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.
When we talk about "metro area" populations in the US, the numbers often come from the US Census, which compiles something called "primary census statistical areas" - some of these are combined statistical areas (CSAs) while some are metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). There are also micropolitan areas. CSAs are agglomerations of MSAs.
However, these numbers are not based on continuous urbanization - they are based mostly on commuting and transit patterns. And they are based on county lines.
Sometimes the model maps fairly closely to what we'd consider a metro area's "real" boundaries - but sometimes, they don't.
Here is a list of all 719 Census primary statistical areas - from the 'New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA' (estimated 2007 population: 21,961,994) to the 'Pecos, TX μSA' (11,183):
Anyhow, for convience, here is a quick, simplified list of the 55 largest Census primary statistical areas - those with at least 1 million people as of 2007:
1. New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA - 21,961,994
2. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA CSA - 17,755,322
3. Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI CSA - 9,745,165
Interesting thread topic. For some time I've wondered what the populations of metropolitan areas would be if only their true suburbs were counted. However, I disagree that the extent of built up sprawl should identify the boundaries of a metro area.
The very concept of a metropolitan area is that of a city and its suburbs. Suburbs are defined by commuting. Whether there is unbroken sprawl between all sections of a metro area, or some semi-rural gaps, will be affected by historical settlement patterns in the greater local area, some of which may date back to well before modern metropolitan areas existed, as well as the distribution of economic activities across the area, which can result from various factors that may have nothing to do with the degree to which communities within an area are interconnected through commuting. Because of this, it's entirely possible to have true commuter suburbs separated from their principal city by some open land. Psychologically, it might seem that these areas are not part of the metro area, after a person traveling away from the principal city passes through some sparsely settled territory before reaching these outlying suburbs, but by the very definition of a metropolitan area these outlying sources of commuting are part of the metro area.
The factor that I feel causes "overextension" of metropolitan areas is the use of counties as their components. There may be a large enough commuting population in a portion of a county that is closest to the metro area's hub city to have that county included in the metro area. This will cause the entire county to be included, even though there may be large areas in more outlying parts of the county which are not true commuter suburbs of that hub city. The Census Bureau's website explains that the Bureau uses counties as the components of metro areas because the importance of counties as units of local government in most states makes data for counties especially useful to local officials.
The county method may be useful to local officials, but if one's purpose is to determine the extent of a city's true commuter suburbs, then the commuting patterns of individual towns and cities need to be used. Unfortunately, without this information it is impossible to know how much of each metro area's territory is not part of the commuting web associated with the area's largest city. Most likely, the vast majority of metro areas officially include some territory that lies beyond the de facto suburbs. To know how much this is for each metro, you would need the information on the commuting population of each individual community.
Austin and San Antonio should be a CSA plus New Orleans /Gulfport/Baton rouge should also be CSA
Neither of those should be CSA's. Just beacuse they are "close" to each other, doesn't mean they are CSA's. The commuter statistics does not justify any of these cities merging into one metro area and it won't be justified for a few decades. Let's understand CSA's first before just throwing out fantasy areas.
St. Louis
Atlanta
Kansas City
Houston
and a lot of the metro areas out west/SW.
They just simply cover too much land area IMO, and can make comparisons between areas a lot less accurate. They should factor in other things more than just mainly commuting patterns.
Austin and San Antonio should be a CSA plus New Orleans /Gulfport/Baton rouge should also be CSA
But then you're opening a whole can of worms. Austin and San Antonio have 80 miles between them, and it's certainly not all built up.
Baton Rouge is over 80 miles to New Orleans through swamps, and then you have another 80 miles from New Orleans up to Gulfport.
If you're looking at it that broad, then I would think the entire northeast should be a CSA, Chicago & Milwaukee, LA and San Diego, Portland & Seattle, Rickmond & DC, etc. etc. etc.
St. Louis
Atlanta
Kansas City
Houston
and a lot of the metro areas out west/SW.
They just simply cover too much land area IMO, and can make comparisons between areas a lot less accurate. They should factor in other things more than just mainly commuting patterns.
instead of just saying it covers too much land, can you give an example of how they are overextended? I can only speak for Houston because it's the only city I know much about on your list and personally speaking I think all the areas included in the CSA for Houston should be there. Huntsville may be a bit of a stretch but it is strongly tied to Houston and people make that commute daily. Many of the college students in Huntsville commute from Houston.
The use of counties in western states skews the geography. Counties are very large in the west.
For example, the Fresno MSA is over 6,000 sq miles. Fresno County is larger than Rhode Island, or Delaware, or Connecticut. The Fresno MSA stretches for over 100 miles from east to west.
Another example is Los Angeles. By including Riverside and San Bernardino counties that metro area ends up including the Mojave Desert, not too many people living there. The Los Angeles metro region ends up being defined as a huge area stretching from the Pacific to Arizona, a distance of roughly 200 miles.
Interesting thread topic. For some time I've wondered what the populations of metropolitan areas would be if only their true suburbs were counted. However, I disagree that the extent of built up sprawl should identify the boundaries of a metro area.
The very concept of a metropolitan area is that of a city and its suburbs. Suburbs are defined by commuting. Whether there is unbroken sprawl between all sections of a metro area, or some semi-rural gaps, will be affected by historical settlement patterns in the greater local area, some of which may date back to well before modern metropolitan areas existed, as well as the distribution of economic activities across the area, which can result from various factors that may have nothing to do with the degree to which communities within an area are interconnected through commuting. Because of this, it's entirely possible to have true commuter suburbs separated from their principal city by some open land. Psychologically, it might seem that these areas are not part of the metro area, after a person traveling away from the principal city passes through some sparsely settled territory before reaching these outlying suburbs, but by the very definition of a metropolitan area these outlying sources of commuting are part of the metro area.
The factor that I feel causes "overextension" of metropolitan areas is the use of counties as their components. There may be a large enough commuting population in a portion of a county that is closest to the metro area's hub city to have that county included in the metro area. This will cause the entire county to be included, even though there may be large areas in more outlying parts of the county which are not true commuter suburbs of that hub city. The Census Bureau's website explains that the Bureau uses counties as the components of metro areas because the importance of counties as units of local government in most states makes data for counties especially useful to local officials.
The county method may be useful to local officials, but if one's purpose is to determine the extent of a city's true commuter suburbs, then the commuting patterns of individual towns and cities need to be used. Unfortunately, without this information it is impossible to know how much of each metro area's territory is not part of the commuting web associated with the area's largest city. Most likely, the vast majority of metro areas officially include some territory that lies beyond the de facto suburbs. To know how much this is for each metro, you would need the information on the commuting population of each individual community.
Good point! An extreme example is Duluth-Superior MN/WI. The MN side of the metro is St Louis county. Duluth, its largest city, is located on the far southern boundary of the county, but the county is huge in land area. It extends from the southern tip of Lake Superior (where Duluth is) all the way up to the Canadian border. Besides Duluth, the only other area of population to speak of is the Iron Range, a smattering of small cities like Hibbing, Virginia and Eveleth. Otherwise it is wilderness. The northern half of the county is virtually total wilderness, including a large chunk of the unpopulated Boundary Waters Canoe Area. When I travel up that way I sometimes ponder how anyone could possibly imagine this as a "metropolitan" area!
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.
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.
