July 1 '06 CSA Census estimates (large MSAs with no CSAs added)
 

Hi folks, there's been much talk recently about the latest census bureau MSA population estimates, based on the July 1 '06 estimates, but I checked the website yesterday and saw that they'd also compiled the CSAs, so I thought I'd post it. I added large MSAs to the list below, in cases where they don't have a corresponding CSA. The second number represents the raw growth from July 1 2000 (NOT April, 2000) to July 1 2006.

1. New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA 21,976,224 569,491
2. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA 17,775,984 1,334,406
3. Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI 9,725,317 390,434
4. Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV 8,211,213 607,300
5. Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-RI-NH 7,465,634 148,278
6. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA 7,228,948 112,261
7. Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD 6,382,714 167,901
8. Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 6,359,758 834,498
9. Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX 5,641,077 799,262
10. Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville, GA-AL 5,478,667 894,341

11. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL (MSA) 5,463,857 434,568
12. Detroit-Warren-Flint, MI 5,410,014 43,549
13. Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ (MSA) 4,039,182 760,650
14. Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia, WA 3,876,211 261,465
15. Minneapolis-St. Paul-St. Cloud, MN-WI 3,502,891 217,464
16. San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA (MSA) 2,941,454 116,521
17. Denver-Aurora-Boulder, CO 2,927,911 279,657
18. Cleveland-Akron-Elyria, OH 2,917,801 -29,219
19. St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL 2,858,549 100,861
20. Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL (MSA) 2,697,731 293,296

21. Pittsburgh-New Castle, PA 2,462,571 -61,418
22. Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Truckee, CA-NV 2,211,790 269,032
23. Charlotte-Gastonia-Salisbury, NC-SC 2,191,604 282,925
24. Cincinnati-Middletown-Wilmington, OH-KY-IN 2,147,617 92,322
25. Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA (MSA) 2,137,565 201,236
26. Orlando-The Villages, FL 2,053,623 343,546
27. Kansas City-Overland Park-Kansas City, MO-KS 2,034,796 126,627
28. Indianapolis-Anderson-Columbus, IN 1,984,644 134,760
29. Columbus-Marion-Chillicothe, OH 1,953,575 111,836
30. San Antonio, TX (MSA) 1,942,217 222,751

31. Las Vegas-Paradise-Pahrump, NV 1,820,232 393,927

How did Houston end up gaining less people in the CSA count than it did in the MSA count? These figures show an increase of 799,262 while the MSA count showed an increase of 824,547. It just looked weird since I would expect the CSA to be a larger area.

Is it possible that the part of the Houston CSA that is not in the Houston MSA might have lost population?

Or did Houston lose some counties that were previously included in its CSA?

I'm using a July to July reference period, NOT an April 2000 to July reference period. That's the difference you're noting. It would affect every number shown above, but in an equal manner for each CSA. I thought it was more informative to present an even 6-yr growth number versus a 6-yr plus 3 months period, in case people wanted to scale off the numbers for hypothetical future growth possibilities.

it's amazing to think that within the next decade LA will pass New York... who ever would have thought that the NY metro wouldn't be the biggest in the nation even 15 years ago?

I'm betting it won't. Judging by trends in the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale metropolitan division of the MSA (it actually shrank so far this decade), along with the build-out in Orange county, the only place left for rampant growth is inland.

And judging by the quality-of-life problems already present for folks living inland, I think more people will simply vote with their feet and move on.

How on earth would the above data lead you to this conclusion?

LA might pass NYC or it might not, but nothing in the above data would indicate LA's relative growth would lead it to pass NYC in the next decade.

I don't think LA will pass NYC anytime soon, not because of growth rates, but because of MSA/CSA definitions.

NYC is close to adding a few populous counties in PA and might even "steal" a county in NJ from Philly (Burlington) in the next few years. Also, NYC will merge with Philly long before LA merges with further away and smaller San Diego.

i don't know... maybe because LA's growing 80% faster?

At the above stated CSA definitions and growth rates, LA is likely to pass NY soon. how is that not realistic?

LA is not growing 80% faster. Check your math.

You claimed LA is going to pass NYC in a decade. Using the above growth rate, it would still be short a few million 10 years from now.

You are also assuming:

1. Constant growth rates (which won't happen, rates for both cities will go up or go down) and
2. No change in the composition of the two CSAs (which probably won't happen).

If you simply extrapolate the numbers in a linear fashion, you could come to that conclusion.

But as we all know, growth is not linear. The only real growth occurring in the LA CSA right now is in Riverside, and I think that will slow down before LA can pass NY.

As I think about this prospect, even if possible, notwithstanding earthquake activity, water shortages and the like (or severe drought in the east, for that matter)................who the hell cares?

Same thing for Chicago 407K MSA vs 390K CSA growth??

:previous: Well, as far as who the hell cares, there are some individuals, myself included, who enjoy tracking population trends and who are fascinated by population stats. So there's that. I agree with prior posters, however, that if the LA CSA passes the NYC CSA it would have to still be a couple to several decades down the road, for reasons previously cited by several posters. Without question though, if and when that happens, it would be a momentous and historic shift in the nation's demographics, since the NYC area has been the most populous for, seemingly, forever. So, it's interesting and fun to think about.

well, before this gets out of hand, let me post some numbers, again, these are directly from the census tables, and reflect JULY 1, 2000 through JULY 1 2006 growth.

Atlanta MSA 856,266 Atlanta CSA 894,341
Houston MSA 797,790 Houston CSA 799,262
Chicago MSA 384,966 Chicago CSA 390,434

I think the discrepancies you are citing are going back to the April 1 2000 census base as a reference. I'm using July 1 through July 1 to get an even-year number comparison, not six years plus three months.

Baby boom adds to area's growth
(http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/h...SUS_S1.article)

April 6, 2007

By ANDREA HEIN STAFF WRITER

JOLIET -- News that the population of the Chicago metropolitan area, including Joliet, has increased since 2000 probably won't shock most residents.

But people may be interested to learn that recent figures from the U.S. Census Bureau show that the number of births within the 14 counties stretching from Wisconsin through Indiana added more to the population than people moving into the area alone.

Understanding just how much Joliet, Will County and the Chicago region are expanding and how they rank compared to population changes nationwide depends on the population statistics and what is included or excluded from that data.

This week the U.S. Census Bureau released its list of population growth from 2000 to 2006 within metropolitan areas.

Defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget for statistical purposes, the Chicago Metro Area includes Chicago, Naperville, Joliet, Elgin, Arlington Heights, Evanston, Schaumburg, Skokie, Des Plaines and Gary, Ind.

During the past six years, the Chicago Metro Area grew by more than 407,000 people: It now ranks 10th in the nation for numerical population growth, according to census data.

:previous: yes, as I've stated a few times now, the difference is whether you are starting from April 2000 or July 2000 as a base. I posted a six year July to July comparison. That is the correct number for the Chicago MSA if you reference the April 2000 population numbers, but that's NOT what I used for my first post, for Chicago, Houston, Atlanta, or any other metro.

:previous:

Thanks I got you.

Do you have the figures for the next 15?

:previous: the next 16, using the same guidelines as in my first post (felt compelled to go one extra, since it was Vegas, with its absurd growth rate):

1. New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA 21,976,224 569,491
2. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA 17,775,984 1,334,406
3. Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI 9,725,317 390,434
4. Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV 8,211,213 607,300
5. Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-RI-NH 7,465,634 148,278
6. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA 7,228,948 112,261
7. Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD 6,382,714 167,901
8. Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 6,359,758 834,498
9. Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX 5,641,077 799,262
10. Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville, GA-AL 5,478,667 894,341

11. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL (MSA) 5,463,857 434,568
12. Detroit-Warren-Flint, MI 5,410,014 43,549
13. Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ (MSA) 4,039,182 760,650
14. Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia, WA 3,876,211 261,465
15. Minneapolis-St. Paul-St. Cloud, MN-WI 3,502,891 217,464
16. San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA (MSA) 2,941,454 116,521
17. Denver-Aurora-Boulder, CO 2,927,911 279,657
18. Cleveland-Akron-Elyria, OH 2,917,801 -29,219
19. St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL 2,858,549 100,861
20. Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL (MSA) 2,697,731 293,296

21. Pittsburgh-New Castle, PA 2,462,571 -61,418
22. Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Truckee, CA-NV 2,211,790 269,032
23. Charlotte-Gastonia-Salisbury, NC-SC 2,191,604 282,925
24. Cincinnati-Middletown-Wilmington, OH-KY-IN 2,147,617 92,322
25. Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA (MSA) 2,137,565 201,236
26. Orlando-The Villages, FL 2,053,623 343,546
27. Kansas City-Overland Park-Kansas City, MO-KS 2,034,796 126,627
28. Indianapolis-Anderson-Columbus, IN 1,984,644 134,760
29. Columbus-Marion-Chillicothe, OH 1,953,575 111,836
30. San Antonio, TX (MSA) 1,942,217 222,751

31. Las Vegas-Paradise-Pahrump, NV 1,820,232 393,927

You can see how crazy the growth in Las Vegas is by going up the list until you find a higher number of new people over that time period. You have to go all the way up to number 13, Phoenix! Vegas is adding more people than the next 17 larger MSAs or CSAs!

there goes the theory that LA wasnt growing. 500,000 more than the nearest other metro.

Yep...LA way out in front then a big clump with Atlanta, Dallas and Houston next in line...

Some other changes since last year- it looks like both Charlotte and Sacramento have passed Cincinnati.

From the numbers on your list it seems Boston should be #5.

1. New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA 21,976,224 569,491
2. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA 17,775,984 1,334,406
3. Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI 9,725,317 390,434
4. Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV 8,211,213 607,300
5. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA 7,228,948 112,261
6. Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-RI-NH 7,465,634 148,278

:previous: whoa nellie Tocoto! You're right! I'll go back and edit!! I was cutting and pasting from census spreadsheets, and made a careless error! :whip:

I just noticed that I got moved again. Would a moderator please explain why this was moved from "City Discussions" to what I would presume it a far less viewed area of the forum, "United States"? After all, this thread, which lists the census bureau CSA population estimates, is fostering discussions about cities. I've only been in this forum for a little over a year, and I really would like an explanation. Is there some reason why it can't remain in "city discussions"? If so, what is it?

Would you please post the link because the MSA rankings have an increase of 544,620 or +4.9% from 2000 to 2006 for the Los Angeles Long Beach Santa Ana MSA:

http://proximityone.com/msa06rnk.htm

For the individual cities you mentioned the 2006 population estimates are:

Los Angeles 2006 3,976,071 up from 3,694,820 in 2000 census;
Long Beach 2006 490,166 up from 461,522 in 2000 census;
Glendale 2006 206,308 up from 194,973 in 2000 census.

Los Angeles county 2006 10,245,572 up from 9,519,338 in 2000 census

http://www.laalmanac.com/population/

It would appear you're incorrect.

Well it seems to fit with all the other threads in this US Regional section.

Just for some other fun stats, and to add another perspective the sizes of the top 20 most populous CSA (2006) commuter areas as of 2003 (probably haven't changed much since then), taking into account, of course, how small and how large counties are in different states and areas of the country:

• Los Angeles - 33,954 mi²

• Dallas - 12,360 mi²

• New York City - 11,842 mi²

• Houston - 10,908 mi²

• Chicago - 10,874 mi²

• Atlanta - 10,429 mi²

• Washington/Baltimore: 9,682 mi²

• Minneapolis - 9,560 mi²

• St. Louis - 9,102 mi²

• Denver - 9,085 mi²

• San Francisco/SanJose - 8,791 mi²

• Seattle/Tacoma - 8,194 mi²

• Boston - 7,227 mi²

• Sacramento - 6,784 mi²

• Charlotte - 6,493 mi²

• Detroit - 5,847 mi²

• Pittsburgh - 5,646 mi²

• Miami - 5,159 mi² (MSA)

• Philadelphia: 5,124 mi²

• Cincinnati - 4,826 mi²

• Cleveland - 3,623 mi²

I hope I didn't make any mistakes, and if I can find MSA land area numbers I'll post that, too, but it was hard enough finding the land area of the CSA. I'm not exactly sure if there is a table option, here, where I could add population with area.

you're right, I read it wrong.

:previous: One post up...LMich...thanks for posting that. I've said several times in this forum that, while enormous, Atlanta's land area is really not out of line with several other of the nation's largest metros, in particular other sunbelt sprawlers. This is not meant to minimize Atlanta's jaw-dropping sprawl, but it is meant to point out that the area is sometimes unfairly singled out, since there's really comparable sprawl in many other areas.

Wow. Miami really is the oddball of the sunbelt with its density. Check out the extents of the 4 major metros (all with relatively equal population):

• Dallas - 12,360 mi²

• Houston - 10,908 mi²

• Atlanta - 10,429 mi²

• Miami - 5,159 mi² (MSA)

Yeah, Dave, if Miami was able to sprawl like that, rest assurred, it would, but it can't, because of the Everglades.

22. Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Truckee, CA-NV 2,211,790 269,032


It's amazing that even with a cool housing market Sacramento still jumped from #26 to #22, adding 269,032 people..

Although it looks like the housing market is finally starting to recover, with new homes sales jumping by 10% in the 1st quarter of '07 accoridng to the Business Journal...

Actually the 5000 sq mile area includes a good chunk of the Everglades. I'd say well over half of the area listed as Miami's metro in unihabited and uninhabitable (less than 30% of Miami-Dade's ~2000 sqmiles are inhabited for example). So the populated portion of Miami's metro is closer to 2000 sq miles than 5000 sqmiles.

Oh, I know Dave. My point is that Miami is only able to sprawl north and south, which it most certainly is doing, and can't go east or west due to the ocean and the Everglades. 75% of metro Atlanta's 5.5 million people live in the core five or six counties (Fulton, DeKalb, Cobb, Gwinnett, etc), not the other 20+ that comprise the MSA and CSA. Of course I realize that central Miami is far more dense than central Atlanta.

Zowie!! I have to admit I'm not familiar with the area, but those towns following Sacremento caught my eye, so I pulled up microsoft streets and started looking around. Truckee is 100 miles from downtown Sacramento! That's part of the same metro?

It has been for a few years now. It's not really a big deal since Truckee is a small mountain town of only 10-15k people. The census bureau believes that Truckee and some town in NV near Carson City are more tied to Sacramento than Reno, but I don't know if I feel that way. Probably doesn't matter though cause I'm sure Sacramento and Reno will be combined in the next 20 years, if not sooner.

Another question; have they included Stockton and/or Modesto in the Bay Area yet, or will that not happen for a while?

The short answer is "no".

The long answer is, here's what the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA Combined Statistical Area is. It's a combination of:

Napa, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area
Napa County, CA

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area

Oakland-Fremont-Hayward, CA Metropolitan Division
Alameda County, CA
Contra Costa County, CA
San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City, CA Metropolitan Division
Marin County, CA
San Francisco County, CA
San Mateo County, CA

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area
San Benito County, CA
Santa Clara County, CA

Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area
Santa Cruz County, CA

Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area
Sonoma County, CA

Vallejo-Fairfield, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area
Solano County, CA

Like I said before, if you superimpose the land mass the constitutes metropolitan Dallas or Atlanta, over places like Detroit and Boston, the Detroit and Boston totals would shoot up by nearly a million folks. Thus, you really have just as many folks living in a given area but are simply not being counted due to the formula used to calculate totals. Hence, it’s not a true comparison.

I am still waiting for someone to tell me the practical functionality of these figures? I know that in regards to cities, money is often allocated from the State based upon the size of the city. I am wondering just how much politics is involved in these rankings given that the methodology is born from the federal governments Office of Management and Budget I believe.

I think a better methodology is to simply do a 100-mile radius from every core city and do a head count. The problem with that methodology, of course, is that the circle would truncate part of county totals and thus there would be no way to isolate and count the portion that intersects with the circle. However, a given radius would give a much better indication of how populated an area is than the methodology of commuting patterns.

I don't totally understand Truckee either, since they are so far away. I suspect that it has more to do with the residents of Truckee commuting into to Sacramento for work since Truckee is mostly an Alpine town.

Most of the population of Sacramento MSA is Sacramento County (about 1.4 million) and the western edges of Placer and El Dorado County (about 20-25 minutes outside of DT Sacramento on I-80 and US-50 respectively)..

Arden Arcade is actually smack dab in the middle of Sacramento, and it's an unicorporated urban enclave of Sacramento County, that is trying to incorporate.

Yes, I suspect you're right there. I know the census definition for inclusion in an MSA is an "employment interchange number" of 25 (meaning percent), but, they will include areas where the "employment interchange number" is as low as 15, if local opinion (in both areas) favors the combination.

Truckee is a small mountain town in Placer County between Sacramento and Reno (think Donner Party). Placer County has a few hundred-thousand residents of which I would say 85%-95% live within 15-20 miles or less of downtown Sacramento (in the suburbs along the Sacramento-Placer County lines). Because of where the huge majority of this county's population is weighted and because these people commute into Sacramento county, Placer County (rightfully so) is included in the Sacramento MSA and CSA. Because of this, the handful of people who live in the mountain communities of Placer County are included as well. I would agree though that Truckee as a community seems to have greater ties to Reno than to Sacramento. But because of the much larger Placer County suburbs like Roseville, Rocklin, Lincoln, Auburn, Granite Bay, etc, close to Sacramento, the entire county is counted.

The same applies to El Dorado County as well. The vast majority of county residents live within 20 miles of downtown Sac, and because of this, the few people living in the mountains are included as well.

I would guess that these far flung communities account for maybe 2%-3% of the metro population (CSA) with the remaining 97%-98% living within a definite and defined urban area centered around downtown Sacramento. The vast majority of Placer and El Dorado Counties are a National Forest as well.

:previous: SacTownAndy; Truckee is actually in Nevada County, not Placer County. Truckee (actually, the Truckee-Grass Valley Micropolitan area) is added to the Sacramento MSA to form the Sacramento CSA. The only way for that to have happened is for the standards which I previously mentioned, i.e. commuting patterns, either 25 percent minimum or 15 percent minimum plus local favorable opinion, to have been met within Nevada County. For "Truckee" to be named in the Sacramento CSA in the manner that it is must mean that Truckee is the largest municipal area within Nevada County.

Yeah, it's definitely the I-80 connection that makes it possible to be included.

Ah, gotcha. My bad. With the way that I-80 snakes in between the two counties up there, I was thinking Truckee was in Placer County. I'm not very familiar with how the CSA definitions work- could it be that these people in Nevada County are commuting to Placer County or do they need to be commuting to Sacramento County to be included in the CSA? Just curious.

I believe the standard for micropolitan or metropolitan areas to be rolled into an adjacent metropolitan area to form a CSA pertains to the percentage commuting to any of the adjoining metro's counties, which would mean, yes, it could include Nevada County to Placer County commuters, but, if I'm wrong I hope someone will correct me on that.

Is SutterCounty included in the Sacramento CMA? It should, as it borders Sacramento County.

Also, What about the Marysville-Yuba City area would it ever be included in the Sacramento CMA.

One more thing: Stockton-Modesto has been mentioned about being included in SJ-Oak-SF CMA, why?

Why not put Stockton-Modesto in the Sacramento CMA, afterall the Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto Media Market is the 19th largest in the USA, and Stockton-Modesto has always been part of the Sacramento Media Market, never the SJ-Oak-SF media market.

Side note: Will Sacramento International every change to SAC; instead of SMF. Currently, SAC stands for Sacramento's Executive Airport. SMF stands for Sacramento's International airport. There has been talk of closing the Executive airport; if that were the case then maybe SMF can be changed to SAC. I'll put this question out to the Transportation thread also for those that care.

To Prove that I am a Population Nerd:

Beginning with the last 16 cities, I re-calculated the numbers for the 2010 census assuming all the cities grew by the same numbers from the 2000-06 period. This is what the CMA's would look like:

21. Sacramento: 2,480,822...up 1 rank.

22. Charlotte: 2,474,529....up 1 rank.
23. Pittsburg: 2,401,153....down 2.
24. Orlando: 2,397,169...up 2.
25. Portland: 2,338,801......same rank.
26. Cincinatti: 2,239,939...down 2.
27. Las Vegas: 2,214,159...up 4 ranks.
28. San Antonio: 2,164,968....up 2.
29. Kansas City: 2,161,423....down 2.
30. Indianappolis: 2,119,404...down 2.
31. Columbus: 2,065, 411...down 2 ranks.

If somebody doesnt beat me to it, I'll do the top 20 next.

:previous: I love it! I'm a population nerd too..yes, please do the top group too! I won't have time to today. So, you are taking the six year growth and adding another 2/3 of that to approximate 4 more years? Very cool. Yes, please do the top group! :tup: