Your intuition is correct. My place is inside the 610 in Houston. More precisely Third Ward/Museum District. I think even most Texans wouldn't put Austin and

Your intuition is correct. My place is inside the 610 in Houston. More precisely Third Ward/Museum District. I think even most Texans wouldn't put Austin and Dallas in the same region. Dallas is radically different from Houston as well. That said, if you look at what they are calling mega-regions, I think there are many departures from what people in those areas would think. For instance, most people in North Carolina would think of the Triangle as its own thing and Atlanta as another, separate thing. Here, they are saying that Atlanta and the Triangle are the same. Maybe because of people connections? Not sure? But that would strike people in the Southeast as strangely as looping Austin-Dallas-Houston into the same thing strikes Texans. ETA: Actually, now that I've looked more closely at the map, I'm not sure it lines up at all with what most people would think? I notice in the Midwest region, Columbus and Dayton are on the map in spite of Chicago's rail links to St Louis, Urbana-Champaign, and perhaps the most baffling omission on the map, Minneapolis? They got some serious economic firepower up there in that metro, and more commercial links between them and Chicago than anyone else in the region. Maybe because Minneapolis is thought to be its own thing? Whereas they don't believe Dayton or Columbus are their own thing? It'd be interesting to read how these regions were determined? On the surface, yes, many of them seem a bit, off?