What's your preferred way of looking at a metropolitan area?

[ogre]

It's tricky. As several people have pointed out, it varies between areas which category best defines the cohesive local area.

It can even vary for different sections of the same area. I live in the Boston metro area. This is a matter of personal perception, and someone else might have a different view, but to me there seem to be some parts of my area's CSA that have more the feel of being part of the broad local area than others. Providence and Worcester both have commuter rail connections to Boston. Indoor arenas in Worcester are or at times in the past have been venues in the local Boston area rock concert circuit. For at least twenty years the Providence airport has in effect served as Boston's second airport. There are now even plans to extend the commuter rail line from Boston past Providence to the airport. A case could almost be made for regarding both Providence and Worcester as large outer-fringe suburbs of Boston.

On the other hand, Manchester's airport has become another secondary Boston area airport in the past few years, but my personal perception at least is that there is little else to give the feeling that Manchester is part of the same local area as Boston, though I suppose that both cities could be viewed as being in the same broad sub-region. The CSA extends all the way up into central New Hampshire, as far north as Laconia in New Hampshire's lakes region. Other than the popularity of this area as a vacation destination for many Bostonians, I see very little connection, certainly nothing that would make Laconia part of even a broad local area that would include Boston.

So, going by my personal perceptions at least, part of the CSA seems very much like a single extended local area, but other sections of the CSA seem to have at best a peripheral association with Boston/Worcester/Providence/southeastern NH. (Southeastern NH is legitimately a part of not only this same CSA but the Boston MSA, as there is heavy commuting from that area into the metro area core including Boston and its immediate vicinity.)

Which category best identifies one metro area will vary from place to place, but if I have to be limited to one choice I'll go with MSA as usually the closest measure of a local area. It seems that in a large majority of metro areas it's in the MSA that you get a lot of activity of a local nature, including crisscrossing of traffic throughout the area, rather than primarily inbound and outbound commuter traffic between outer fringes and the metro area's core. This multi-directional interconnectedness seems to me to mean that in terms of how MSA's function, an MSA is in practical effect all one city, even if suburban areas often may not have the appearance associated with a city. Often, much of a CSA will lack this kind of cohesion with the largest city's MSA.

But then, there's that close association of Worcester and Providence with Boston. And there's the Bay Area. And there is southwestern CT, which the last time I checked still was not part of NYC's MSA despite the area's heavy suburban association with NYC. These, and probably other, examples show that no one category adequately defines all local areas. My sense, though, is that MSA probably comes the closest to approximating local boundaries for the greatest number of metro areas.

[nate14ri]

CSA's because i'm a size queen. I'm also from Providence, live in Boston, and Work through out eastern MA. Its all greater boston to me.

[domino]

What's your preferred way of looking at a metropolitan area?

In my rear view mirror on my way out of town.

[Josseppie]

I would say it depends on the size of the metro as not every metro has has a CSA but if it does then they should go by it. For example.

Pueblo has a MSA but not a offical CSA, I would argue that Pueblo and Colorado Springs should be a CSA but that is not offical, while Denver has both a MSA and a offical CSA.