Largest texas cities that will have a population of at least 250,000 projected for the year 2050 Quiz by quizer500

Can you name the largest texas cities that will have a population of at least 250,000 projected for the year 2050?

created by quizer500

Enter an answer in the box below
Correctly named answers will show up below
Answers do not have to be guessed in order
Source: twdb.state.tx.us and source below
Other Source Used: http://www.cubitplanning.com/state/3-texas-census-2010-population?show=cities
This quiz has not been verified by Sporcle

Popular trivia games today

'#' Movies by Picture

5710

Shortest Country Name per Letter

5555

Color Sequence Memory Game

2919

True or False Logic Quiz

1861

Big Adjectives

1695

Word Ladder: Here's Johnny

1678

Clickable 1-100 Mines

1527

Missing Word: 3-Letter Movie Words

1315

And more...

PLAY GAME

05:00

Show Missed Answers

Population 2010		Population 2050
2,099,451		3,349,540
1,327,407		2,002,017
741,206		1,773,210
1,197,816		1,764,681
790,390		1,504,304
649,121		909,384
236,091		553,670
365,438		472,065
305,215		448,879
131,117		380,000
113,383		363,586
175,023		335,947
99,887		298,374
175,396		290,520
116,989		280,000
259,841		279,000
216,290		276,736
190,695		252,493
129,877		252,084

Javascript is not currently enabled on your browser.
If you do have Javascript enabled:
This site uses javascript to make the magic happen.
Please turn on javascript and reload this page, or use a more current browser (like Firefox)

You might also like these games:
US States	Countries of Europe	Countries of Africa

There are 9 comments for this game.
(Warning: comments may contain spoilers)

Largest Texas Cities (2050) Quiz

by quizer500

Created Sep 10, 2011 in Geography
Game Plays 553

Friend Scores and Standings

Loading friend results....

Top Games Today in Geography

Top Games with Similar Tags

Top User Games in Geography

	SomeoneRandom:	Sep 11th, 2011 at 17:59 GMT		2 points
	Wow. This would be an almost unimaginable scenario. Where is this growth going to come from? Immigration, or Americans moving? Either way, I don't think that very many of these numbers will actually happen. These numbers are probably based on growth rates between 2000 and 2010, and those rates will not stay constant for the next 40 years. I don't think that McKinney and Denton, despite their insane growth rates in the past decade, will actually triple in size in the next 40 years. I also can't see Laredo with 550,000 people. That would be just unimaginable.

	Sesel:	Sep 11th, 2011 at 23:29 GMT		3 points
	Whoever came up with these projections doesn't realize that the era of cheap oil, automobiles, and profligate energy and water usage that made a huge population in Texas possible will probably be gone well before 2050.

	SomeoneRandom:	Sep 11th, 2011 at 23:42 GMT		2 points
	Sesel is quite correct. After all, in 1950, St. Louis had 850,000 people and Detroit had 1.8 million people. For all we know, in 2050 McKinney may have only 50,000 people and Denton only 40,000.

	SomeoneRandom:	Sep 12th, 2011 at 00:32 GMT		1 point
	Chriskotx: Sure, that's possible. Just as it was possible in 1950 for Detroit's metropolitan population to exceed 10 million in 2000. We saw how that turned out.

	SomeoneRandom:	Sep 12th, 2011 at 00:35 GMT		1 point
	Also, chriskotx, did you read Sesel's comment? That shows why these predictions are almost definitely way too high.

	chriskotx:	Sep 12th, 2011 at 00:41 GMT		2 points
	Denton, McKinney (and Frisco) have seen a boom in population because they are on the growing northern edge of the rapidly expanding DFW Metroplex and have plenty of undeveloped land area within their municipalities. Both Denton and McKinney have no "suburbs" on their northsides to limit further growth. They are new satelite/suburbs, not surrounded inner cities given to decline and decay, and in 40 years, it is easily possible that both would surpass these growth predictions and exceed half a million each. The surprising thought is that little sister Fort Worth might surpass Dallas in population, but then, Ft Worth is not hemmed in by suburbs either.

	chriskotx:	Sep 12th, 2011 at 00:47 GMT		2 points
	@SomeoneRandom, sorry that I was editing my comment while you were responding which makes them seem out of sync. Yes, what Sesel said is significant. However, even more limited oil consumption and other energy use, IF that is our future, doesnt have to stop population growth. DFW is already developing one of the world's most expansive commuter rail systems.

	SomeoneRandom:	Sep 12th, 2011 at 02:53 GMT		1 point
	Chriskotx: You're right, it doesn't have to stop population growth, but there is an excellent chance that it will slow the population growth. For example, I can see McKinney having 200,000, or even 250,000 people in 2050, but I can't see it having 380,000. Especially with all the other cities around it growing prodigiously as well. Also, just because DFW is building a big commuter rail system, (sadly) doesn't mean that people are going to use it. While I hope they do, it is not a guarantee. Also, this is sort of relevant, but the same type of growth that is happening in DFW is also happening in Atlanta.

	Fredlyfish4:	Feb 9th, 2012 at 23:51 GMT		1 point
	These projections have to have more to them than 2000-2010 growth rates because if that was the case Lubbock would be on the list. But reality is that Lubbock's dependence on the ever depleting Ogallala aquifer could make it a ghost town by 2050.