Capital should have been Lexington.

Austin probably belongs closer to Nashville and Columbus than where it is.  The difference is that instead of being the most centrally located  of three large cities, it's that of five or six.

Little Rock is more important/more obvious than Boston? I'm confused.

Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 19, 2020, 08:48:12 AM
I was told that Connecticut had a split dual capitol of both Hartford AND New Haven at one time.

Montpelier, VT is one of the two smallest state capitols, but still has direct access via I-89. I think Pierre, SD is the smallest state capitol of them all. :confused:

Depends upon how one wants to measure smallest. Judging by city limits, Montpelier has 7436 residents to Pierre's 13980 (2018 estimates for both). Keep in mind, though, that Montpelier has a daytime working population of more than 21000 people, and that Washington County, VT (of which Montpelier is the Shire town) has 58409 residents. As opposed to Hughes County, SD (with Pierre as the county seat), which has only 17650 residents.

In fact, one could assemble VT's 9616 square miles around Pierre, and the combined county populations around Pierre would be at least 20000 short of Washington County's population. So Pierre may not be the smallest capital city, but it certainly can be said to be the most remote of all 50 state capitals. Yes, even including Juneau and Honolulu.

Quoteauthor=Roadgeekteen link=topic=26908.msg2501074#msg2501074 date=1589925707]
Little Rock is more important/more obvious than Boston? I'm confused.

Little Rock is (or at least historically has been) the largest city in the largest metropolitan area in Arkansas, and it is almost smack-dab in the center of the state. 

I'd be willing to make an argument for Worcester as the capital of Massachusetts, to centralize the capital geographically within the state, and to get it out of the big city.  It would be kind of like Lincoln and Topeka, and, to some extent, Baton Rouge.

Quote from: Konza on May 19, 2020, 06:41:09 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2020, 06:01:47 PM

Little Rock is more important/more obvious than Boston? I'm confused.

Little Rock is (or at least historically has been) the largest city in the largest metropolitan area in Arkansas, and it is almost smack-dab in the center of the state. 

I'd be willing to make an argument for Worcester as the capital of Massachusetts, to centralize the capital geographically within the state, and to get it out of the big city.  It would be kind of like Lincoln and Topeka, and, to some extent, Baton Rouge.
[/quote] I guess, but Atlanta? Can't think of any other city better for the capital. Maybe Macon.

Reminds me of that infamous "gotcha" question: How do you pronounce the capital of Kentucky, "Lewisville" or "Louieville?"

:rofl:

It's surprising just how dead Frankfort can be on evenings and weekends. A good chunk of the state government workforce lives in adjacent counties, and quite a few commute from Lexington, Louisville, and even Harrodsburg or other towns in counties not immediately adjacent to Franklin County.

And isn't Annapolis basically a capital in name only? Aren't most of the state government offices, such as SHA, in Baltimore or environs? I remember being surprised to learn that many of the SHA folks who provided support when Maryland hosted the AASHTO Subcommittee on Transportation Communications (TransComm) conference had their offices in Baltimore.

Quote from: hbelkins on May 19, 2020, 07:48:10 PM
Reminds me of that infamous "gotcha" question: How do you pronounce the capital of Kentucky, "Lewisville" or "Louieville?"

Indeed. We've come full circle, as this post by kphoger just yesterday (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=26874.msg2500583#msg2500583), was, in part, the inspiration for this thread in the first place.

Quote from: Konza on May 19, 2020, 05:48:45 PM
[...]

Either the University of Missouri should have been in Jefferson City or the capital should have been at Columbia.  I'd vote for both at Jeff City because it's on the Missouri River.

[...]

The problem with this being the University was still almost 20 years from existence when this was being decided, and Jefferson City was chosen for its proximity to the geographic centerpoint of Missouri. The Missouri River was not yet a major route of commerce (aside from heavy fur trade farther upstream), and Jefferson City was still largely surrounded by wilderness as the time, whereas Columbia was located on major overland routes across Missouri, include the Boone's Lick Road and the eastern end of the Great Osage Trail.

Quote from: briantroutman on May 19, 2020, 05:24:24 PM

Quote from: webny99 on May 19, 2020, 04:24:05 PM
Harrisburg certainly punches above its weight in terms of being a strategically located, major crossroads. But I just couldn't put it in the same league as Albany and Lansing because it really is not that well known nationally and is even under 50K in population.

I assumed you went down the rabbit hole of "...t can't be that important...look at how low the population is" . But that also doesn't take into account the fractious nature of municipalities in much of the East and in Pennsylvania in particular. Harrisburg itself may be just under 50K, but it anchors a metro area of 575K. For comparison: Lansing metro - 464K, Montgomery metro - 373K, Springfield (IL) metro - 211K...etc. etc.

The funny thing is, Harrisburg, being the only one of the cities you listed that I've actually been to, certainly has the vibes (and the traffic) of a city quadruple its size. I just can't shake off the feeling that Lansing, Montgomery, Albany, etc. have a more distinct identity, and are more prominent both nationally and in their respective states, and Harrisburg seems like a no-name in comparison. I'd be interested to hear other's perspectives, though.

Quote from: webny99 on May 19, 2020, 08:21:59 PM

Quote from: briantroutman on May 19, 2020, 05:24:24 PM

Quote from: webny99 on May 19, 2020, 04:24:05 PM
Harrisburg certainly punches above its weight in terms of being a strategically located, major crossroads. But I just couldn't put it in the same league as Albany and Lansing because it really is not that well known nationally and is even under 50K in population.

I assumed you went down the rabbit hole of "...t can't be that important...look at how low the population is" . But that also doesn't take into account the fractious nature of municipalities in much of the East and in Pennsylvania in particular. Harrisburg itself may be just under 50K, but it anchors a metro area of 575K. For comparison: Lansing metro - 464K, Montgomery metro - 373K, Springfield (IL) metro - 211K...etc. etc.

The funny thing is, Harrisburg, being the only one of the cities you listed that I've actually been to, certainly has the vibes (and the traffic) of a city quadruple its size. I just can't shake off the feeling that Lansing, Montgomery, Albany, etc. have a more distinct identity, and are more prominent both nationally and in their respective states, and Harrisburg seems like a no-name in comparison. I'd be interested to hear other's perspectives, though.

Harrisburg also has a surprising number of interstates.

Quote from: webny99 on May 19, 2020, 08:21:59 PM

Quote from: briantroutman on May 19, 2020, 05:24:24 PM

Quote from: webny99 on May 19, 2020, 04:24:05 PM
Harrisburg certainly punches above its weight in terms of being a strategically located, major crossroads. But I just couldn't put it in the same league as Albany and Lansing because it really is not that well known nationally and is even under 50K in population.

I assumed you went down the rabbit hole of "...t can't be that important...look at how low the population is" . But that also doesn't take into account the fractious nature of municipalities in much of the East and in Pennsylvania in particular. Harrisburg itself may be just under 50K, but it anchors a metro area of 575K. For comparison: Lansing metro - 464K, Montgomery metro - 373K, Springfield (IL) metro - 211K...etc. etc.

The funny thing is, Harrisburg, being the only one of the cities you listed that I've actually been to, certainly has the vibes (and the traffic) of a city quadruple its size. I just can't shake off the feeling that Lansing, Montgomery, Albany, etc. have a more distinct identity, and are more prominent both nationally and in their respective states, and Harrisburg seems like a no-name in comparison. I'd be interested to hear other's perspectives, though.

To me nationally Lansing is an average capital city. As far as Michigan goes Detroit use to be the capital and Marshall was proposed to be the new capital. Lansing was just a farm pretty much when it was chosen as the capital. I think it won over Marshall by two votes. Lansing is a pretty prominent city in the state though.

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 19, 2020, 12:25:09 AM

Quote from: webny99 on May 18, 2020, 10:16:37 PM
1. Oklahoma City

"the freebie"
Also the bait to get you to put down Kansas City, KS.

The catch is that you're supposed to put down Kansas City for Missouri, not Kansas.  :D

So if we were going to sort the capitals into fewer categories, maybe 3 or 4, what would that look like?

One bucket would be all the super-obvious ones.

Then you could have the semi-obvious ones, which kind of breaks down into 2 sub-categories: ones like Boise, Cheyenne, and Jackson, MS that are obvious for their state, but their states just don't happen to be that populous or prominent. And then the ones that make sense location-wise, but are lesser-known because the state has many bigger or similarly sized cities. Springfield, Lansing, and Albany would all fit into this category. I would probably also include some from my 4th category, like Raleigh and Harrisburg, among others.

And then everything else would be considered obscure.

I'm guessing Harrisburg has a disproportionate amount of the population in "suburb" municipalities.  In terms of metro size, it's not that much smaller than Syracuse, but the city is extremely small (both in land area and population) relative to the rest of the urban area.

In a way it's similar to Albany, except it still follows the central city/suburbs model rather than the Capital District's (which is actually between Rochester and Syracuse in total metro population) several downtowns connected by suburbs.

Quote from: Ketchup99 on May 19, 2020, 02:07:57 PM
Harrisburg is probably the third-most-important city in PA, centrally located, and very much on the beaten path.

Is it third-most-important because it is the capitol or intrinsically and just as an aside the capitol?

Quote from: michravera on May 19, 2020, 10:21:17 PM

Quote from: Ketchup99 on May 19, 2020, 02:07:57 PM
Harrisburg is probably the third-most-important city in PA, centrally located, and very much on the beaten path.

Is it third-most-important because it is the capitol or intrinsically and just as an aside the capitol?

In general. I say *probably* because Scranton could make a case, but Harrisburg has a metro population of almost 600k.

It's odd to hear people talking about accessibility via Interstates (since I assumed the original probe of the post was why the capitals were placed in these cities to begin with) when the capitals came long before the roads. If anything, the bigger question that seems to be raised by these "middle of nowhere"  comments is why the roads avoided the capitals (yes, yes, freeway revolts yadda yadda but it doesn't sound like people are talking about roads THROUGH the cities so much as TO the cities).

Quote from: J3ebrules on May 19, 2020, 11:53:13 PM
It's odd to hear people talking about accessibility via Interstates (since I assumed the original probe of the post was why the capitals were placed in these cities to begin with) when the capitals came long before the roads. If anything, the bigger question that seems to be raised by these "middle of nowhere"  comments is why the roads avoided the capitals (yes, yes, freeway revolts yadda yadda but it doesn't sound like people are talking about roads THROUGH the cities so much as TO the cities).

There were still roads back then, I feel like the US highways and later the interstates were overlaid near the old cowpaths, put that's probably not always the case.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2020, 11:56:36 PM

Quote from: J3ebrules on May 19, 2020, 11:53:13 PM
It's odd to hear people talking about accessibility via Interstates (since I assumed the original probe of the post was why the capitals were placed in these cities to begin with) when the capitals came long before the roads. If anything, the bigger question that seems to be raised by these "middle of nowhere"  comments is why the roads avoided the capitals (yes, yes, freeway revolts yadda yadda but it doesn't sound like people are talking about roads THROUGH the cities so much as TO the cities).

There were still roads back then, I feel like the US highways and later the interstates were overlaid near the old cowpaths, put that's probably not always the case.

Hm, that is true - probably more so for the US routes. They were laid on farm roads and old rail beds. We would probably need to take a look at railroad history for some of this as well, since that was once a touchstone or being Somewhere.

Quote from: J3ebrules on May 20, 2020, 12:03:48 AM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2020, 11:56:36 PM

Quote from: J3ebrules on May 19, 2020, 11:53:13 PM
It's odd to hear people talking about accessibility via Interstates (since I assumed the original probe of the post was why the capitals were placed in these cities to begin with) when the capitals came long before the roads. If anything, the bigger question that seems to be raised by these "middle of nowhere"  comments is why the roads avoided the capitals (yes, yes, freeway revolts yadda yadda but it doesn't sound like people are talking about roads THROUGH the cities so much as TO the cities).

There were still roads back then, I feel like the US highways and later the interstates were overlaid near the old cowpaths, put that's probably not always the case.

Hm, that is true - probably more so for the US routes. They were laid on farm roads and old rail beds. We would probably need to take a look at railroad history for some of this as well, since that was once a touchstone or being Somewhere.

I think that Harrisburg is a railroad junction too, with lines going in all directions.

On a navicable waterway was a factor in placing many of the capitals through the late 1800s.  You can still move a lot more goods by barge than you can by road or rail.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 20, 2020, 12:06:45 AM

Quote from: J3ebrules on May 20, 2020, 12:03:48 AM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2020, 11:56:36 PM

Quote from: J3ebrules on May 19, 2020, 11:53:13 PM
It's odd to hear people talking about accessibility via Interstates (since I assumed the original probe of the post was why the capitals were placed in these cities to begin with) when the capitals came long before the roads. If anything, the bigger question that seems to be raised by these "middle of nowhere"  comments is why the roads avoided the capitals (yes, yes, freeway revolts yadda yadda but it doesn't sound like people are talking about roads THROUGH the cities so much as TO the cities).

There were still roads back then, I feel like the US highways and later the interstates were overlaid near the old cowpaths, put that's probably not always the case.

Hm, that is true - probably more so for the US routes. They were laid on farm roads and old rail beds. We would probably need to take a look at railroad history for some of this as well, since that was once a touchstone or being Somewhere.

I think that Harrisburg is a railroad junction too, with lines going in all directions.

It's a reasonably sized railway junction, but only one of the lines has passenger service.

Quote from: Ketchup99 on May 20, 2020, 12:23:19 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 20, 2020, 12:06:45 AM

Quote from: J3ebrules on May 20, 2020, 12:03:48 AM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2020, 11:56:36 PM

Quote from: J3ebrules on May 19, 2020, 11:53:13 PM
It's odd to hear people talking about accessibility via Interstates (since I assumed the original probe of the post was why the capitals were placed in these cities to begin with) when the capitals came long before the roads. If anything, the bigger question that seems to be raised by these "middle of nowhere"  comments is why the roads avoided the capitals (yes, yes, freeway revolts yadda yadda but it doesn't sound like people are talking about roads THROUGH the cities so much as TO the cities).

There were still roads back then, I feel like the US highways and later the interstates were overlaid near the old cowpaths, put that's probably not always the case.

Hm, that is true - probably more so for the US routes. They were laid on farm roads and old rail beds. We would probably need to take a look at railroad history for some of this as well, since that was once a touchstone or being Somewhere.

I think that Harrisburg is a railroad junction too, with lines going in all directions.

It's a reasonably sized railway junction, but only one of the lines has passenger service.

Well, today at least. I'm talking when railroads dominated the movement of people and goods. I am honestly not too familiar with where Harrisburg fit into the equation when it came to 19th century railways.

Quote from: kkt on May 20, 2020, 12:39:50 AM
On a navicable waterway was a factor in placing many of the capitals through the late 1800s.  You can still move a lot more goods by barge than you can by road or rail.

Vallejo and Benicia were once State Capitals for California in the 1850's over waterway navigation before Sacramento became the permanent state capital for the state in 1854.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benicia_Capitol_State_Historic_Park

Quote from: J3ebrules on May 20, 2020, 12:31:52 PM

Quote from: Ketchup99 on May 20, 2020, 12:23:19 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 20, 2020, 12:06:45 AM

Quote from: J3ebrules on May 20, 2020, 12:03:48 AM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2020, 11:56:36 PM

Quote from: J3ebrules on May 19, 2020, 11:53:13 PM
It's odd to hear people talking about accessibility via Interstates (since I assumed the original probe of the post was why the capitals were placed in these cities to begin with) when the capitals came long before the roads. If anything, the bigger question that seems to be raised by these "middle of nowhere"  comments is why the roads avoided the capitals (yes, yes, freeway revolts yadda yadda but it doesn't sound like people are talking about roads THROUGH the cities so much as TO the cities).

There were still roads back then, I feel like the US highways and later the interstates were overlaid near the old cowpaths, put that's probably not always the case.

Hm, that is true - probably more so for the US routes. They were laid on farm roads and old rail beds. We would probably need to take a look at railroad history for some of this as well, since that was once a touchstone or being Somewhere.

I think that Harrisburg is a railroad junction too, with lines going in all directions.

It's a reasonably sized railway junction, but only one of the lines has passenger service.

Well, today at least. I'm talking when railroads dominated the movement of people and goods. I am honestly not too familiar with where Harrisburg fit into the equation when it came to 19th century railways.

It was important enough that if the South had won at Gettysburg, their next objective would have been Harrisburg, in order to cut vital ties in the Union.

Quote from: bing101 on May 20, 2020, 12:53:49 PM

Quote from: kkt on May 20, 2020, 12:39:50 AM
On a navicable waterway was a factor in placing many of the capitals through the late 1800s.  You can still move a lot more goods by barge than you can by road or rail.

Vallejo and Benicia were once State Capitals for California in the 1850's over waterway navigation before Sacramento became the permanent state capital for the state in 1854.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benicia_Capitol_State_Historic_Park

Never San Francisco or Oakland?

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 20, 2020, 12:06:45 AM

Quote from: J3ebrules on May 20, 2020, 12:03:48 AM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2020, 11:56:36 PM

Quote from: J3ebrules on May 19, 2020, 11:53:13 PM
It's odd to hear people talking about accessibility via Interstates (since I assumed the original probe of the post was why the capitals were placed in these cities to begin with) when the capitals came long before the roads. If anything, the bigger question that seems to be raised by these "middle of nowhere"  comments is why the roads avoided the capitals (yes, yes, freeway revolts yadda yadda but it doesn't sound like people are talking about roads THROUGH the cities so much as TO the cities).

There were still roads back then, I feel like the US highways and later the interstates were overlaid near the old cowpaths, put that's probably not always the case.

Hm, that is true - probably more so for the US routes. They were laid on farm roads and old rail beds. We would probably need to take a look at railroad history for some of this as well, since that was once a touchstone or being Somewhere.

I think that Harrisburg is a railroad junction too, with lines going in all directions.

Harrisburg is at the major gap into the Great Appalachian Valley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Appalachian_Valley).  It's from here that settlers tended to go southwest along the valley toward the mountainous regions of Virginia (and West Virginia), North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama, and made to way to Kentucky and Tennessee.  The importance of this is still seen with I-81 today.

Quote from: sprjus4 on May 19, 2020, 05:37:54 PM

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 19, 2020, 05:14:13 PM
Right, but it's not exactly "off the beaten path" like say, Pierre, SD. And don't forget about future I-87 from the west.

I-87 would connect Raleigh to I-95 North and to the Hampton Roads region, though still wouldn't be a major through corridor itself for long distance interstate traffic. It serves more as an intrastate route for traffic originating / destined in Raleigh.

It could see traffic coming through from the east headed to the I-85 corridor though.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 19, 2020, 05:26:19 PM
So it is on a major e/w interstate in I-40, and both I-85 and I-95 go through its metro area.  But it is off the beaten path?  In a metropolitan area of over a million people?

I-40 mainly serves traffic from the Piedmont-Triad bound to Wilmington more than anything, not necessarily long distance traffic in the sense that I-95 and I-85 do. It just happens to be on the eastern end of the cross-country I-40 corridor which picks up long distance interstate traffic largely west of I-26 and Asheville, then taking in long-haul I-81 traffic in Tennessee where it merges into it. East of there, it's pretty much in-state traffic.

I-95 does not run in or near the metro. You have to connect via I-40 (to the south) or I-87 / US-64 (to the north).

I-85 slivers through the edge of Durham on the west side of the overall Raleigh-Durham metro, but does not actually run through Raleigh.

In the original interstate system, Raleigh was not served by an interstate highway. I-40 originally terminated at I-85 in Greensboro. In 1968, an extension eastwards overlapping I-85 to Durham, then following a new location routing through Raleigh down to I-95 was approved. In the 1970s, it was to either extend further east to either Morehead City or Wilmington, then Wilmington was chosen as the preferred path. It was not completed through Raleigh and to I-95 until the late 1980s and completed to Wilmington in phases from the 1980s until after 1990. Today, US-70 serves the Morehead City routing never built, and will over the next decade be replaced with the newer I-42.

Keep in mind, OP never defined these by what roads they served. IMO, even with this consideration, a city with the status as Raleigh, in a metro with facilities as major as the Research Triangle Park, pretty well known university facilities, and Red Hat, definitely can't be considered "off the beaten path", if you define the city by its amenities and merits rather than simple geography. It's definitely a place that's very far from being overlooked. It's not far and small either, Raleigh is much larger and more significant than the other cities it was categorized with. By the metric of roads alone, Manhattan, NY could be considered "off the beaten path" because no major 2DI serves it besides a small bit of I-95 and a stub of I-78.

I think I was taught that most state capitals were placed in the middle of the state, because most states were formed before the invention of the auto, and therefore the center of the state was the best option in terms of travel for all residents.  In PA for example, having Philly as the capital would be decidedly unfair for residents of Pittsburgh.  In NY, having NYC as the capital would be decidedly unfair for residents of Buffalo.

The older cities that ended up the largest were ones near critical 19th and early 20th century transportation hubs - mainly waterways (bays/oceans/rivers/canals and the Great Lakes).   

Expanding this to Mexico...

Baja California – The capital is Mexicali, not Tijuana.
Veracruz – The capital is Xalapa, not the city of Veracruz.

Most others that seem surprising at first aren't actually very obscure at all.

Lansing is close to the center of population now but don't know about when it became the capital. The geographic center of the state is in Wexford County near Cadillac. The geographic center of the Lower Peninsula is near or in St. Louis.

Quote from: jemacedo9 on May 20, 2020, 03:23:56 PM
I think I was taught that most state capitals were placed in the middle of the state, because most states were formed before the invention of the auto, and therefore the center of the state was the best option in terms of travel for all residents.  In PA for example, having Philly as the capital would be decidedly unfair for residents of Pittsburgh.  In NY, having NYC as the capital would be decidedly unfair for residents of Buffalo.

The older cities that ended up the largest were ones near critical 19th and early 20th century transportation hubs - mainly waterways (bays/oceans/rivers/canals and the Great Lakes).   

This is one of the things the people in the counties that became West Virginia objected to, aside from the slavery issue–they felt the state capital in Richmond, and the state university in Charlottesville, were both too far away.

Quote from: 1995hoo on May 20, 2020, 05:32:32 PM

Quote from: jemacedo9 on May 20, 2020, 03:23:56 PM
I think I was taught that most state capitals were placed in the middle of the state, because most states were formed before the invention of the auto, and therefore the center of the state was the best option in terms of travel for all residents.  In PA for example, having Philly as the capital would be decidedly unfair for residents of Pittsburgh.  In NY, having NYC as the capital would be decidedly unfair for residents of Buffalo.

The older cities that ended up the largest were ones near critical 19th and early 20th century transportation hubs - mainly waterways (bays/oceans/rivers/canals and the Great Lakes).   

This is one of the things the people in the counties that became West Virginia objected to, aside from the slavery issue—they felt the state capital in Richmond, and the state university in Charlottesville, were both too far away.

I feel like Richmond is near the center of population though. Virginia was just too big.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 20, 2020, 01:20:39 PM

Quote from: bing101 on May 20, 2020, 12:53:49 PM

Quote from: kkt on May 20, 2020, 12:39:50 AM
On a navicable waterway was a factor in placing many of the capitals through the late 1800s.  You can still move a lot more goods by barge than you can by road or rail.

Vallejo and Benicia were once State Capitals for California in the 1850's over waterway navigation before Sacramento became the permanent state capital for the state in 1854.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benicia_Capitol_State_Historic_Park

Never San Francisco or Oakland?

No. San Jose was first (1849-1851), then Benicia (1852-1853), then Vallejo (1853-1854), then Sacramento.

Sacramento is definitely ranked too low on this list. Located at the confluence of the American River (hugely important during the Gold Rush) and Sacramento River (major transport corridor from the Sacramento Valley into San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean), and since Southern California was very sparsely settled at the time, it would have been an extremely sensible choice for capital. Even now, Sacramento has over 500,000 people and the metro area has 2.3 million.

Quote from: Flint1979 on May 20, 2020, 05:18:26 PM
Lansing is close to the center of population now but don't know about when it became the capital. The geographic center of the state is in Wexford County near Cadillac. The geographic center of the Lower Peninsula is near or in St. Louis.

1847.  Detroit was the state capital prior to that (1837-47), and the territorial capital as well.

There was legislation pending at the time of statehood to move Minnesota's capital from St. Paul to St. Peter, in southern Minnesota. A legislator opposed to the idea stole the physical piece of legislation before it could be signed and hid with it until it expired.

For some reason I can't fathom this event made the state legislature go "yeah, we won't ever try that again"  and the rest is history.

Quote from: TravelingBethelite on May 19, 2020, 08:19:01 PM

Quote from: Konza on May 19, 2020, 05:48:45 PM
[...]

Either the University of Missouri should have been in Jefferson City or the capital should have been at Columbia.  I'd vote for both at Jeff City because it's on the Missouri River.

[...]

The problem with this being the University was still almost 20 years from existence when this was being decided, and Jefferson City was chosen for its proximity to the geographic centerpoint of Missouri. The Missouri River was not yet a major route of commerce (aside from heavy fur trade farther upstream), and Jefferson City was still largely surrounded by wilderness as the time, whereas Columbia was located on major overland routes across Missouri, include the Boone's Lick Road and the eastern end of the Great Osage Trail.

I tend to agree with the first sentiment.  It would make sense that there be one mid-sized town in the center of the state that had both the capital and the university (with similar growth patterns a la Madison, WI).  And once the town was chosen, then everything else as far as travel routes would follow.  If it made sense to be on the Missouri River, then Jeff City should have had the university, and from there it would have been the better choice for intrastate travel between St Louis and KC.  US 40 and US 50 both connect St Louis to KC, but if US 50 would be the more prominent choice, then it would make sense to have routed I-70 along its path between St Louis and KC so that Jefferson City would also be served. 

If all of the above happened, then Jefferson City would be larger than Columbia.

I don't see any reason a university should be in the same town as the state legislature.

Quote from: kphoger on May 22, 2020, 12:30:21 PM
I don't see any reason a university should be in the same town as the state legislature.

I think the idea is that the only two important things in that part of the state should be in the same city, not two cities 25 miles apart.

I don't necessarily agree – there are several other examples of twin cities that aren't adjacent, such as Carson City and Reno.

Quote from: 1 on May 22, 2020, 12:40:33 PM

Quote from: kphoger on May 22, 2020, 12:30:21 PM
I don't see any reason a university should be in the same town as the state legislature.

I think the idea is that the only two important things in that part of the state should be in the same city, not two cities 25 miles apart.

I don't necessarily agree – there are several other examples of twin cities that aren't adjacent, such as Carson City and Reno.

If the two were related, then I guess I could agree.  But, in my opinion, it's like expecting a state's airport to be in the same town as the stockyards.  What does the one have to do with the other?  For that matter, I don't see why a university needs to be in a large city at all.  I considered going to college in a town of about 7000 population, and my daughter attends university in a town of about 4000 population.

I wonder what would be cheaper to do, move the University to Indianapolis or move the Capitol to Bloomington?

To claim that Michigan State is the premier institution because it's right next door to Lansing would infuriate more than one Wolverine!

I'm surprised Oxford MS and Tuscaloosa AL are supposed to be the capitals of their states too.

Quote from: kphoger on May 22, 2020, 12:56:53 PM

Quote from: 1 on May 22, 2020, 12:40:33 PM

Quote from: kphoger on May 22, 2020, 12:30:21 PM
I don't see any reason a university should be in the same town as the state legislature.

I think the idea is that the only two important things in that part of the state should be in the same city, not two cities 25 miles apart.

I don't necessarily agree – there are several other examples of twin cities that aren't adjacent, such as Carson City and Reno.

If the two were related, then I guess I could agree.  But, in my opinion, it's like expecting a state's airport to be in the same town as the stockyards.  What does the one have to do with the other?  For that matter, I don't see why a university needs to be in a large city at all.  I considered going to college in a town of about 7000 population, and my daughter attends university in a town of about 4000 population.

It's not so much that the two are related, but that there could be certain synergies with having them nearby.  I see a university could have specialized programs catering to public service (internships and similar) because state government agency headquarters are nearby.  Also, while a capital does not necessarily need to be the biggest city in a state, it should still be a sizable place with reasonable amenities.  Service on major interstates and other transportation corridors are amenities.  Cultural institutions like museums, performing arts centers, and yes, universities are also amenities.  A capital should be geographically central and also an important town with respect to the state.

Columbia is MO's 4th largest city, and the largest city in the central part of the state.  Jefferson City is 15th. 

Quote from: kphoger on May 22, 2020, 12:56:53 PM

Quote from: 1 on May 22, 2020, 12:40:33 PM

Quote from: kphoger on May 22, 2020, 12:30:21 PM
I don't see any reason a university should be in the same town as the state legislature.

I think the idea is that the only two important things in that part of the state should be in the same city, not two cities 25 miles apart.

I don't necessarily agree – there are several other examples of twin cities that aren't adjacent, such as Carson City and Reno.

If the two were related, then I guess I could agree.  But, in my opinion, it's like expecting a state's airport to be in the same town as the stockyards.  What does the one have to do with the other?  For that matter, I don't see why a university needs to be in a large city at all.  I considered going to college in a town of about 7000 population, and my daughter attends university in a town of about 4000 population.

I've always felt the U of M being in Minneapolis takes away greatly from the charm of the concept. To me Dinkytown is just another part of Minneapolis indistinguishable from any other part.

Quote from: GaryV on May 22, 2020, 01:11:22 PM
To claim that Michigan State is the premier institution because it's right next door to Lansing would infuriate more than one Wolverine Walverine!

The only people who seem to get upset are those who never went to either yet buy their UM gear at Walmart.

Quote from: kphoger on May 22, 2020, 12:56:53 PM

Quote from: 1 on May 22, 2020, 12:40:33 PM

Quote from: kphoger on May 22, 2020, 12:30:21 PM
I don't see any reason a university should be in the same town as the state legislature.

I think the idea is that the only two important things in that part of the state should be in the same city, not two cities 25 miles apart.

I don't necessarily agree – there are several other examples of twin cities that aren't adjacent, such as Carson City and Reno.

If the two were related, then I guess I could agree.  But, in my opinion, it's like expecting a state's airport to be in the same town as the stockyards.  What does the one have to do with the other?  For that matter, I don't see why a university needs to be in a large city at all.  I considered going to college in a town of about 7000 population, and my daughter attends university in a town of about 4000 population.

Having a top tier public university in your state capital ensures that you have one of the state's best hospitals in your state capital. It also gives the university access to spouses of state government employees and vice versa.  It's a really natural fit.

As for private universities and liberal arts colleges, I don't think it matters a whole lot how close to a state capital they are.

I don't know about THE state university (capitalization intentional; more on that to follow) being in the capital city, but I think there are geographical advantages to both being somewhat near the center of the state.

Kentucky only has one major state university that purports to represent the entire state, UK. Kentucky State University is in Frankfort and has a partnership with state government, but it's a historically black college. The University of Louisville is also under state control. Frankfort draws employees from both cities, even though it's not equidistant between them. KSU is more like a regional school like EKU, WKU, Morehead and Murray.

Our setup is more like Ohio's, where the main state school (tOSU, hence my reference to "the" earlier) is in the capital and geographical center, while Ohio University is in an obscure place in a corner of the state, Athens. Similarly, in Indiana, IU is in Bloomington, not far from the capital and geographical center; while ISU is in Terre Haute and isn't as big of a school.

We aren't like Kansas, Mississippi, Iowa, Oklahoma, Michigan, Florida, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, or other states with two main schools (University of State or State-Name University, and then State-Name State University). I'm presuming those examples are valid because both of those schools in each state are members of the big athletic conferences.

What puzzles me is those states where the state schools are in far-flung places, like Arkansas and West Virginia. Why were the schools placed in a remote area far from the state's opposite corner, instead of in a central city closer to more of the population? WVU's more natural geographical rival isn't Marshall, it's Pitt.

Quote from: hbelkins on May 22, 2020, 02:46:08 PM
Kansas

...whose two chief state universities are in neither the capital nor largest city.  I've never heard anyone suggest that's a bad thing or doesn't work well.

Quote from: kphoger on May 22, 2020, 03:19:16 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on May 22, 2020, 02:46:08 PM
Kansas

...whose two chief state universities are in neither the capital nor largest city.  I've never heard anyone suggest that's a bad thing or doesn't work well.

Lawrence happens to be right between the capital city and the largest metro area (not city, as I just realized... glad I double checked, as I wouldn't have wanted to insult your hometown ;-)), and is still reasonably centrally located for most of the state's population. If it was Dodge City instead of Lawrence, I think you would have plenty of people saying it's a bad thing and/or doesn't work well.

Quote from: GaryV on May 22, 2020, 01:11:22 PM
I'm surprised Oxford MS and Tuscaloosa AL are supposed to be the capitals of their states too.

Tuscaloosa was the capital before it was moved to Montgomery.

Quote from: cabiness42 on May 22, 2020, 01:57:07 PM

Quote from: kphoger on May 22, 2020, 12:56:53 PM

Quote from: 1 on May 22, 2020, 12:40:33 PM

Quote from: kphoger on May 22, 2020, 12:30:21 PM
I don't see any reason a university should be in the same town as the state legislature.

I think the idea is that the only two important things in that part of the state should be in the same city, not two cities 25 miles apart.

I don't necessarily agree – there are several other examples of twin cities that aren't adjacent, such as Carson City and Reno.

If the two were related, then I guess I could agree.  But, in my opinion, it's like expecting a state's airport to be in the same town as the stockyards.  What does the one have to do with the other?  For that matter, I don't see why a university needs to be in a large city at all.  I considered going to college in a town of about 7000 population, and my daughter attends university in a town of about 4000 population.

Having a top tier public university in your state capital ensures that you have one of the state's best hospitals in your state capital. It also gives the university access to spouses of state government employees and vice versa.  It's a really natural fit.

As for private universities and liberal arts colleges, I don't think it matters a whole lot how close to a state capital they are.

Growing up in Madison, I am sure there are some "synergies" like you mention, but had the University or capital been elsewhere, I don't think it would have mattered much.

Quote from: mrsman on May 22, 2020, 01:16:35 PM

Quote from: kphoger on May 22, 2020, 12:56:53 PM

Quote from: 1 on May 22, 2020, 12:40:33 PM

Quote from: kphoger on May 22, 2020, 12:30:21 PM
I don't see any reason a university should be in the same town as the state legislature.

I think the idea is that the only two important things in that part of the state should be in the same city, not two cities 25 miles apart.

I don't necessarily agree – there are several other examples of twin cities that aren't adjacent, such as Carson City and Reno.

If the two were related, then I guess I could agree.  But, in my opinion, it's like expecting a state's airport to be in the same town as the stockyards.  What does the one have to do with the other?  For that matter, I don't see why a university needs to be in a large city at all.  I considered going to college in a town of about 7000 population, and my daughter attends university in a town of about 4000 population.

It's not so much that the two are related, but that there could be certain synergies with having them nearby.  I see a university could have specialized programs catering to public service (internships and similar) because state government agency headquarters are nearby.  Also, while a capital does not necessarily need to be the biggest city in a state, it should still be a sizable place with reasonable amenities.  Service on major interstates and other transportation corridors are amenities.  Cultural institutions like museums, performing arts centers, and yes, universities are also amenities.  A capital should be geographically central and also an important town with respect to the state.

Columbia is MO's 4th largest city, and the largest city in the central part of the state.  Jefferson City is 15th.

While I haven't been in Missouri very long, I can say with a good deal of certainty that Jefferson City is not very important to most residents of the state. An average Missourian could probably point to Columbia (and identify it as the home of MU) on a map quicker than to JC (and identify it as the state capitol), though I may be biased in saying this. Even in Columbia, Jeff City is not very prominent (only being of prominence to administrators and poli sci students), despite that they may be grouped together elsewhere. That said, even though they are ultimately separated by 30 miles and have distinct identities, the two cities are ultimately fairly cohesive. Both are small fry, though, compared to KC and St. Louis which dominate perceptions of Missouri both within and out of the state (by nature).

Just on a tangent, isn't the/a main university being in the capital an exception to the rule? Only four (Texas, Wisconsin, LSU, FSU) spring to mind.

Quote from: TravelingBethelite on May 23, 2020, 02:56:50 PM
Just on a tangent, isn't the/a main university being in the capital an exception to the rule? Only four (Texas, Wisconsin, LSU, FSU) spring to mind.

Utah and South Carolina as well.

Quote from: US 89 on May 23, 2020, 03:21:26 PM

Quote from: TravelingBethelite on May 23, 2020, 02:56:50 PM
Just on a tangent, isn't the/a main university being in the capital an exception to the rule? Only four (Texas, Wisconsin, LSU, FSU) spring to mind.

Utah and South Carolina as well.

Hawaii

Quote from: US 89 on May 23, 2020, 03:21:26 PM

Quote from: TravelingBethelite on May 23, 2020, 02:56:50 PM
Just on a tangent, isn't the/a main university being in the capital an exception to the rule? Only four (Texas, Wisconsin, LSU, FSU) spring to mind.

Utah and South Carolina as well.

NC State, Georgia Tech, Nebraska, Hawaii, Ohio State.

While technically not in the same city, Michigan State's campus is about 3 miles from the state capitol building and Arizona State is about 10 miles.

Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 20, 2020, 01:20:39 PM

Quote from: bing101 on May 20, 2020, 12:53:49 PM

Quote from: kkt on May 20, 2020, 12:39:50 AM
On a navicable waterway was a factor in placing many of the capitals through the late 1800s.  You can still move a lot more goods by barge than you can by road or rail.

Vallejo and Benicia were once State Capitals for California in the 1850's over waterway navigation before Sacramento became the permanent state capital for the state in 1854.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benicia_Capitol_State_Historic_Park

Never San Francisco or Oakland?

Not under the US as a territory or state as far as I know. The Spanish, the New Spanish, and the Mexicans had capitols in other places, however (most notably Monterey).

Some confusion may result from the fact that the State Supreme Court often sits in San Francisco (and may have done so since territorial times).

An oddity in Michigan is that central location wins most of the time or at least center of population. But the oddity is that Lansing isn't the county seat of the county most of the city is located in. It's mostly in Ingham County who's county seat is Mason and some of Lansing dips into Eaton County who's county seat is Charlotte, in both cases they are centrally located in their respective counties.

Lansing is the only state capital out of capitals located in counties that is not also the county seat. Btw, Marshall was real close to being the capital instead of Lansing. Lansing won by like two votes.

Quote from: Brandon on May 21, 2020, 09:21:20 AM

Quote from: Flint1979 on May 20, 2020, 05:18:26 PM
Lansing is close to the center of population now but don't know about when it became the capital. The geographic center of the state is in Wexford County near Cadillac. The geographic center of the Lower Peninsula is near or in St. Louis.

1847.  Detroit was the state capital prior to that (1837-47), and the territorial capital as well.

Yeah I knew Detroit use to be the capital. That's why they have Capital Park downtown. Back then Detroit only went out to Grand Blvd. too.

Quote from: Brandon on May 22, 2020, 01:35:44 PM

Quote from: GaryV on May 22, 2020, 01:11:22 PM
To claim that Michigan State is the premier institution because it's right next door to Lansing would infuriate more than one Wolverine Walverine!

The only people who seem to get upset are those who never went to either yet buy their UM gear at Walmart.

Glad I'm not in that club I hate Walmart and refuse to shop there.

Quote from: TravelingBethelite on May 23, 2020, 02:56:50 PM

Quote from: mrsman on May 22, 2020, 01:16:35 PM

Quote from: kphoger on May 22, 2020, 12:56:53 PM

Quote from: 1 on May 22, 2020, 12:40:33 PM

Quote from: kphoger on May 22, 2020, 12:30:21 PM
I don't see any reason a university should be in the same town as the state legislature.

I think the idea is that the only two important things in that part of the state should be in the same city, not two cities 25 miles apart.

I don't necessarily agree – there are several other examples of twin cities that aren't adjacent, such as Carson City and Reno.

If the two were related, then I guess I could agree.  But, in my opinion, it's like expecting a state's airport to be in the same town as the stockyards.  What does the one have to do with the other?  For that matter, I don't see why a university needs to be in a large city at all.  I considered going to college in a town of about 7000 population, and my daughter attends university in a town of about 4000 population.

It's not so much that the two are related, but that there could be certain synergies with having them nearby.  I see a university could have specialized programs catering to public service (internships and similar) because state government agency headquarters are nearby.  Also, while a capital does not necessarily need to be the biggest city in a state, it should still be a sizable place with reasonable amenities.  Service on major interstates and other transportation corridors are amenities.  Cultural institutions like museums, performing arts centers, and yes, universities are also amenities.  A capital should be geographically central and also an important town with respect to the state.

Columbia is MO's 4th largest city, and the largest city in the central part of the state.  Jefferson City is 15th.

While I haven't been in Missouri very long, I can say with a good deal of certainty that Jefferson City is not very important to most residents of the state. An average Missourian could probably point to Columbia (and identify it as the home of MU) on a map quicker than to JC (and identify it as the state capitol), though I may be biased in saying this. Even in Columbia, Jeff City is not very prominent (only being of prominence to administrators and poli sci students), despite that they may be grouped together elsewhere. That said, even though they are ultimately separated by 30 miles and have distinct identities, the two cities are ultimately fairly cohesive. Both are small fry, though, compared to KC and St. Louis which dominate perceptions of Missouri both within and out of the state (by nature).

When I went to college in Springfield, MO, at one point I mentioned that I should probably drive up to Jeff City and check it out sometime. My roommates, all of whom were native Missourians, looked at me as if I had taken temporary leave of my senses and wanted to know why, of all places, I'd want to go there? Columbia, they understood; one of them made a trip up to Columbia to visit friends at Mizzou at some point (and came back with a Stop sign for our dorm, somehow, an addition to the common room which I approved of, of course).

I never did make it up to Jeff City. Guess, deep down, I felt the same way about it that they did.

Quote
Just on a tangent, isn't the/a main university being in the capital an exception to the rule? Only four (Texas, Wisconsin, LSU, FSU) spring to mind.

OU is in Norman, which is in the Oklahoma City MSA. Looking at the map, most people would consider Norman an OKC suburb, and the west half of it more or less is, but the east half has more of a college-town feel. In any case, Norman is the third-largest city in Oklahoma, so that may count against OU being more or less in "Oklahoma City, more or less." In any case, OU has their medical center in OKC, literally right down the street from the State Capitol, so it does get one of those "synergies" that was mentioned upthread.

OSU has a branch campus in OKC, but their main campus is in Stillwater. I believe their medical center is in Tulsa.

In Spain there's no obscurity at the provincial level, as provinces tend to have the name of its capital. The few that don't, the capital is the largest city (the exception being Asturias, where Gijon is sightly larger than the capital Oviedo, but in the past it was called Province of Oviedo). Here it is more, "Why there isn't a province of Vigo?" Vigo is far larger than the provincial capital Pontevedra (295K vs 83K), however the fact it's not the capital of a province has led me to call it the largest "town" in Spain, not without controversy.

Massachusetts does not have it's flagship university in Boston. It's in Amherst out west. There is Umass Boston but it's kinda no good.

Cambridge, in the Boston MSA, has Harvard and MIT, though, which I think are probably more well-known than UMass.

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 25, 2020, 06:49:38 PM
Cambridge, in the Boston MSA, has Harvard and MIT, though, which I think are probably more well-known than UMass.

I thought the point was about state schools being with the state capital, not private schools.

Quote from: kkt on May 25, 2020, 07:03:58 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 25, 2020, 06:49:38 PM
Cambridge, in the Boston MSA, has Harvard and MIT, though, which I think are probably more well-known than UMass.

I thought the point was about state schools being with the state capital, not private schools.

Is MIT not a state school? Hell, shows what I know.

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 25, 2020, 08:27:32 PM

Quote from: kkt on May 25, 2020, 07:03:58 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 25, 2020, 06:49:38 PM
Cambridge, in the Boston MSA, has Harvard and MIT, though, which I think are probably more well-known than UMass.

I thought the point was about state schools being with the state capital, not private schools.

Is MIT not a state school? Hell, shows what I know.

All the big schools in the Boston area (Harvard, MIT, Boston College, Boston University) are private.

Quote from: Brandon on May 25, 2020, 09:07:12 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 25, 2020, 08:27:32 PM

Quote from: kkt on May 25, 2020, 07:03:58 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 25, 2020, 06:49:38 PM
Cambridge, in the Boston MSA, has Harvard and MIT, though, which I think are probably more well-known than UMass.

I thought the point was about state schools being with the state capital, not private schools.

Is MIT not a state school? Hell, shows what I know.

All the big schools in the Boston area (Harvard, MIT, Boston College, Boston University) are private.

UMASS boston is the only public university near Boston. The other Umasses are in other regions of the state.

Quote from: kkt on May 25, 2020, 07:03:58 PM

Quote from: Scott5114 on May 25, 2020, 06:49:38 PM
Cambridge, in the Boston MSA, has Harvard and MIT, though, which I think are probably more well-known than UMass.

I thought the point was about state schools being with the state capital, not private schools.

There may be two "schools" (pardon the pun) on this.  My point when I mentioned it earlier was to have a significant university in a state capital.  If it is the public flagship like WI or TX that's great.  But I was contemplating even a decent mid-ranked public or private school from benefiting from the capital location.

Boston, a state capital, certainly benefits from universities, even though the nearby universities are private.

Then Sacramento has Cal State Sacramento and UC Davis not too far away.  While not the top universities in the state, both are respectable insitutions within the state's dual track university system.

MIT was founded as one of Massachusetts's land grant schools. It was quite literally created by an act of the Massachusetts legislature and was originally in Boston. The future UMass Amherst was MA's other land grant school and was the only one that was public.

No idea how MIT became a private school but it was a creature of the Massachusetts legislature so kind of fits into this line of discussion.

Quote from: hbelkins on May 22, 2020, 02:46:08 PM
What puzzles me is those states where the state schools are in far-flung places, like Arkansas and West Virginia. Why were the schools placed in a remote area far from the state's opposite corner, instead of in a central city closer to more of the population? WVU's more natural geographical rival isn't Marshall, it's Pitt.

University of Arkansas is a land-grant university.  It's located where it is because they got the land for free along with some some other perks to locate on the hill.

FWIW, 17 of the state capitals are also the most familiar in their state (Phoenix, Little Rock, Denver, Hartford, Atlanta, Honolulu, Boise, Indianapolis, Des Moines, Boston, Jackson, Oklahoma City, Providence, Nashville, Salt Lake City, Richmond, Cheyenne). St. Paul gets an asterisk because it shares a metropolitan area with Minneapolis, Columbus still lags behind Cincinnati and Cleveland despite its sudden population growth, and Sacramento is easily dominated by the Golden State's three big metropolitan areas of Los Angeles, San Diego and the Bay Area.

Quote from: webny99 on May 19, 2020, 04:24:05 PM

Quote from: briantroutman on May 18, 2020, 11:25:32 PM
I fail to see how Harrisburg, which is probably close to the center of the state when weighted by population–and is at the confluence of four two-digit interstates connecting nearly all of the state's metro areas plus a US route that's part of an international corridor–qualifies as "off the beaten path".

Harrisburg was really tough to rank, probably one of the hardest. And it's a prime example of the clumsiness of that heading, in particular, which I will revise as soon as I can come up with a better name.

The problem is that Harrisburg is the #9 city in PA, which is quite low. Lower than 45 other states, in fact. Only New Jersey, Kentucky, Missouri, and Washington have capitals that are #9 or further down the list by population.
Even Annapolis, MD is only #7, while Pierre, SD is #8.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_capitals_in_the_United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_capitals_in_the_United_States)

Harrisburg certainly punches above its weight in terms of being a strategically located, major crossroads. But I just couldn't put it in the same league as Albany and Lansing because it really is not that well known nationally and is even under 50K in population.

Harrisburg is only the 4th-largest metro in Pennsylvania, other than the Delaware Valley, Greater Pittsburgh, and the Lehigh Valley.

Quote from: webny99 on May 18, 2020, 10:16:37 PM
Discussion in some other threads got me thinking about capital cities, and how some are so obvious, while others are real head-scratchers.
So I thought I'd rank them from most obvious to most obscure, and maybe this could be an opportunity to discuss the history of our state capitals and what caused them to be located where they are. So, without further ado:

The No-Brainers
1. Oklahoma City
2. Indianapolis
3. Boston
4. Atlanta
5. Phoenix
6. Denver
7. Columbus
8. Nashville
9. Honolulu
10. Salt Lake City

I would move Columbus and Nashville down a tier. I wouldn't say they're no brainers because there are several other cities worthy of being the state capital in those states.

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 19, 2020, 05:07:36 AM
Because I've never spent time in either area, I start to blend Charleston, SC and Charleston, WV, especially because of the SC city's greater prominence over Columbia.

I'm sure more than a few people would say Minneapolis is our capital if put on the spot, between the penchant of the media to refer to "Minneapolis-St. Paul"  and most people generally aware that Minneapolis is larger, which for some reason means "capital"  in many minds even though the capital and largest city are only the same in probably about 1/5 of states (AR, AZ, CO, GA, IA, IN, MA, OH, OK, UT being most of that list - oh, and ask how many people can name the largest city in Ohio while they're at it, they'll probably be wrong :) )

Also, Austin isn't "mid-sized"  - isn't is second to Phoenix in state capital population? It just gets lost in the shuffle somehow between the more famous San Antonio and all of Texas's other massive cities.

Austin is on the list of cities almost large enough for a major sports team. 29th largest MSA currently.  Actually larger than 9 NFL locations (I'm including the whole MSA)