U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-14-2013, 07:00 AM
 
4,677 posts, read 8,046,997 times
Reputation: 1236

Advertisements

For all of us who enjoy discussing the MSA and CSA, we know that the new definitions are due to come out from the INB this year. This will be a count down until they come out and perhaps we can discuss the snubs or gripes we have with the new definitions and praise for anything they fix. Also out your prediction for what you think will be the new MSA definition.

Charlotte
MSA: Iredell and Lancaster counties will be added with Anson county dropped.
CSA: no change except maybe Chesterfield county added.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-14-2013, 12:53 PM
 
Location: Vineland, NJ
8,483 posts, read 10,460,458 times
Reputation: 5397
Does anybody know what month the new MSA/CSA definitions and statistics are supposed to be released?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2013, 04:26 PM
 
6,418 posts, read 10,857,898 times
Reputation: 6687
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly View Post
Does anybody know what month the new MSA/CSA definitions and statistics are supposed to be released?
I don't know, but it seems a lot of that stuff is released mid-year. I would guess anytime between April and July.


--Assuming the criteria remains the same--
As for predictions for my city (Nashville):

I think we will add Maury County (Columbia/Spring Hill) to the metro. Something like 20-22% of commuter were already traveling to the Nashville MSA. With most of the growth in the northern end of the county (Spring Hill), I imagine the percentage is above the 25% threshold now.

I don't think we add or lose any other counties, unless definitions are changed for some reason. The 5 rural counties added in 2003 could possibly flux since they have a small workforce to begin with, but most of the rural areas here are plagued with high unemployment, leaving many residents to travel to where the work is (in the core of the MSA). Since none of those counties has more than 25,000 people, it wouldn't be a big loss anyways.


The CSA is a little trickier. There is definitely a good bit of interaction between Nashville and Clarksville's CSA's...enough to where there are proposals for a future commuter rail line between Nashville and Clarksville. But a huge portion of Clarksville revolves around the military base (Fort Campbell). If I remember correctly, Montgomery County had about 10% of its workforce commuting to the Nashville MSA...so it's certainly a possibility. That county added a lot of people in the last 10 years, so commuting patterns could have changed a bit.

Marshall County (Lewisburg) and Bedford County (Shelbyville) have very slight chances to get added to the CSA, but I predict that they won't.



Speaking of commuting patterns, does anyone have a good link that shows either the raw numbers or percentages between the counties?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2013, 04:52 PM
 
Location: Tokyo, Japan
6,631 posts, read 8,318,123 times
Reputation: 7587
There wont be any drastic changes at all this time.

Chicago has met the requirements to add Walworth County into the CSA. New York's CSA areas in New York State (near Poughkeepsie) will be included in the MSA with potential of the Connecticut county of Fairfield being added in as well.

Boston's CSA has the high potential of adding in Barnstable County and by next census the counties bordering Maine and some counties on the border of Maine & New Hampshire.

El Paso & Las Cruces met CSA requirements back in 2000 but they did not merge as it was voted against in the New Mexico & Texas legislatures however this time it may be imminent.

This could be the census they combine San Jose with San Francisco & Oakland. Surely the numbers nearly support it but the UA for the two needs to be combined first before the MSA's can (it's generally how it works with conurbations), if that goes through then Stockton will be added to the CSA this census and next census will be Modesto. Had San Jose-Oakland-San Francisco been in the MSA, then commuter rates for Stockton support a CSA but since San Jose is technically a different "MSA" the commuters from Stockton to there will support no such thing as a combination (the UA's and MSA's of the three big Bay Area cities need to be unified to draw more to the CSA).

I hope and pray that Baltimore doesn't invite itself into the Washington MSA this go around (or ever) and chances of that happening are purely with the UA's combining first which leads to MSA's being combined next.

Houston, Dallas, & Los Angeles wont gain anything new in their CSA's this go around. However it might be time to combine Los Angeles with the Inland Empire into the same MSA-- it meets the 3 mile deep of continuous urbanized development criteria (which is the ALTERNATIVE criteria to substitute commuter rates for combinations).

Seattle may have a chance with Bellingham, the numbers are awfully close but if they use numbers from 2010 itself instead of 2013 then it might not happen.

The big one in anticipation are Cincinnati & Dayton. They're right on the heels with the numbers and are evidently strong on the alternative criteria too, this one might be a CSA if the numbers stay as they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly View Post
Does anybody know what month the new MSA/CSA definitions and statistics are supposed to be released?
June or July according to the OMB's last updated release date in 2010 where they mentioned July in 2013. I figure they'll release it within May-July span maybe even April if they have it compiled soon enough.

Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 01-14-2013 at 05:08 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2013, 08:33 PM
 
Location: Willowbend/Houston
13,403 posts, read 21,185,677 times
Reputation: 10279
I wish they would take Hunt, Delta, and Parker counties counties out of the Dallas/Fort Worth MSA. They dont add anything to the MSA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2013, 08:37 PM
 
Location: Chicago(Northside)
3,719 posts, read 6,092,047 times
Reputation: 1651
Maybe cincy and dayton might be considered one metro finally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2013, 08:39 PM
 
Location: Cincinnati(Silverton)
1,584 posts, read 2,381,867 times
Reputation: 656
Quote:
Originally Posted by valentro View Post
June or July according to the OMB's last updated release date in 2010 where they mentioned July in 2013. I figure they'll release it within May-July span maybe even April if they have it compiled soon enough.
They do revisit some metro's every few years. Orlando/Daytona was not it's own CSA up until around 2008 or 2009.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2013, 01:50 AM
 
Location: BMORE!
7,740 posts, read 6,134,571 times
Reputation: 3582
Quote:
Originally Posted by valentro View Post
There wont be any drastic changes at all this time.

Chicago has met the requirements to add Walworth County into the CSA. New York's CSA areas in New York State (near Poughkeepsie) will be included in the MSA with potential of the Connecticut county of Fairfield being added in as well.

Boston's CSA has the high potential of adding in Barnstable County and by next census the counties bordering Maine and some counties on the border of Maine & New Hampshire.

El Paso & Las Cruces met CSA requirements back in 2000 but they did not merge as it was voted against in the New Mexico & Texas legislatures however this time it may be imminent.

This could be the census they combine San Jose with San Francisco & Oakland. Surely the numbers nearly support it but the UA for the two needs to be combined first before the MSA's can (it's generally how it works with conurbations), if that goes through then Stockton will be added to the CSA this census and next census will be Modesto. Had San Jose-Oakland-San Francisco been in the MSA, then commuter rates for Stockton support a CSA but since San Jose is technically a different "MSA" the commuters from Stockton to there will support no such thing as a combination (the UA's and MSA's of the three big Bay Area cities need to be unified to draw more to the CSA).

I hope and pray that Baltimore doesn't invite itself into the Washington MSA this go around (or ever) and chances of that happening are purely with the UA's combining first which leads to MSA's being combined next.

Houston, Dallas, & Los Angeles wont gain anything new in their CSA's this go around. However it might be time to combine Los Angeles with the Inland Empire into the same MSA-- it meets the 3 mile deep of continuous urbanized development criteria (which is the ALTERNATIVE criteria to substitute commuter rates for combinations).

Seattle may have a chance with Bellingham, the numbers are awfully close but if they use numbers from 2010 itself instead of 2013 then it might not happen.

The big one in anticipation are Cincinnati & Dayton. They're right on the heels with the numbers and are evidently strong on the alternative criteria too, this one might be a CSA if the numbers stay as they are.

June or July according to the OMB's last updated release date in 2010 where they mentioned July in 2013. I figure they'll release it within May-July span maybe even April if they have it compiled soon enough.
I almost spit out my ginger ale...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2013, 07:07 AM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland/ Piedmont, CA
32,341 posts, read 55,131,075 times
Reputation: 15407
Quote:
Originally Posted by valentro View Post
This could be the census they combine San Jose with San Francisco & Oakland. Surely the numbers nearly support it but the UA for the two needs to be combined first before the MSA's can (it's generally how it works with conurbations), if that goes through then Stockton will be added to the CSA this census and next census will be Modesto. Had San Jose-Oakland-San Francisco been in the MSA, then commuter rates for Stockton support a CSA but since San Jose is technically a different "MSA" the commuters from Stockton to there will support no such thing as a combination (the UA's and MSA's of the three big Bay Area cities need to be unified to draw more to the CSA).
1. Input from commuters is not and has never been considered so it doesnt matter whether they support such a change or not. Furthermore most of the populatio influx into Stockton has been from the Bay Area in the first place so I dont know really on what basis you seem to think that people out there would be opposed?

2. In 2000, 9.7% of San Joaquin County commuters worked in the SF MSA. When we add San Jose that jumps to 12.6%--the economy and job market of San Joaquin County is in the pits at this time and was even worse when the census was taken so it wouldnt be too much of a stretch to suppose that the percentage of commuters to the SF MSA has increased exponentially. In fact traffic on hys coming from the valley to the Bay are really packed again as traffic begins at 4am.

So we really dont know, the recession really changed the landscape quite a bit.

3. With respect to a San Francisco and San Jose combining, that is long overdue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2013, 09:44 AM
 
Location: Tokyo, Japan
6,631 posts, read 8,318,123 times
Reputation: 7587
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
1. Input from commuters is not and has never been considered so it doesnt matter whether they support such a change or not. Furthermore most of the populatio influx into Stockton has been from the Bay Area in the first place so I dont know really on what basis you seem to think that people out there would be opposed?
I never mentioned nor said nor implied that there's any such input from commuters.

Edit: Ohh okay, now I see where you got the idea from when I said this: "commuters from Stockton to there will support no such thing as a combination". No I didn't mean commuters having a say in it, I meant to imply the commuter numbers wouldn't support it. Like you mentioned 12.6% commuter rate in 2000 to San Jose & San Francisco put together, now San Jose & San Francisco need to be combined to one MSA before Stockton can unless you're second statement about the recession, Stockton's tanking economy, & increased commuters to San Francisco has gained enough ground by the census. Which like you said, is to be evaluated still.

I did however say the two ways they combine these things are commuters or continuous development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
2. In 2000, 9.7% of San Joaquin County commuters worked in the SF MSA. When we add San Jose that jumps to 12.6%--the economy and job market of San Joaquin County is in the pits at this time and was even worse when the census was taken so it wouldnt be too much of a stretch to suppose that the percentage of commuters to the SF MSA has increased exponentially. In fact traffic on hys coming from the valley to the Bay are really packed again as traffic begins at 4am.

So we really dont know, the recession really changed the landscape quite a bit.

3. With respect to a San Francisco and San Jose combining, that is long overdue.
I agree with what you're saying here.

Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 01-15-2013 at 09:58 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top