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.
Here's 2015:
New York 23.723 Million
Los Angeles 18.679 Million
Chicago 9.923 Million
Washington DC 9.625 Million
San Francisco 8.713 Million
Boston 8.152 Million
Dallas 7.504 Million
Philadelphia 7.183 Million
Houston 6.855 Million
Miami 6.654 Million
Atlanta 6.365 Million
Detroit 5.319 Million
Seattle 4.602 Million
2014 GDP rank
New York $1.776 Trillion
Los Angeles $1.047 Trillion
San Francisco $711.188 Billion
Washington DC $670.106 Billion
Chicago $618.172 Billion
Boston $531.813 Billion
Houston $529.397 Billion
Dallas $508.306 Billion
Philadelphia $438.321 Billion
Atlanta $340.557 Billion
Seattle $326.087 Billion
Miami $315.614 Billion
Detroit $274.712 Billion
It should be noted that GDP is calculated by MSA, not CSA.
Here's 2015:
New York 23.723 Million
Los Angeles 18.679 Million
Chicago 9.923 Million
Washington DC 9.625 Million
San Francisco 8.713 Million
Boston 8.152 Million
Dallas 7.504 Million
Philadelphia 7.183 Million
Houston 6.855 Million
Miami 6.654 Million
Atlanta 6.365 Million
Detroit 5.319 Million
Seattle 4.602 Million
2014 GDP rank
New York $1.776 Trillion
Los Angeles $1.047 Trillion
San Francisco $711.188 Billion
Washington DC $670.106 Billion
Chicago $618.172 Billion
Boston $531.813 Billion
Houston $529.397 Billion
Dallas $508.306 Billion
Philadelphia $438.321 Billion
Atlanta $340.557 Billion
Seattle $326.087 Billion
Miami $315.614 Billion
Detroit $274.712 Billion
thanx, going by the gdp's, the iist in the op seeme accurate. didnt realize san fran and d.c. were that much higher than the others (including chicago which is surprising).
Actually Miami fares pretty well in many of these airport/travel numbers, which is good. But I can understand the sentiment from someone in Boston, Dallas, Houston etc on why are they not automatically considered "top 5". The truth is the gap from 3-5 down to 6-9 is not as wide as the gap from #1 and 2 down to the rest of the pack. NY and LA both have EVERYTHING in high numbers. They are megacities, and almost any metric that you want to measure both metropolises in, they have it. Anything you would find throughout the country is in NY/LA and with higher numbers than anywhere else.
Yes, these are fair points. Boston is much closer to DC than, say, DC is to LA.
NYC and, to a lesser extent, LA, are the big outliers. #3 is probably closer to #7 than to #2.
I think the issue is with calling these CSA's metro. Metro areas have a human component, and Balt-Wash lacks cohesion of cultural identity. It's an inter-connected region, not a metro.
As development between Baltimore and Washington intensifies, populations grow, and their labor markets become increasingly shared, the two center nodes and those in between will likely be much more connected in terms of infrastructure (such as much higher MARC train frequencies) and this in turn will cause the general area to develop a more cohesive shared identity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
It would be unlikely, IMO. It's still a long train ride. A few people will do it, but that doesn't make them connected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
I think some here are confused on how CSA works. CSA rules don't require commuting to downtown; they require only commuting between MSAs. Outer suburb to downtown commuting rates are already low, Milwaukee joining the Chicago MSA as one CSA would mostly be from the outer suburbs of both having commute ties.
It's definitely a long train ride, and I don't expect that many people to be doing the downtown to downtown commute. You have pointed out the reason for why I think the two can combine a decade after having regular, frequent commuter rail service between the two downtowns though and it's largely the result of all the suburbs and employment centers between the two downtowns concentrated close to the lakefront where this line would be running.
Three, Four, and Five throughout the previous 46 years in American history.
1970:
01. New York (CSA): 20,279,835
02. Los Angeles (CSA): 9,980,861 03. Chicago (CSA): 8,240,189
04. Boston (CSA): 6,468,458
05. Philadelphia (CSA): 6,057,848
06. Washington DC-Baltimore (CSA): 5,651,833
07. Detroit (CSA): 5,315,909
08. San Francisco Bay Area (CSA): 5,063,665
09. Cleveland (CSA): 3,694,544
10. Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex (CSA): 2,664,901
11. Saint Louis (CSA): 2,597,221
12. Miami/Fort Lauderdale (CSA): 2,362,981
13. Minneapolis/Saint Paul (CSA): 2,300,116
14. Houston (CSA): 2,283,644
15. Seattle (CSA): 2,161,352
16. Atlanta (CSA): 2,146,086
1980:
01. New York (CSA): 19,764,034
02. Los Angeles (CSA): 11,497,549 03. Chicago (CSA): 8,421,707
04. Boston (CSA): 6,664,819
05. Washington DC-Baltimore (CSA): 6,085,090
06. Philadelphia (CSA): 6,059,759
07. San Francisco Bay Area (CSA): 5,740,247
08. Detroit (CSA): 5,293,161
09. Cleveland (CSA): 3,561,575
10. Miami/Fort Lauderdale (CSA): 3,451,876
11. Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex (CSA): 3,309,484
12. Houston (CSA): 3,254,408
13. Atlanta (CSA): 2,691,169
1990:
01. New York (CSA): 20,510,198
02. Los Angeles (CSA): 14,531,529 03. Chicago (CSA): 8,533,591
04. Boston (CSA): 7,109,139
05. Washington DC-Baltimore (CSA): 7,061,499
06. San Francisco Bay Area (CSA): 6,794,848
07. Philadelphia (CSA): 6,340,535
08. Detroit (CSA): 5,187,171
09. Miami/Fort Lauderdale (CSA): 4,427,134
10. Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex (CSA): 4,329,020
11. Houston (CSA): 3,882,169
12. Atlanta (CSA): 3,494,036
2000:
01. New York (CSA): 22,240,969
02. Los Angeles (CSA): 16,373,645 03. Chicago (CSA): 9,465,353
04. Washington DC-Baltimore (CSA): 7,981,257
05. San Francisco Bay Area (CSA): 7,656,194
06. Boston (CSA): 7,630,016
07. Philadelphia (CSA): 6,688,798
08. Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex (CSA): 5,565,005
09. Miami/Fort Lauderdale (CSA): 5,475,847
10. Detroit (CSA): 5,456,428
11. Houston (CSA): 4,842,312
12. Atlanta (CSA): 4,778,990
2010:
01. New York (CSA): 23,076,664
02. Los Angeles (CSA): 17,877,006 03. Chicago (CSA): 9,840,929
04. Washington DC-Baltimore (CSA): 9,051,961
05. San Francisco Bay Area (CSA): 8,153,696
06. Boston (CSA): 7,893,376
07. Philadelphia (CSA): 7,067,807
08. Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex (CSA): 6,817,483
09. Miami/Fort Lauderdale (CSA): 6,166,766
10. Houston (CSA): 6,114,562
11. Atlanta (CSA): 5,910,296
12. Detroit (CSA): 5,318,744
2015:
01. New York (CSA): 23,723,696
02. Los Angeles (CSA): 18,679,763 03. Chicago (CSA): 9,923,358
04. Washington DC-Baltimore (CSA): 9,625,360
05. San Francisco Bay Area (CSA): 8,713,914
06. Boston (CSA): 8,152,573
07. Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex (CSA): 7,504,362
08. Philadelphia (CSA): 7,183,479
09. Houston (CSA): 6,855,069
10. Miami/Fort Lauderdale (CSA): 6,654,565
11. Atlanta (CSA): 6,365,108
12. Detroit (CSA): 5,319,913
The reason I opted to exclude Greater Boston from the discussion is that the gap gets bigger each year between Boston and the San Francisco Bay Area; thus making it harder literally each year for Boston to actually make a realistic case. It really is something that both CSAs start the decade in the 8 millions and that by 2020, one of them will firmly be entrenched into the 9 millions while the other remains in the 8 millions, joined by Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex in that range. The economic divide between the two is growing even faster than population. I think at this point in time that both Washington DC and San Francisco have effectively shut the door on the Boston a Top 5 campaign.
There's nothing wrong with that. Boston is the leader and top city in the next tier up of Boston, Houston, Dallas, Miami, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and "possibly" Seattle as well.
Think of American cities the way we look at the structure of the NBA. The 5 most crucial players on an NBA team are usually the team's starters, that takes nothing away from the sixthman and the rest of the bench, but the 5 starters are the ones that get the big minutes usually, have their names broadcasted before tip off in introductions, and mostly get the largest credit for success. In the same way, America also has a set of Top 5 cities; New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, and San Francisco. Think of Boston as the Jamal Crawford of cities, it is an elite part of the team and that is why there are sixthman of the year awards in tow, but while serving as the catalyst of the team's second unit off the bench.
Boston would be the one coming off the bench if America were a basketball team and its Top 15 cities were players on the team.
It's kind of disingenuous using CSA to form apples to apples comparisons to begin with, but it's even unfathomable to use CSAs when these counties were far from connected back then.
These counties are loosely connected now, in the 705 they were even more so. Just a few years ago Dallas and Fort Worth were not even unified enough to be an MSA, to extend these to CSA is ridiculous. There may have been that many people in those counties back then, but how do you know whether they met commuter patterns back then enough to link them as a unit.
Conversely, there may have been counties that met the threshold to be linked to Philly for example back then but later was shifted to New York. So a city like Philly may have had more people attached to it based on the definitions back then, than they do using current definitions.
The census updates their metropolitan definitions every couple of decades, so it is meaningless to use data from the 70s and definitions from the 2010s. That's like making a cake using a recipe for soup.
Conversely, there may have been counties that met the threshold to be linked to Philly for example back then but later was shifted to New York. So a city like Philly may have had more people attached to it based on the definitions back then, than they do using current definitions.
No. The Census doesn't do this.
When they change MSA or CSA definitions, they revise the older numbers to reflect the current geographic composition of the MSA or CSA.
As development between Baltimore and Washington intensifies, populations grow, and their labor markets become increasingly shared, the two center nodes and those in between will likely be much more connected in terms of infrastructure (such as much higher MARC train frequencies) and this in turn will cause the general area to develop a more cohesive shared identity.
It's definitely a long train ride, and I don't expect that many people to be doing the downtown to downtown commute. You have pointed out the reason for why I think the two can combine a decade after having regular, frequent commuter rail service between the two downtowns though and it's largely the result of all the suburbs and employment centers between the two downtowns concentrated close to the lakefront where this line would be running.
Everything about Baltimore and DC could connect and they still wouldn't share the same identity. You'll always be able to tell who is from where. Baltimore is a culture in and of itself, and it doesn't identify with DC.
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.
