Tracking metropolitan America into the 21st century - Population ...

Metropolitan Policy ProgramTracking Metropolitan Americainto the 21st Century:A Field Guide to the New Metropolitanand Micropolitan Definitions“An overhaul ofthe widely-recognizedmetropolitanclassificationsystem by the federalgovernmentwill refashion theway research isconducted andfederal dollarsare spent.”William H. Frey, Jill H. Wilson, Alan Berube, and Audrey SingerFindingsAn overhaul of the widely-recognized metropolitan classification system by the federal Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) will refashion the way research is conducted and federal dollarsare spent. The new system, designed to capture 21st-century settlement patterns, alters thenames, types, and boundaries for metropolitan areas and creates new “micropolitan” areas. Acomparison of this new system with its older counterpart, reveals that:■ The new classification system positions the Metropolitan Statistical Area as the standardtool for analysis across metropolitan geographies. The old system, by contrast, requiredusers to combine a mix of three categories of metropolitan areas (MSAs and CMSAs orPMSAs) to get complete coverage of metropolitan America. At the same time, the new systemprovides researchers with more choices for analyzing trends within metropolitan areas.■ New micropolitan areas, together with their metropolitan area counterparts, increase thereach of OMB’s statistical areas to encompass 93 percent of U.S. population and 46 percentof its land area. States with the most micropolitan areas are not necessarily the largest:Texas, Ohio, and North Carolina lead all others; South Dakota has more than California; andNew Jersey has none.■ Under the new system, 81 of the nation’s 102 largest metropolitan areas have undergonechanges in territory and population. The most common changes involved the addition ofnew counties to an existing metropolitan area, and the combination of two or more metroareas to form a new, larger metropolis.■ Both metropolitan and micropolitan areas contain principal cities, which replace centralcities in the new names given to these areas. Roughly 40 percent of the combined metropolitanpopulation lived in principal cities in 2000, compared to 35 percent in central cities.■ The new definitions alter the social and economic attributes of many metropolitan areas,as well as their national rankings on these attributes. For instance, New York has replacedLos Angeles as the nation’s most populous metropolitan area. San Francisco drops from fourthto fourteenth in metropolitan rankings of college degree attainment.Not simply statistical arcana, OMB-defined metropolitan and micropolitan areas have real-worldimplications for public- and private-sector research, for federal programs—think Medicare, Section8 housing assistance—and for how big-city and small-town residents view the places thatthey live. This survey provides both casual and expert users with a “field guide” to the new systemand its potential impacts in each of these areas.November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series 1

IntroductionThe term “metropolitan area” isone of the few statisticalterms that is also familiar incommon conversation. A metropolitanarea is not a political jurisdictionwith a mayor or policedepartment, but rather an economicallyand socially linked collection oflarge and small communities. Residingin a metropolitan area provides identificationwith a well understoodbroader community, often elicitingcivic pride promoted by local chambersof commerce and economicdevelopment commissions. Regionalnewspapers, sports teams and culturalinstitutions all serve to reify the existenceof the metropolitan area. Moreover,the metropolitan designation ofan area confers on it something of anurbane or cosmopolitan status, placingit in a league with other areas as a recognizedeconomic region.Such commonly-held perceptions ofmetropolitan areas are reflected in rigorousstatistical definitions of the metropolitanconcept, developed by thefederal government’s Office of Managementand Budget (OMB). Federalagencies such as the U.S. CensusBureau use these standards to collectand disseminate area-based statisticsin publications such as the UnitedStates Statistical Abstract. They areincorporated into federal and statepolicies to allocate public resources tolocal areas. They are also used widelyin the private sector and the researchcommunity to identify consumer markets,labor markets, and housing markets.And OMB-defined metropolitanareas are often ranked in the popularpress and publications such as thePlaces Rated Almanac.The federal government definedmetropolitan statistical areas as earlyas the late 1940s, 1 and has updatedthem several times, primarily to takeinto account shifts in demographictrends and modest changes in nomenclature.2 However, in the early 1990sFigure 1. Old versus New TerminologyOLDConsolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA)Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA)Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)Central CityNew England County Metropolitan Area (NECMA)NEWMetropolitan Statistical Area (MetroSA)Micropolitan Statistical Area (MicroSA)Combined Statistical Area (CSA)Metropolitan DivisionPrincipal CityNew England City and Town Area (NECTA)Source: OMBOMB initiated a decade-long effort toreassess the metropolitan classificationsystem, in light of the manychanges in U.S. settlement patternsthat had taken place over the previous50 years. 3The original metropolitan statisticalarea concept was predicated on themodel of a large central city of over50,000 residents that served as a hubof social and economic activity for surroundingcounties. Together, the cityand counties formed a stand-alonemetropolitan area. Over the past fivedecades, however, the decentralizationof both employment and population inmany urban areas have served to dispersethe “core” well beyond thelargest city into smaller clusters of previously“suburban” communities. Asmetropolitan populations expanded, itbecame evident that hierarchies wereforming within metropolitan areas.Large metropolitan areas developedsomewhat self-contained sub-areas(e.g., Newark or Long Island withinthe greater New York region); andexisting, neighboring metropolitanareas became, for some purposes, partof a larger super-region (e.g., Washington,D.C. and Baltimore). It alsobecame apparent that many communities,considered too small to be part ofa metropolitan area, should nonethelessbe recognized as part of the settlementsystem, rather than be omittedcompletely.After a series of commissioned studies,convenings with user communities,and interagency meetings, OMB’swide-ranging effort in the 1990sresulted in the adoption of the newstandards for metropolitan andmicropolitan areas. OMB has urged allfederal agencies that collect and publishdata for these areas to use themost recent definitions.The changes are quite significant,not only in terminology, but also in thegeographic sweep of classified areas,(Figure 1). Figure 2 displays the metropolitanor nonmetropolitan status ofU.S. counties according to the old andnew standards. Under the old system,only 20 percent of the country’s territorywas defined. The new standardsdouble the coverage, classifying 46percent of U.S. land area. Micropolitanareas—a new classification—account for most of the increasedcoverage and fill in a noticeable portionof the “empty” space across thecountry.Given these significant changes,2November 2004 • The Brookings InstitutionThe Living Cities Census Series

the MSA/CMSA combined list (276areas, including 258 MSAs and 18CMSAs), which was favored by OMBand the Census Bureau, or theMSA/PMSA combined list (331 areas,including 258 MSAs and 73 PMSAs),which common practice tended tofavor. Statistical rankings includingmetropolitan growth rates, crime statistics,employment patterns and qualityof life indicators in publicationssuch as the popular The Places RatedAlmanac used the MSA/PMSA system,as have most publications in Brookings’Living Cities Census Series. Forthe remainder of this report, we willalso use MSAs and PMSAs as benchmarksfor comparison with the newsystem.An additional choice faced analystsof metropolitan areas in the six NewEngland states. OMB defined MSAs,PMSAs, and CMSAs for these states,as well as an alternative set of areasknown as New England County MetropolitanAreas (NECMAs). New EnglandMSAs, CMSAs, and PMSAs werebased on city and town componentsrather than counties, but many analystswere unable to obtain relevantinformation at the town level. Hence,NECMAs were developed as countybasedcounterparts to New England’sconventional metro areas. Manynational analyses, therefore, usedMSAs, CMSAs, and PMSAs, outsideof New England, along with NECMAsinside the region.Finally, the previous standards didnot define any settlements outside ofthe metropolitan areas. All of the residualcounties in the United States (ortowns in New England) were labeled“non-metropolitan.” Some analystschose to use individual counties as ameans of distinguishing areas withinnonmetropolitan territory. 10 Researchersat the Department of Agriculture createdRural-Urban Continuum Codes(“Beale Codes”) to distinguish amongnon-metropolitan counties based ontheir urban population and adjacencyto metropolitan areas. 11Metro Area Choices under theNew StandardsFor those interested in comparingmetropolitan areas across the country,there is now really only one choice:the Metropolitan Statistical Area(designated in this paper as MetroSA).Although the new system allows forsome hierarchical choices for analysesof individual areas (discussed below),inter-metropolitan analyses are bestconducted using the MetroSA, whichnow is based exclusively on countylevelcomponents in both New Englandand non-New England states.MetroSAs are defined using somewhatdifferent criteria than the old MSAs,CMSAs, and PMSAs. As a consequence,both the size and number ofmetropolitan areas have changed.According to the new standards,metropolitan area central counties,which form the basis for determiningoutlying counties via commuting patterns,are now determined exclusivelyby their overlap with urban areas of allsizes so that the more restrictive“urbanized areas or cities of 50,000 ormore” criterion is no longer part oftheir definition. 12 The extent of urbanareas has also changed, due to populationgrowth and new definitional criteria.Together, these changes haveincreased the number of central counties,thus enlarging the potential commutingfields of many largemetropolitan areas. 13At the same time, new commutingcriteria for adding outlying counties toa region’s central counties are morerestrictive than those used previously.Thus, 41 counties which previouslyserved as outlying counties of metropolitanareas do not qualify as suchunder the new rules, but have nowbecome part of new micropolitanareas.One result of the change in criteriafor defining metropolitan areas is thatthe larger MetroSAs are more comparablein size and area to the formerCMSAs than to the former PMSAs. 14As a consequence, users who areaccustomed to employing thePMSA/MSA definitions under the oldsystem will find that the number ofmetropolitan areas with populationsexceeding one million drops from 61to 49 in the new system. At the sametime, the number of metropolitanareas with populations less than250,000 rises from 149 to 195. Yet,the 49 large MetroSAs comprise aboutthe same share of the U.S. population—53percent—as the 61 largeMSAs/PMSAs (Figure 4). At the otherend of the size spectrum, the 195small Metro SAs comprise only aslightly larger share of U.S. populationthan the 149 small MSAs/PMSAs (10percent versus 8 percent).Altogether, the new standardsdescribe 361 MetroSAs, comparedto 331 MSAs/PMSAs under the oldsystem.As with the previous standards,OMB defines an alternative set ofareas in the six New England states.Unlike the old standards, however,these alternative areas are defined atthe city and town level and are calledNew England City and Town Areas(NECTAs). MetroSAs in New Englandare comprised of counties, makingcounties the basic “buildingblocks” of metropolitan areas bothinside and outside the New Englandstates.Finally, the most recognizablechange with the new standards is theidentification of smaller “metropolitanlike”communities. These new areas,called micropolitan areas, define meaningful“core-based” areas with corestoo small to qualify as MetroSAs. Theyare discussed in finding B.The New Hierarchy Options forLocal AreasWhile the new standards provide a singleunit, the MetroSA, for comparingmetropolitan areas across the country,they provide additional choices whenthe focus turns to local areas (Figure5). Combined Statistical Areas(CSAs) represent two or more adjoin-November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series 5

Figure 4. Number of Metro Areas by Population Size, 2000,(and Share of Population by Metro Size)400350300250200150100500Figure 5. New Hierarchy Options for Local AreasMETROPOLITAN331149 (8.0%)121 (20.2%)61 (52.2%)Old PMSAs/MSAsUnder 250KMetropolitanStatisticalAreasMetropolitanDivisions250K to 1 millionSource: Authors’ calculations of Census 2000 data and OMBCombinedStatisticalAreas(two or more metrosand/or micros)New MetroSAsMicropolitanStatisticalAreasOver 1 millionNOT METROPOLITANNote: These options are not available for all 361 metropolitan areas and 573 micropolitan areas.There are 120 combined statistical areas that encompass 163 metropolitan and 153 micropolitanareas. Twenty-nine metropolitan divisions exist within 11 metroplitan areas.Source: OMB361194 (9.9%)118 (19.7%)49 (53.0%)ing MetroSAs or MicroSAs. Theyrange in size from the two-county Clovis-Portales,NM CSA (population63,000), which consists of the ClovisMicroSA and the Portales MicroSA, tothe 30-county New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA CombinedStatistical Area (population21,361,797), made up of six MetroSAsand one MicroSA. OMB designatesCSAs where certain cross-area commutinglevels are met, and in specifiedcircumstances where local input favorsthe designation. There are currently123 CSAs (those associated with thegreater Atlanta area, Dallas–Ft. Wortharea, and New York area are illustratedbelow). Just over half (198) of all MetroSAsare located in a CSA.These areas are primarily useful forlocal analyses, as they give users amore expansive way to define theirparticular region. CSAs are ill-suitedfor cross-metropolitan analyses, sincethey are very different analytic unitsthan MetroSAs.The other metropolitan innovationin the new standards that may assistlocal area analyses is the MetropolitanDivision. OMB designated MetropolitanDivisions within each of 11MetroSAs with populations of over2,500,000, and they reflect single ormulti-county areas with close commutingties. Examples include theWashington-Arlington-Alexandria,DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Divisionand Bethesda-Frederick-Gaithersburg,MD Metropolitan Divisionwithin the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MetropolitanStatistical Area, and theDallas-Plano-Irving, TX MetropolitanDivision and Fort Worth-Arlington, TXMetropolitan Division within the Dallas-FortWorth-Arlington, TX MetropolitanStatistical Area.These Metropolitan Divisions, ascomponents of MetroSAs, somewhatresemble PMSAs under the old system.However, because only a few verylarge MetroSAs contain MetropolitanDivisions, while PMSAs were much6November 2004 • The Brookings InstitutionThe Living Cities Census Series

Table 1. Geographic and Demographic Coverage, Old and New StandardsNumber Share of National Population Share ofOLD STANDARDS of Counties Land Area in 2000 National PopulationMetropolitan 848 20% 226,207,070 80.4%Non-metropolitan 2293 80% 55,214,836 19.6%NEW STANDARDSMetropolitan 1089 25.3% 232,579,940 82.6%Micropolitan 690 20.3% 29,412,298 10.5%Non-core-based 1362 54.4% 19,429,668 6.9%Source: Census 2000 and OMBmore common, Metropolitan Divisionsare less practical geographic units fornationwide analyses. The highermetro-wide population threshold toestablish Metropolitan Divisions (atleast 2.5 million) versus that to establishPMSAs (at least 1 million) meansthat the new system contains 29 MetropolitanDivisions within 11 MetroSAs,compared to 73 PMSAs within18 CMSAs under the old system. Still,Metropolitan Divisions provideincreased flexibility for local analyses.In some metropolitan areas, then,users are able to choose among a metropolitanhierarchy that includes allthree types of areas: CSAs, MetroSAs,and Metropolitan Divisions.B. New micropolitan areas, togetherwith their metropolitan area counterparts,increase the reach of OMB’sstatistical areas to encompass 93percent of U.S. population and 46percent of its land area.The micropolitan statistical area(designated in this paper as MicroSA)is perhaps the most innovative conceptcreated with the new standards. OMBdeveloped MicroSAs in response toarguments that smaller communitieslocated outside of metro areasdeserved recognition as self-containedsettlements. They are defined in a parallelmanner to MetroSAs in that theyare core-based, meaning they consistof one or more counties centered on acontiguous urban area. MicroSAs andMetroSAs differ primarily in the populationof their core areas: between10,000 and 50,000 for MicroSAs, andat least 50,000 for MetroSAs. SomeMicroSAs have larger populationsthan the smallest MetroSAs, but areclassified as the former because theircore urban areas have less than50,000 people. MicroSAs range in sizefrom about 13,000 (Andrews, TX) toover 180,000 (Torrington, CT), andMetroSAs range in size from just over50,000 (Carson City, NV) to 18.3 million(New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA).The new standards define 573MicroSAs in addition to the 361 MetroSAs.The 573 MicroSAs incorporate690 counties, indicating that themajority of these areas include justone county. Because of the way theywere defined, OMB refers to bothtypes of areas as core-based statisticalareas (CBSAs). Together, thesecore-based areas cover a much largershare of the nation’s population andlandmass than metropolitan areasalone under the old standards. Thecombined MetroSAs and MicroSAsnow comprise 93 percent of U.S. populationand 46 percent of its land area.In comparison, the old metropolitanareas comprised 80 percent of thenation’s population and just 20 percentof its land area (Table 1).For analysts used to distinguishingbetween metropolitan and nonmetropolitanpopulations, MicroSAs belongto the latter category. However, theyrepresent only part of the nation’snonmetropolitan territory. The remainingportion of nonmetropolitan landassumes the somewhat cumbersometerm, “non-core-based areas.” BecauseMicroSAs comprise 60 percent of thetotal non-metropolitan population, it isnow less appropriate to think of thenonmetropolian population as wholly“rural.”Researchers from the CensusBureau and other federal agencies willincorporate the new micropolitan areaconcept into a range of national statistics,opening up a whole new field ofstudy for demographers, planners, andpolicy makers. The location and profileof MicroSAs is quite varied. Table2 shows that states housing the largestnumber of MicroSAs are not thenation’s largest states, but are heavilyconcentrated in the Midwest andSouth, and comprise a larger share ofoverall population there. Texas, Ohio,North Carolina, Indiana, and Georgialead all other states in the number ofmicropolitan areas, whereas the highlyurbanized states of Massachusetts,Rhode Island and New Jersey do nothave any. Small states with numerouscounties like Iowa, Nebraska, andSouth Dakota each have moreMicroSAs than California.Recent analyses by Lang (2004) andNovember 2004 • The Brookings InstitutionThe Living Cities Census Series7

Table 2. Number ofMicroSAs by StateRank State Micros1 Texas 412 Ohio 293 North Carolina 264 Indiana 255 Georgia 246 Illinois 237 Pennsylvania 218 Missouri 209 Mississippi 2010 Tennessee 2011 Michigan 1812 Minnesota 1813 Kentucky 1714 Louisiana 1715 Oklahoma 1716 Kansas 1517 New York 1518 Iowa 1519 Arkansas 1420 New Mexico 1421 Oregon 1322 South Carolina 1323 Wisconsin 1324 Alabama 1325 Florida 1126 Nebraska 1027 South Dakota 928 Washington 929 California 930 Idaho 831 Colorado 732 Wyoming 733 West Virginia 634 New Hampshire 635 Arizona 536 Montana 537 North Dakota 538 Vermont 539 Utah 540 Maryland 441 Nevada 442 Alaska 343 Hawaii 344 Virginia 345 Connecticut 246 Maine 247 Delaware 148 District of Columbia 049 Massachusetts 050 New Jersey 051 Rhode Island 0Source: OMBNote: Micropolitan areas that cross stateboundaries are counted once in each state.Frey (2004a) highlight the variationsin micropolitan area demographic profiles.They find that the fastest-growingMicroSAs are located nearby largegrowing MetroSAs, while the moreremote MicroSAs are generally smallerand slow-growing. Overall, MicroSApopulations tend to be older, poorer,more conservative, less educated, andless racially diverse than their metropolitancounterparts. 15C. Under the new system, 81 of thenation’s 102 largest metropolitanareas have undergone changes interritory and population.Analysts and even casual observersfirst encountering the new metropolitanareas will likely ask: How differentare the new standards from the oldones? The simple answer is: quite abit. The changes are especially pronouncedin the nation’s larger metropolitanareas, which form the focus ofmany Brookings Metropolitan PolicyProgram analyses. This section firstdescribes the changes from the old tonew systems at the county level, thenexplores how those county transitionsre-shaped the nation’s largest metropolitanareas.County ShiftsBecause both the old and new systemsare county-based, it is possible to viewthe extent of change between the twosystems from the county level. Betweenthe systems, counties could make sixpossible transitions, shown in Table 3.Of the 3,141 counties that make upthe United States, a plurality (43 percent)remained “undefined”—that is,they were non-metropolitan under theold system and are non-core-basedunder the new system. They includethe vast number of small, rural countiesfound mostly in the interior states.The next largest proportion of counties(26 percent) remained metropolitanbetween the old and new systems, andof these the vast majority (92 percent)remained within the same metropolitanarea. So roughly 70 percent ofcounties retained a comparable classificationin the transition to the newstandards.Other counties changed classificationdue to the introduction of themicropolitan concept, new rules fordefining metropolitan areas, changesin commuting patterns, or simple populationgrowth and decentralization.Counties that changed from non-metropolitanto micropolitan were fairlycommon, accounting for 21 percentof all counties and nearly 10 percentof U.S. population. Nine percent ofU.S. counties jumped from non-metropolitanto metropolitan status. Farsmaller proportions moved down thehierarchy from metropolitan tomicropolitan (1 percent) and frommetropolitan to non-core-based status(just 5 counties).As a result of these transitions, agreater share of the nation’s populationis now considered metropolitan(83 percent, up from 80 percent). Onnet, 242 counties moved from nonmetropolitanto metropolitan standing(46 from metropolitan to non-metropolitanand 288 from non-metropolitanto metropolitan). Some becamepart of the 44 new metropolitan areasannounced under the new system,while others were added onto thefringe of existing metropolitan areas.Of the 46 counties that changed statusfrom metropolitan to non-metropolitan,only five did not becomepart of a MicroSA. The 41 previouslymetropolitan counties that becamemicropolitan did not necessarily shrinkin size, but generally failed to meetthe new more stringent commutingthreshold for inclusion in metropolitanareas.Metropolitan ShiftsDespite the fact that a majority of thenation’s counties have effectively thesame designations under the new system,the county composition of most ofthe nation’s largest metropolitan areaschanged in some way. In fact, 81 of the102 metropolitan areas with popula-The Living Cities Census Series

Table 3. County TransitionsPercent of Population Percent ofOld Classification New Classification Number Counties in 2000 PopulationMetropolitan Metropolitan 801 25.5 223,113,722 79.3Metropolitan Micropolitan 41 1.3 2,856,237 1.0Metropolitan Non-core-based 5 0.2 105,216 0.0Non-metropolitan Metropolitan 288 9.2 9,466,218 3.4Non-metropolitan Micropolitan 649 20.7 26,556,061 9.4Non-metropolitan Non-core-based 1357 43.2 19,324,452 6.9Source: Authors’ calculations of OMB and Census 2000 dataTable 4. Metropolitan Transitions, Metros with 500,000 orGreater Population, 2000Transition Type Number of Metros Percent of Top 102Geographical Changes:Added counties (net) 29 28.4Removed counties (net) 13 12.7Split into two or more metros 9 8.8Combined into one metro 23 22.5Changed in more than one way 7 6.9Stayed the same 21 20.6Total 102 100.0Population Changes:*Gained Population 56 54.9Lost Population 25 24.5Same Population 21 20.6Total 102 100.0*As measured by comparing total metro population in 2000 according to the old and newdefinitions.Source: Authors’ calculations of OMB datations of at least 500,000 under the oldsystem are defined somewhat differentlyunder the new system. As aresult, two-thirds (56) of the 81 metrosgained population, while the rest (25)lost population. Here, we provide illustrativeexamples of the several differentways in which metropolitan areas havebeen redefined by the new standards.Table 4 shows the extent of each ofthese types of changes among the 102metro areas when we compare the oldMSAs/PMSAs to the new MetroSAs.Adding Counties to MetroAreas—AtlantaTwenty-nine of the 102 largest metropolitanareas experienced a net additionof counties in the transition to thenew system. Most of these metro areasare located in the middle and southernregions of the country, where populationis growing and spreading outquickly. 16Atlanta offers the most dramaticexample of a metropolitan area withadditional counties in its definition.Metropolitan Atlanta is undergoingrapid population growth, mostly in itssuburbs, which grew by 44 percent inthe 1990s. The new definition ofmetro Atlanta reflects this sprawlingsuburban pattern and offers more thanone choice for delineating the area.Under the old standards, Atlanta was asingle MSA made up of 20 counties.The new system creates the 28-countyAtlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GAMetroSA (the original 20 countiesplus eight additional ones). It alsogives the option of using the 33-county Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville Combined StatisticalArea (CSA), which includes theGainesville MetroSA (one county),and four MicroSAs (one county each)(Figure 6).Removing Counties from MetroAreas—Knoxville, Las Vegas,and Washington, D.C.Most of the 13 metropolitan areas thatexperienced a net loss of counties arelocated in the eastern half of theUnited States. In the West, only LasVegas, NV lost counties from its metropolitandefinition.As noted earlier, the vast majorityof counties removed from metropolitanareas became part of micropolitanareas, so they do not necessarily representareas that are losing population.In almost all cases in whichmicropolitan areas are created on theoutskirts of metropolitan areas, Com-November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series 9

DurhamMetroSAFigure 8. Raleigh-Durham-Cary Combined Statistical AreaOrangeChathamPersonDurhamWakeJohnstonFranklinRaleigh-CaryMetroSADunn MicroSA Old MSA counties (6)HarnettNew Raleigh-Cary MetroSAcounties (3)New Durham MetroSAcounties (4)Other CSA ComponentsMicro counties (1)Source: OMBFigure 9. Dallas-Fort Worth Combined Statistical AreaGainesville MicroSACookeDallas-Fort Worth-Arlington MetroSASeparating a Metro Area intoTwo or More New Areas—Raleigh-DurhamOf the 102 largest MSAs/PMSAs, ninesplit into two or more metro areasunder the new system. These metroareas are scattered around the country.Similar to those metro areas that lostcounties, the cleaving of these metroareas reflects the stricter commutingthresholds under the new system, andperhaps an emerging economic independenceseparating formerly closeknitneighbors.Under the old standards, the areaof North Carolina known as the“research triangle”—the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC MSA–consistedof six counties. The newstandards split the triangle into twometropolitan areas: the Durham, NCMetroSA and the Raleigh-Cary MetroSA.Together, the two metro areasconsist of the same six counties plusone additional county in the Durhammetro area. The Raleigh-Durham-Cary, NC CSA combines these twoMetroSAs with the new one-countyDunn, NC MicroSA (Figure 8). LikeRaleigh-Durham, the new standardsalso split the former Vallejo-Fairfield-Napa, CA PMSA into two MetroSAs,and the Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland, MI MSA into three MetroSAsand one MicroSA.Minerall WellsMicroSAPalo PintoGranburyMicroSAParkerHoodWiseSomervellOld Dallas PMSA counties (8)Old Fort Worth-Arlington PMSA counties (4)New Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington MetroSA counties (12)Other CSA ComponentsMicro counties (5)Source: OMBTarrantJohnsonOld Dallas-Fort Worth CMSADentonDeltaCollinHuntRockwallDallasKaufmanAthens MicroSAEllisHendersonCombining Two or More MetroAreas into One Area—Dallas-Ft. Worth and New YorkTwenty-three MSAs and PMSAs underthe old system combined with neighboringareas to form new, larger MetroSAs.In Dallas-Fort Worth, the combinationproduced a region with severaldifferent layers. Under the old standards,Dallas-Fort Worth, TX was a12-county CMSA, divided into twoPMSAs: Dallas (with eight counties)and Fort Worth-Arlington (with fourcounties) (Figure 9). The new standardscreate the unified Dallas-FortWorth-Arlington, TX MetroSA, comprisedof 12 counties (two of whichNovember 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series 11

most cases, the result is a longername, sometimes incorporating placesnot well-known to outsiders. The NewOrleans, LA MSA, for example, is nowthe New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LAMetropolitan Statistical Area.A city’s inclusion in its metropolitanarea’s title may promote name recognitionand enhance its status. Scottsdale,Arizona, for example, gained prominenceby entering the title of thePhoenix-Mesa metropolitan area. WhileScottsdale did not meet the old populationthreshold, its rank as the thirdlargest principal city in the Phoenixarea thrust it into the new metropolitantitle. 25 Places like Naperville and Joliet,Illinois in the Chicago metro area, andCarlsbad and San Marcos, California inthe San Diego metro area, realized similarbenefits from the change in namingconvention.The order of city names in a metropolitanarea title is also significant,since sometimes the first-named city isthe only one used to refer to a metropolitanarea. In the case of the Norfolk-VirginiaBeach-Newport News,VA-NC MSA, the city of Norfolk hasbeen eclipsed by Virginia Beach,switching the order of the two in thenew MetroSA title. Without changingits geographical components, the Ventura,CA PMSA became the Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura MetroSA.And in Austin, Texas, Round Rockreplaced San Marcos as the secondnamedcity in the metropolitan areatitle, thanks to the more streamlinedrules for defining principal cities (versuscentral cities). 26Figure 12. Share of Core-Based Population in Central orPrincipal Cities, 200064.5%60.2%Old Metropolitan AreasNew Metropolitan AreasNew Micropolitan Areas35.5%39.8%33.2%Central CitiesSuburbsPrincipal CitiesSuburbsE. The new definitions alter thesocial and economic attributes ofmany metropolitan areas, as well astheir national rankings on theseattributes.The new standards provide one standardchoice for analyzing or rankingmetropolitan areas across the country,but several ways for local analysts todefine their area. In this section, wefirst compare the options available for66.8%Source: OMB and Census 2000Principal CitiesOutlying Areas14November 2004 • The Brookings InstitutionThe Living Cities Census Series

Table 5. Title Changes for Selected Metropolitan AreasFormer TitleAustin-San Marcos, TX MSABoulder-Longmont, CO PMSABryan-College Station, TX MSAChicago, IL PMSAFort Myers-Cape Coral, FL MSAHouston, TX PMSALas Vegas, NV-AZ MSALos Angeles-Long Beach, CA PMSAMinneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI MSANew Orleans, LA MSANew York, NY PMSANorfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA-NC MSAPhoenix-Mesa, AZ MSASan Diego, CA MSASan Francisco, CA PMSASan Jose, CA PMSAVentura, CA PMSAWashington, DC-MD-VA-WV PMSACurrent TitleAustin-Round Rock, TX MetroSABoulder, CO MetroSACollege Station-Bryan, TX MetroSA*Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI MetroSACape Coral-Fort Myers, FL MetroSA*Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land, TX MetroSALas Vegas-Paradise, NV MetroSALos Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA MetroSAMinneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI MetroSANew Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA MetroSANew York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA MetroSAVirginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC MetroSA*Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ MetroSASan Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA MetroSASan Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA MetroSASan Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA MetroSAOxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA MetroSA*Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MetroSA* Order of place names in the metropolitan area title changed.Source: OMBTable 6. Comparing “Old” and “New” New YorkPopulation Income Race/Ethnicity EducationHouseholds Householdswith Annual with Annual Asian- Less than BA orPopulation Income Income Pacific HS Higher(millions) Below $25K Above $75K White Hispanic Black Islander Education EducationOld DefinitionCMSA 21.1 25.5% 32.4% 56.2% 18.2% 16.1% 6.7% 20.7% 30.5%PMSA 9.3 32.7% 25.6% 39.6% 25.1% 22.7% 9.0% 26.0% 29.2%New DefinitionCSA 21.3 25.5% 32.3% 56.6% 18.1% 16.0% 6.7% 20.6% 30.4%MetroSA 18.3 26.2% 32.0% 53.4% 19.5% 17.0% 7.3% 21.3% 30.3%Division 11.3 31.0% 27.0% 42.4% 25.0% 20.3% 8.9% 25.2% 29.4%Source: Census 2000 and OMBNovember 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series 15

analysis in one large region, New York,and compare the region’s attributesunder the old and new systems. Wethen contrast demographic rankings ofmetropolitan areas using the MetroSAconcept to those provided by the oldMSAs and PMSAs.Local Choices and Changes—New YorkAs was the case under the old standards,the choice a user makes indefining a local area for study can significantlyaffect the results. For NewYork, there are now three ways todefine the metro area, rather than two(Finding C). Table 6 compares populationsizes and socio-economic attributesfor the former New York CMSAand PMSA with the new CSA, MetroSA,and Metropolitan Division containingNew York City. The formerCMSA and the current CSA are similarin size, while the former PMSA issimilar to the current metro division.Interestingly, the current MetroSA,the geography likely to be used mostoften, has no parallel in the old standards.Whereas the former PMSAcomprised only 44 percent of theCMSA’s population, the current MetroSAaccounts for 86 percent of theCSA. Even the smaller geographicalunit, the division, makes up more thanhalf of its CSA’s population.It is not surprising then, that thereare noticeable differences between theprofile of the “new” New York (MetroSA)and the “old” New York(PMSA). The MetroSA is wealthier,whiter, more educated, and has ahigher percentage of its population inmarried-couple households. These differencesreflect the new area’s reachinto the far suburbs of northern andcentral New Jersey, Long Island, andeven eastern Pennsylvania. By far, thegreatest disparity between the twometropolitan area definitions appearsin race and ethnicity attributes.The new MetroSA is majority non-Hispanic white (53 percent), while theold PMSA was only 40-percent white.National Changes—MetropolitanRankingsNew York presents one of the moreextreme examples of how the new classificationsystem may alter our understandingof who lives in particularmetropolitan areas. But significantchanges are also evident in other partsof the nation, where new metro areaswere created, expanded, or combined.The demographic consequences ofthe new system are apparent acrossthe nation’s largest metro areas, too.Table 7 presents rankings of old andnew metro areas (MSAs/PMSAs/NEC-MAs vs. MetroSAs) by population,income, and educational attributesusing Census 2000 data. One immediatelyapparent change is that New Yorkreplaces Los Angeles as the most populatedmetropolitan area in the country,with nearly 6 million more peoplethan its West Coast counterpart. Dallas,meanwhile, jumps from tenth tofifth, due to its combination with FortWorth. Although Detroit’s populationincreases slightly, its rank declinesfrom sixth to ninth. Miami makes itinto the top ten (from twenty-fourth),thanks to its new grouping with FortLauderdale and West Palm Beach,while Atlanta just misses the top ten,falling to eleventh in rank.The new system also alters rathersignificantly the list of wealthiestmetro areas, as measured by the shareof households with annual incomeabove $75,000. Formerly, half of thetop 12 metro areas were in the greaterNew York region, but since four ofthese are now incorporated into theNew York MetroSA, they leave roomfor other metro areas to move up thelist. Hartford and Anchorage, forinstance, now break into the top 15.Simultaneously, the combination offormer PMSAs into the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long IslandMetroSA moved New York up in thewealth rankings from fifty-one totwelve.On the share of adults with at leasta bachelor’s degree, many collegetowns are among the highest-rankedmetro areas under both the old andnew systems, but some ordering didchange. The Ann Arbor MetroSAretained only the one county from itsold PMSA that contains the Universityof Michigan, elevating it from nineteenthto second in the ranking. IowaCity, meanwhile, added anothercounty outside the University of Iowa,dropping it from second to eighth.Likewise, Bloomington, IN, and Madison,WI, each added two counties totheir metropolitan definitions, causingthem to fall out of the top 15. AndIthaca, NY, one of the 49 new metropolitanareas and home to CornellUniversity, now ranks third. Perhapsthe most notable change in the educationalrankings is the drop San Franciscotakes from fourth to fourteenth,due to its combination with Oakland.In summary, these examples demonstratethat the rules governing metropolitanarea definitions may greatlyinfluence our understanding of whichregions are biggest, richest, or brightest.Discussion and ImplicationsThe real-world implications ofthe new metropolitan classificationsdiscussed here haveyet to be realized, in large partbecause many individuals and organizationsare still relying on the old (andin some cases, even earlier) definitionsin research and practice. Brookings’own studies that use Census 2000data still employ the older definitionsthat were in effect at the time of thecensus. The slow pace at which thenew definitions are being put to usereflects in part OMB’s adoption ofnovel concepts like micropolitan statisticalareas, metropolitan divisions,and combined statistical areas. Revisionsduring the 1990s, by contrast,merely updated existing concepts withnew population data. In any case,whatever effects the new classificationshave, they are likely to occur16November 2004 • The Brookings InstitutionThe Living Cities Census Series

Table 7. Rankings of Old and New Metropolitan Areas, 2000OLD (MSAs/PMSAs/NECMAs)NEW (MetroSAs)Rank Name Total Population (thousands) Rank Name Total Population (thousands)1 Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA PMSA 9,519 1 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island,NY-NJ-PA 18,3232 New York, NY PMSA 9,314 2 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 12,3663 Chicago, IL PMSA 8,273 3 Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI 9,0984 Boston, MA-NH NECMA 6,058 4 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 5,6875 Philadelphia, PA-NJ PMSA 5,101 5 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 5,1626 Detroit, MI PMSA 4,442 6 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL 5,0087 Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV PMSA 4,923 7 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 4,7968 Houston, TX PMSA 4,178 8 Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land, TX 4,7159 Atlanta, GA MSA 4,112 9 Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI 4,45310 Dallas, TX PMSA 3,519 10 Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH 4,39111 Nassau-Suffolk, NY PMSA 2,754 11 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA 4,24812 Riverside-San Bernardino, CA PMSA 3,255 12 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 4,12413 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI MSA 2,969 13 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 3,25514 San Diego, CA MSA 2,814 14 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 3,25215 St. Louis, MO-IL MSA 2,604 15 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 3,044Rank Name Households with Income over $75K (%) Rank Name Households with Income over $75K (%)1 San Jose, CA PMSA 49.6 1 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 49.32 Nassau-Suffolk, NY PMSA 45.0 2 Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT 43.63 Middlesex-Somerset-Hunterdon, 43.6 3 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 40.7NJ PMSA4 San Francisco, CA PMSA 42.3 4 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 39.95 Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV PMSA 40.1 5 Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA 37.86 Bergen-Passaic, NJ PMSA 38.9 6 Trenton-Ewing, NJ 36.17 Oakland, CA PMSA 38.1 7 Boulder, CO 35.38 Ventura, CA PMSA 37.8 8 Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA 34.69 Orange County, CA PMSA 37.4 9 Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH 34.310 Newark, NJ PMSA 37.0 10 Ann Arbor, MI 32.811 Bridgeport, CT NECMA 36.2 11 Anchorage, AK 32.112 Trenton, NJ PMSA 36.1 12 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA 32.013 Boulder-Longmont, CO PMSA 35.3 13 Vallejo-Fairfield, CA 31.814 Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA PMSA 34.6 14 Napa, CA 31.815 Monmouth-Ocean, NJ PMSA 34.4 15 Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT 31.7Rank Name Bachelor’s Degree or Higher (%) Rank Name Bachelor’s Degree or Higher (%)1 Boulder-Longmont, CO PMSA 52.4 1 Boulder, CO 52.42 Iowa City, IA MSA 47.6 2 Ann Arbor, MI 48.13 Corvallis, OR MSA 47.4 3 Ithaca, NY 47.54 San Francisco, CA PMSA 43.6 4 Corvallis, OR 47.45 Lawrence, KS MSA 42.7 5 Ames, IA 44.56 Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV PMSA 41.8 6 Lawrence, KS 42.77 Columbia, MO MSA 41.7 7 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 42.58 Madison, WI MSA 40.6 8 Iowa City, IA 42.09 San Jose, CA PMSA 40.5 9 Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT 39.910 Charlottesville, VA MSA 40.1 10 Columbia, MO 39.911 Santa Fe, NM MSA 39.9 11 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 39.812 Bloomington, IN MSA 39.6 12 Fort Collins-Loveland, CO 39.513 Fort Collins-Loveland, CO MSA 39.5 13 Durham, NC 38.814 Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC MSA 38.9 14 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 38.815 Gainesville, FL MSA 38.7 15 Charlottesville, VA 38.3Source: Census 2000 and OMB

over time as users gradually adapt tothis new system.Moving to the new classificationscheme is, at its root, a statistical policychange—not a programmatic one.In fact, in its guidance announcing therevised definitions, OMB cautionsgovernment agencies against employingthe definitions to develop andimplement “nonstatistical programsand policies without full considerationof the effects of using these definitionsfor such purposes.” Yet as the new systemgains acceptance and wider use,policymakers, researchers, and eventhe man on the street may confront anew way of looking at the world—or atleast their particular corners of it.Below we discuss the effects thatthese new metropolitan standards willhave on federal policy, research, andthe public at large.Federal PolicyThe federal government’s use of themetropolitan area concept for purposesother than mere statisticalreporting is widespread. This shouldnot be surprising, since the distincteconomic character metro areas aredesigned to exhibit makes them goodapproximations for labor markets,commuter sheds, and air-qualityregions. The U.S. Code alone—thefederal government’s body of law—contains over 60 unique mentions ofthe phrase “metropolitan statisticalarea.”Policymakers really put the conceptto work, though, in the implementationof federal laws through regulation.Nearly every major federalagency—from those involved in agricultureto homeland security to education—overseesone or more programsthat make use of OMB-defined metropolitanareas. Federal agencies typicallyuse the metropolitan areaconcept as a basis for reporting information,to establish program eligibility,and/or to set program features; anexample of each is offered here. 271. As a basis for reporting information—HomeMortgageDisclosureUnder the regulations that implementthe Home Mortgage DisclosureAct (HMDA), federally-insureddepository institutions must collectinformation on applications forhome mortgage loans. In addition tocharacteristics of the applicant, theinstitution must collect informationabout the property to which theapplication relates, including itslocation by metropolitan area, state,county, and census tract. Institutionsmust compile and report thisinformation to the appropriatebanking regulators (e.g., the FederalReserve, the Comptroller of theCurrency, etc.) annually. Metropolitanareas typically represent themarketplaces within which banksand thrifts operate, and thus serveas important geographic frames forevaluating lending performanceunder other laws related to HMDA,such as fair lending laws and theCommunity Reinvestment Act. Asmetropolitan areas change and growin size, banks and thrifts musttherefore change their informationand reporting procedures to bringtheir data—and lending practices—into line with the new metropolitandefinitions.2. To establish program eligibilityor applicability—Locality PayProgramU.S. law requires federal pay ratesto be comparable with non-federalpay rates for the same level of workwithin the same local area, and forany existing pay disparities betweenfederal and non-federal employeesto be eliminated. “Locality payareas” are places where the FederalSalary Council (FSC) has determinedthat wage rates should beadjusted. There are a total of 32locality pay areas, 31 of which coincidegenerally with metropolitanarea definitions, and one thatencompasses the remainder of theUnited States. A review of therevised metropolitan standards bythe FSC in December 2003 recommendedthat locality pay areas usethe new metropolitan standards,and where available, the combinedstatistical area. Micropolitan areaswill not be used unless they are partof a combined metropolitan statisticalarea. As a result of boundarychanges to several metropolitanareas under the new standards, thenumber of federal employees subjectto locality pay adjustments maychange. Final regulations on implementingthe new locality pay areaswill be issued by OPM in January2005.3. To set program features—MedicarePerhaps no federal program attractsmore attention to OMB’s metropolitandefinitions than Medicare. Thisis largely because many of the paymentsmade to providers underMedicare rely on cost data specificto the geography in which aprovider is located. A hospital’s locationinside or outside a metropolitanarea is used as an eligibility criterionfor various special Medicaredesignations that can raise reimbursementrates. 28 The most notableexample of metro area usage withinMedicare policy derives from programreimbursement for hospitals’operating costs based on prospectivelyset rates specific to eachpatient diagnosis. In making paymentsto a particular hospital, theCenter for Medicare and MedicaidServices (CMS) adjusts each diagnosticrate by a wage index applicableto the area in which the hospitalis located, in order to account forgeographic differences in the laborcosts hospitals bear. CMS definesthese areas using OMB metropolitanareas (MSAs, PMSAs, andNECMAs), and uses survey data toupdate the index annually for all18November 2004 • The Brookings InstitutionThe Living Cities Census Series

metropolitan areas and statewidenon-metropolitan areas. Generally,the wage index is higher in urbanareas and lower in rural ones, sowhether a hospital is located in ametropolitan area receives a greatdeal of scrutiny. 29Recognizing the significantimpact that the new metropolitanstandards will have on the calculationof the wage index, CMS hasalready analyzed the changes toeach hospital’s wage index thatwould result from: (a) constructingseparate indexes for hospitalslocated in each MetroSA, metrodivision, MicroSA, and statewidenon-CBSA; and (b) leaving hospitalsin MicroSAs as part of a generalizedstatewide rural index. 30 The proposedrule opts for consideringMicroSAs and statewide non-CBSAs together, in large partbecause moving to MicroSA-specificindexes could result in large onetimechanges to many hospitals’payments, and because manyMicroSAs are home to only onehospital, thus limiting the averagingeffect of the index across providers.Whichever path CMS eventuallyadopts, OMB’s metropolitan standardswill continue to play a highprofilerole in shaping the details ofMedicare program operations.Among these three types of usages,federal policymakers employ metroareas most often in the same manneras the “locality pay program” example—toestablish whether, by virtue ofits location, an individual or communityis eligible for a particular program,or certain regulations apply toindividuals, businesses, or governments.Programs that use metro-areacharacteristics in formulas, as withMedicare, are rarer. 31 However, someagencies use the standards in morethan one of these ways. In fact, thelocality pay program uses metro areadefinitions to designate whether ametropolitan area is part of the programand then indexes pay levelsaccording to local wages.Nonetheless, the decision to changemetropolitan definitions can have farreachingconsequences for these typesof programs, and, as a result, someagencies are cautious about adoptingthe new standards. The Department ofHousing and Urban Development(HUD), for example, is responsible forannually publishing “Fair MarketRents” (FMRs) or payment standardsfor their major housing assistance program(commonly known as Section 8).When HUD announced the proposedFY2005 FMRs, which used the newmetropolitan standards, they receivedpublic comments from key interestgroups expressing concern that thenew definitions produced drasticchanges in FMRs in some communities.As a result, HUD decided not toswitch immediately to the new OMBmetropolitan definitions.The impacts that the new definitionswill have on federal programs arestill unclear overall, and will dependnot only on the particular characteristicsof the metropolitan areas undergoingchanges, but also on howlawmakers and rulemakers integratethe new concepts into existing systems.In this regard, OMB recentlyoffered more explicit guidance to federalagencies that use metropolitanareas for nonstatistical purposes. 32OMB urges agencies that had usedPMSAs to now consider using MetroDivisions, which it describes as the“comparable geographic units of classification.”In addition, it suggests thatin cases where old metro areas dividedinto more than one new metro area,the CSA may form a “more appropriategeographic unit for analytic andprogram purposes.” Whether agencieswill take these suggestions to heart, orwill opt for more straightforward usageof MetroSAs alone, may in the enddictate the pace at which the new definitionsare adopted, and the extent towhich programmatic changes result.November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series 19

ResearchAs OMB’s suggestions indicate, oneimplication of the new metropolitanclassification system is thatresearchers now have more choices.Under the old system, metropolitanresearchers typically analyzed MSAstogether with either CMSAs orPMSAs. The new system offersresearchers, at the local level, theopportunity to examine MetroSAs,metro divisions, CSAs, and MicroSAs.In addition, the growth of metropolitanAmerica has produced a greaternumber of MetroSAs than MSAs andPMSAs, and more metropolitan principalcities than central cities.A potentially expansive researchcommunity, including federal and stateagencies, nonprofit research organizations,and private-sector marketresearchers, will use the new metropolitanclassifications. The federal statisticalagencies themselves willinfluence the speed at which otherresearchers move towards the new system,and the choices that researchersmake within that system. Some agencieslike the Bureau of EconomicAnalysis have already begun to releasedata that conform to the new metropolitanand micropolitan definitions.Many, like the Bureau of Labor Statisticsand the National Center forHealth Statistics, have yet to make thetransition, in part because their mostrecent data releases pre-date the June2003 announcement of the new classificationsystem.The greater number of choices availableto researchers under the new systemmay carry both advantages anddisadvantages. On the one hand,researchers may now have access todata that conform more closely to theirgeographic areas of interest. On theother hand, as different metropolitanresearchers choose to focus on differentclassifications, it may become moredifficult to compare across their findings.Some, as OMB suggests, maychoose to work with metropolitan divisionsfor comparability with PMSAs. 33Others may work with MetroSAsalone, or in combination withMicroSAs. Rural experts may focusonly on non-CBSAs, or on non-CBSAstogether with MicroSAs. This flexibilitycan enrich the field of inquiry, but itwill become even more important forresearchers to state their methodologyclearly and explain why they have chosentheir particular geographic frame.As discussed above, it is advised thatnational rankings of metropolitan areasand micropolitan areas employ theMetroSAs and MicroSAs, rather thanCSAs or metropolitan divisions.Regardless of their views on theclassification system itself, researchersshould welcome the new metropolitandefinitions for their basis in up-to-datecensus data on population, urbanization,and commuting patterns. Thesenew areas likely exhibit a greaterdegree of economic and social cohesiontoday than do the old metropolitandefinitions, which were rootedprimarily in 1990 census data. Thenew methods for defining metropolitanareas and principal cities are alsosimpler than under the old system,and help resolve some of the odderoutcomes apparent in the 1999 definitions(like King George County, VAappearing in the Washington, DCmetro area).What changes might the new systemproduce in actual researchresults? In this survey, we offer a lookat how certain demographic and economicindicators at the metropolitanlevel differ when viewed through theold and new lenses. For the most part,the notable differences are limited to afew large metropolitan areas thatunderwent significant definitionalchanges, like New York, San Francisco,Dallas, and Raleigh-Durham. Inmany other areas like Atlanta, Portland,Wichita, and Washington, theaddition, subtraction, or “relegation”to micropolitan of smaller counties atthe metropolitan fringe does not domuch to influence the overall empiricalpicture.20November 2004 • The Brookings InstitutionThe Living Cities Census Series

Popular UsageThe new system may, at least over thelong run, exert as much influence onour popular understanding of metropolitanareas as on our researchunderstanding. Popular notions ofmetropolitan areas are shaped not onlyby what geographies they contain, butalso by name recognition. Both maycontribute to the economic and socialidentity of local residents, businesses,and governments.With respect to their geographicmakeup, it is not surprising that thenew metropolitan definitions are still“off the radar” in large swaths of metropolitanAmerica, given that the policyand research communities have yetto completely embrace the changes. Inpart, this is because institutions likeregional media and chambers of commercemediate between what the federalgovernment decides is ametropolitan area, and what averagecitizens consider to be their region.Newspaper “Metro” sections, forinstance, typically report on jurisdictionsin which they have a substantialsubscriber base. Thus, news in TheWashington Post covers roughly 14counties, rather than the 18 that makeup the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria,DC-MD-VA-WV Metro SA. TheMid-America Regional Council, themetropolitan planning organization forgreater Kansas City, is composed ofeight counties, while the new KansasCity, MO-KS Metropolitan StatisticalArea contains 15 counties.At the same time, several of themetro areas that underwent significantchanges might find more local receptivitythan their older versions. The oldNew York PMSA, consisting of the fivecity boroughs and three upstate NYcounties, bore little relation to theaverage citizen’s conception of themetro area. The revised New YorkMetro SA, which captures suburbanLong Island and much of northernNew Jersey, probably comes muchcloser. Similarly, the Los Angelesmetro area, which before includedonly Los Angeles County, now takes inOrange County as well, better reflectingthe economic ties between thesetwo jurisdictions.Names, however, seem to carry evenmore weight than geographic compositionin the public eye. The status ofsuburban places like Sandy Springs,GA (Atlanta), Sugar Land, TX (Houston),Edison, NJ (New York), andNaperville, IL (Chicago) was thusimmediately elevated when they eachfound a spot in their respective metroarea’s name. 34 While some of thoseplaces might earn greater acceptanceas a result—Sandy Springs is currentlyin a pitched battle to incorporate as acity—others caused confusion and dismay.Consultations with local officialsresulted in OMB changing the NewYork-Newark-Edison, NY-NJ-PA MetroSAto the New York-Northern NewJersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA MetroSAin December 2003. Public opinionsimultaneously dislodgedCheektowaga and Tonawanda, NY,both principal cities in the Buffalometro area, from that area’s name infavor of the fourth-largest principalcity, Niagara Falls, which is both atourist destination and source ofregional identity.Of course, the power of a name iseven more evident in micropolitanareas, and new metropolitan areas.Hundreds of smaller counties andtowns formerly part of “rural America”suddenly acquired their own identity,and increased attention fromresearchers and businesses. 35 Evencounties that formerly resided at thefringe of large metropolitan areas, likeAshtabula, OH (formerly in the Clevelandmetro area) and Nye, NV (formerlyin the Las Vegas metro area),may gain more stature from a micropolitanlabel than they lost in separatingfrom a metropolitan center.These examples of definitionalchanges demonstrate that federal statisticalpolicy can impact how we liveand work. In the end, both researchand policy have an important role toplay in bridging the gap between thestatistical versions of metropolitanareas and the popular notions of theregions in which metropolitan residentslive. To the extent that researchcan narrow this gap over time, metropolitan-levelresearch will providegreater insights for government andbusiness decisions. OMB’s new metropolitanclassification system thus presentsboth a unique challenge and afresh opportunity for metropolitanresearch to make a real-world impact.November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series 21

Appendix A. Definitions of Metropolitan ConceptsOld StandardsMetropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) contained cities or urbanized areas with at least 50,000 people. Counties wereincluded or excluded in the MSA based on employment, commuting, and population density criteria. There were 258MSAs in effect for Census 2000.Primary Metropolitan Statistical Areas (PMSAs) consisted of those counties or groups of counties within a largemetropolitan area (at least one million people) that contained at least 100,000 people and met criteria for separate designations.There were 73 PMSAs in effect for Census 2000.Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas (CMSAs) consisted of a metropolitan area with at least 1 million peoplein which two or more primary metropolitan areas (PMSAs) had been identified. There were 18 CMSAs in effect forCensus 2000.New England County Metropolitan Areas (NECMAs) were defined as county-based alternatives to the standard cityandtown-based metropolitan areas in the six New England states (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,Rhode Island, and Vermont). There were 12 NECMAs in effect for Census 2000.Central cities were defined for each MSA and CMSA. The largest incorporated place (or, in a few cases, Census designatedplace) in a metropolitan area was automatically designated a central city. Additional cities were included if theymet population and employment criteria. There were 554 central cities in effect for Census 2000.New StandardsCore-Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) contain a substantial population nucleus (the “core”) together with adjacentcommunities having a high degree of social and economic integration with that core. CBSAs are defined as metropolitanor micropolitan depending on the size of their core.Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MetroSAs) contain at least one urbanized area with at least 50,000 people (the“core”). Counties are included or excluded in the metro based on commuting criteria. There are 361 MetroSAs.Metropolitan statistical areas of 2.5 million or more may be divided into metropolitan divisions. Metropolitan divisionsconsist of one or more counties that represent an employment center plus adjacent counties with strong commutingties to the core. There are eleven MetroSAs with divisions, for a total of twenty-nine divisions.Micropolitan Statistical Areas (MicroSAs) contain at least one urban cluster with between 10,000 and 50,000 people(the “core”). Counties are included or excluded in the micropolitan area based on commuting criteria. There are 573micros.New England City and Town Areas (NECTAs) are defined as conceptually similar to the county-based metropolitanand micropolitan areas, but with cities and towns as the building blocks rather than counties. There are 21 metropolitanNECTAs and 22 micropolitan NECTAs.Metropolitan statistical areas and micropolitan statistical areas may be joined to form combined statistical areas(CSAs). CSAs consist of two or more adjacent CBSAs (metropolitan or micropolitan or a combination of both) thatmeet employment interchange criteria. There are 120 CSAs.Principal cities are defined for each CBSA. The largest city in a CBSA is automatically designated a principal city.Other cities may be designated if they meet certain criteria for population and employment. There are 1255 principalcities.22November 2004 • The Brookings InstitutionThe Living Cities Census Series

Appendix B. Comparing Old and New Standards*Old StandardsNew StandardsLevels/Categories and Metropolitan statistical areas based on total populations of at leastTerminology1,000,000 (level A), 250,000 to 999,999 (level B), 100,000 to 249,999(level C), and less than 100,000 (level D), respectively. Metropolitanstatistical areas of 1,000,000 or more population can be designated asconsolidated metropolitan statistical areas if local opinion is in favorand component primary metropolitan statistical areas can be identified.Building BlocksCounties and equivalent entities throughout the U.S. and Puerto Rico,except in New England, where cities and towns are used to define metropolitanareas. County based alternative provided for the New Englandstates.Qualification of Areas City of at least 50,000 population, or Census Bureau defined urbanizedarea of at least 50,000 population in a metropolitan area of at least100,000 population.Qualification of Central Any county that includes a central city or at least 50% of the populationof a central city that is located in a qualifier urbanized area. AlsoCountiesany county in which at least 50% of the population is located in a qualifierurbanized area.Qualification of Outlying Combination of commuting and measures of settlement structure:Counties50% or more of employed workers commute to the centralcounty/counties of a metropolitan statistical area and: 25 or more personsper square mile (ppsm), or at least 10% or 5,000 of the populationlives in a qualifier urbanized area; OR40% to 50% of employed workers commute to the central county/countiesof a metropolitan statistical area and: 35 or more ppsm, or at least10% or 5,000 of the population lives in a qualifier urbanized area; OR25% to 40% of employed workers commute to the central county/countiesof a metropolitan statistical area and: 35 ppsm and one of the following:(1) 50 or more ppsm, (2) at least 35% urban population, (3) atleast 10% or 5,000 of population lives in a qualifier urbanized area; OR15% to 25% of employed workers commute to the central county/countiesof a metropolitan statistical area and: 50 or more ppsm and two ofthe following: (1) 60 or more ppsm, (2) at least 35% urban population,(3) population growth rate of at least 20%, (4) at least 10% or 5,000 ofpopulation lives in a qualifier urbanized area; OR15% to 25% of employed workers commute to the central county/countiesof a metropolitan statistical area and less than 50 ppsm and two ofthe following: (1) at least 35% urban population, (2) population growthrate of at least 20%, (3) at least 10% or 5,000 of population lives in aqualifier urbanized area; ORat least 2,500 of the population lives in a central city located in a qualifierurbanized area of a metropolitan statistical area.If a county qualifies as outlying to two or more metropolitan areas, it isassigned to the area to which commuting is greatest; if the relevant commutingpercentages are within 5 points of each other, local opinion is considered.*Source: Michael R. Ratcliffe, U.S. Census BureauMetropolitan statistical areas based around at least one Census Bureaudefined urbanized area of 50,000 or more population, and micropolitanstatistical areas, based around at least one urban cluster of 10,000 to49,999 population. A metropolitan statistical area with a single core ofat least 2,500,000 population can be subdivided into component metropolitandivisions. Collectively, the metropolitan and micropolitan statisticalareas are termed Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs).Counties and equivalent entities throughout the U.S. and Puerto Rico.City and town based areas, conceptually similar to the county basedareas, provided for the New England states.Census Bureau defined urban area of at least 10,000 population andless than 50,000 population for micropolitan statistical area designation.Census Bureau defined urbanized area of at least 50,000 for metropolitanstatistical area designation.Any county in which at least 50% of the population is located in urbanareas of at least 10,000 population, or that has within its boundaries apopulation of at least 5,000 located in a single urban area of at least10,000 population.Commuting ties:At least 25% of the employed residents of the county work in the centralcounty/counties of a CBSA; or at least 25% of the employment inthe county is accounted for by workers residing in the centralcounty/counties of the CBSA.A county that qualifies as outlying to two or more CBSAs is included inthe area with which it has the strongest commuting tie.November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series 23

Appendix B. Comparing Old and New Standards (continued)Old StandardsNew StandardsMerging Statistical AreasCentral Cities/PrincipalCitiesPrimary Metropolitan StatisticalAreas/MetropolitanDivisionsIf a county qualifies as a central county of one metropolitan statisticalarea and as an outlying county on the basis of commuting to a centralcounty of another metropolitan statistical area, both counties becomecentral counties of a single metropolitan statistical area.Central cities include the largest city in a metropolitan statisticalarea/consolidated metropolitan statistical area AND each city of at least250,000 population or at least 100,000 workers AND each city of atleast 25,000 population and at least 75 jobs per 100 workers and lessthan 60% out commuting AND each city of at least 15,000 populationthat is at least 1/3 the size of largest central city and meets employmentratio and commuting percentage above AND the largest city of 15,000population or more that meets employment ratio and commuting percentageabove and is in a secondary noncontiguous urbanized areaAND each city in a secondary noncontiguous urbanized area that is atleast 1/3 the size of largest central city in that urbanized area and hasat least 15,000 population and meets employment ratio and commutingpercentage above.Primary metropolitan statistical areas outside New England consist ofone or more counties within metropolitan areas that have a total populationof 1 million or more. Specifically, these primary metropolitan statisticalareas consist of: (A) One or more counties designated as astandard metropolitan statistical area on January 1, 1980, unless localopinion does not support continued separate designation.(B) One or more counties for which local opinion strongly supportsseparate designation, provided one county has: (1) at least 100,000population; (2) at least 60 percent of its population urban; (3) less than35 percent of its resident workers working outside the county; and (4)less than 2,500 population of the largest central city in the metropolitanstatistical area.(C) A set of two or more contiguous counties for which local opinionstrongly supports separate designation, provided at least one countyalso could qualify as a primary metropolitan statistical area in section(B), and (1) each county meets requirements (B)(1), (B)(2), and (B)(4)and less than 50 percent of its resident workers work outside thecounty; (2) each county has a commuting interchange of at least 20percent with the other counties in the set; and (3) less than 35 percentof the resident workers of the set of counties work outside the area.Each county in the metropolitan area not included within a centralcore under sections (A) through (C), is assigned to the contiguous primarymetropolitan statistical area to whose central core commuting isgreatest, provided this commuting is: (1) at least 15 percent of thecounty’ s resident workers; (2) at least 5 percentage points higher thanthe commuting flow to any other primary metropolitan statistical areacentral core that exceeds 15 percent; and(3) larger than the flow to the county containing the metropolitanarea’s largest central city.Two adjacent CBSAs are merged to form one CBSA if the centralcounty/counties (as a group) of one CBSA qualify as outlying to thecentral county/counties (as a group) of the other.Principal cities include the largest incorporated place with a populationof 10,000 or more or, if no incorporated place of at least 10,000 is present,the largest incorporated place or census designated place in theCBSA AND each place of at least 250,000 population or in which atleast 100,000 persons work AND each place with a population of atleast 50,000, but less than 250,000 in which employment meets orexceeds the number of employed residents AND each place with a populationthat is at least 10,000 and 1/3 the size of the largest place, andin which employment meets or exceeds the number of employed residents.Metropolitan divisions consist of one or more counties within metropolitanstatistical areas that have a single core of 2.5 million or more population.A county is identified as a main county of a metropolitan division if 65percent or more of its employed residents work within the county andthe ratio of its employment to its number of employed residents is atleast .75.A county is identified as a secondary county of a metropolitan divisionif 50 percent or more, but less than 65 percent, of its employed residentswork within the county and the ratio of its employment to itsnumber of employed residents is at least .75 .A main county automatically serves as the basis for a metropolitan division.For a secondary county to qualify as the basis for forming a metropolitandivision, it must join with either a contiguous secondary countyor a contiguous main county with which it has the highest employmentinterchange measure of 15 or more.After all main counties and sceondary counties have been identifiedand grouped (if appropriate), each additional county that already hasqualified for the metropolitan statistical area is included in the metro-24November 2004 • The Brookings InstitutionThe Living Cities Census Series

Appendix B. Comparing Old and New Standards (continued)Old StandardsNew StandardsPrimary Metropolitan StatisticalAreas/MetropolitanDivisionsCombining StatisticalAreasTitlesIf a county has qualifying commuting ties to two or more primary metropolitanstatistical area central cores and the relevant values arewithin 5 percentage points of each other, local opinion is considered.Two adjacent metropolitan statistical areas are combined as a singlemetropolitan statistical area if: (A) the total population of the combinationis at least one million and (1) the commuting interchange betweenthe two metropolitan statistical areas is equal to at least 15% of theemployed workers residing in the smaller metropolitan statistical area,or equal to at least 10% of the employed workers residing in the smallermetropolitan statistical area and the urbanized area of a central city ofone metropolitan statistical area is contiguous with the urbanized areaof a central city of the other metropolitan statistical area or a centralcity in one metropolitan statistical area is included in the same urbanizedarea as a central city in the other metropolitan statistical area;AND (2) at least 60% of the population of each metropolitan statisticalarea is urban. (B) the total population of the combination is less thanone million and (1) their largest central cities are within 25 miles ofone another, or the urbanized areas are contiguous; AND (2) there isdefinite evidence that the two areas are closely integrated economicallyand socially; AND (3) local opinion in both areas supports combination.Titles of metropolitan statistical areas include the names of up to threecentral cities in order of descending population size. Local opinion isconsidered under specified conditions.Titles of primary metropolitan statistical areas include the names of upto three cities in the primary metropolitan statistical area that havequalified as central cities. If there are no central cities, the title willinclude the names of up to three counties in the primary metropolitanstatistical area in order of descending population size.Titles of consolidated metropolitan statistical areas include the namesof up to three central cities or counties in the consolidated metropolitanstatistical area. The first name will be the largest central city in theconsolidated metropolitan statistical area; the remaining two nameswill be the first city or county name that appears in the title of theremaining primary metropolitan statistical area with the largest totalpopulation and the first city or county name that appears in the title ofthe primary metropolitan statistical area with the next largest total population.Regional designations can be substituted for the second andthird names if there is strong local support.politan division associated with the main/secondary county to which thecounty at issue has the highest employment interchange measure.Counties within a metropolitan division must be contiguous.Two adjacent CBSAs are combined if the employment interchange ratebetween the two areas is at least 25. The employment interchange rateis the sum of the percentage of employed residents of the CBSA withthe smaller total population who work in the CBSA with the larger totalpopulation and the percentage of employment in the CBSA with thesmaller total population that is accounted for by workers residing in theCBSA with the larger total population. Adjacent CBSAs that have anemployment interchange rate of at least 15 and less than 25 may combineif local opinion in both areas favors combination. The combiningCBSAs also retain separate recognition.Titles of CBSAs include the names of up to three principal cities inorder of descending population size.Titles of metropolitan divisions include the names of up to three principalcities in the metropolitan division in order of descending populationsize. If there are no principal cities, the title includes the names of upto three counties in the metropolitan division in order of descendingpopulation size.Titles of combined statistical areas include the name of the largest principalcity in the largest CBSA that combines, followed by the names ofup to two additional principal cities in the combination in order ofdescending population size, or a suitable regional name, provided thatcombined statistical area title does not duplicate the title of a componentmetropolitan or micropolitan statistical area or metropolitan division.Local opinion will be considered when determining the titles ofcombined statistical areas.November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series 25

Appendix C. Metropolitan Statistical Areas with Populations of 500,000 orGreater, New Standards, 2000Rank Metropolitan Statistical Area Population in 20001 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA 18,323,0022 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 12,365,6273 Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI 9,098,3164 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 5,687,1475 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 5,161,5446 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL 5,007,5647 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 4,796,1838 Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land, TX 4,715,4079 Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI 4,452,55710 Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH 4,391,34411 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA 4,247,98112 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 4,123,74013 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 3,254,82114 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 3,251,87615 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 3,043,87816 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 2,968,80617 San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA 2,813,83318 St. Louis, MO-IL 2,698,68719 Baltimore-Towson, MD 2,552,99420 Pittsburgh, PA 2,431,08721 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 2,395,99722 Denver-Aurora, CO 2,157,75623 Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH 2,148,14324 Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN 2,009,63225 Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA 1,927,88126 Kansas City, MO-KS 1,836,03827 Sacramento—Arden-Arcade—Roseville, CA 1,796,85728 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 1,735,81929 San Antonio, TX 1,711,70330 Orlando, FL 1,644,56131 Columbus, OH 1,612,69432 Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA 1,582,99733 Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 1,576,37034 Indianapolis, IN 1,525,10435 Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 1,500,74136 Las Vegas-Paradise, NV 1,375,76537 Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC 1,330,44838 New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA 1,316,51039 Nashville-Davidson—Murfreesboro, TN 1,311,78940 Austin-Round Rock, TX 1,249,76341 Memphis, TN-MS-AR 1,205,20442 Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 1,170,11143 Louisville, KY-IN 1,161,97544 Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT 1,148,61845 Jacksonville, FL 1,122,75046 Richmond, VA 1,096,95747 Oklahoma City, OK 1,095,42148 Birmingham-Hoover, AL 1,052,23826November 2004 • The Brookings InstitutionThe Living Cities Census Series

Appendix C. Metropolitan Statistical Areas with Populations of 500,000 orGreater, New Standards, 2000 (continued)Rank Metropolitan Statistical Area Population in 200049 Rochester, NY 1,037,83150 Salt Lake City, UT 968,85851 Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT 882,56752 Honolulu, HI 876,15653 Tulsa, OK 859,53254 Dayton, OH 848,15355 Tucson, AZ 843,74656 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY 825,87557 New Haven-Milford, CT 824,00858 Fresno, CA 799,40759 Raleigh-Cary, NC 797,07160 Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA 767,04161 Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA 753,19762 Worcester, MA 750,96363 Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI 740,48264 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ 740,39565 Albuquerque, NM 729,64966 Baton Rouge, LA 705,97367 Akron, OH 694,96068 Springfield, MA 680,01469 El Paso, TX 679,62270 Bakersfield, CA 661,64571 Toledo, OH 659,18872 Syracuse, NY 650,15473 Columbia, SC 647,15874 Greensboro-High Point, NC 643,43075 Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY 621,51776 Knoxville, TN 616,07977 Little Rock-North Little Rock, AR 610,51878 Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA 602,96479 Sarasota-Bradenton-Venice, FL 589,95980 Wichita, KS 571,16681 McAllen-Edinburg-Pharr, TX 569,46382 Stockton, CA 563,59883 Scranton—Wilkes-Barre, PA 560,62584 Greenville, SC 559,94085 Charleston-North Charleston, SC 549,03386 Colorado Springs, CO 537,48487 Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA 509,07488 Madison, WI 501,774November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series 27

Endnotes1. In 1947, the Bureau of the Budget (predecessorof the current Office of Managementand Budget), in coordination withthe Census Bureau, the Bureau of LaborStatistics and other agencies coordinatedefforts to define the initial Standard MetropolitanAreas (SMAs). They were formedon the basis of a large population nucleustogether with adjacent components (counties,or in New England, towns). Prior tothis time, metropolitan-like entities weredefined variously by different agencies withnames such as “metropolitan districts,”“industrial areas,” “labor market areas,”and “metropolitan counties” (Fitzsimmonsand Ratcliffe, 2004).2. Subsequent to the identification of StandardMetropolitan Areas (SMAs) in 1949,different terms and slight changes in definitionswere incorporated to establish thebasic areas as Standard Metropolitan StatisticalAreas (SMSAs) in 1958, and MetropolitanStatistical Areas (MSAs) in 1983(Frey and Speare, 1995). Concepts associatedwith larger metropolitan regions(groupings of metropolitan areas) identifiedfor use in previous censuses included: theStandard Consolidated Area, used in the1960 Census; the Standard ConsolidatedStatistical Area (SCSA), identified in 1975for use in the 1980 Census; and the ConsolidatedMetropolitan Statistical Area(CMSA) in 1983 (see Frey and Speare,1995).3. Fitzsimmons and Ratcliffe, 2004.4. This survey does not attempt to review allof the substantive and technical decisionsmade during this extensive effort (seeOffice of Management and Budget, 2000a;Fitzimmons and Ratcliffe, 2004; and U.S.General Accounting Office, 2004).5. Note that we are comparing metro areaswhere old metropolitan standards wereused to define areas with pre-2000 populationand commuting data; to the new standardswhich were used to define areas with2000 Census commuting data and 2000Census and 2002 population estimatedata. Thus, some changes to metro areasresult solely from changes to OMB’s classificationsystem; others reflect populationand economic dynamics taking place overthe course of the 1990s.6. Metropolitan areas have also been definedfor the territory of Puerto Rico, but theywill be omitted from our comparisons.7. The US Census Bureau defines as urbanany densely settled area that has a populationof at least 2,500. All territory notincluded in an urbanized area of 50,000 ormore people or an urban cluster of 2,500to 49,999 people (the two types of urbanareas) is considered rural.8. See, for example, Brown and Swanson,2004.9. See, for example, Frey and Berube, 2002.10. Johnson, 1999.11. “Measuring Rurality: Rural-Urban ContinuumCodes.” USDA Economic ResearchService, www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/rurality/RuralUrbCon/(accessed August 2004).12. While the existence of an urbanized areaover 50,000 is required for each MetroSA,the central counties are defined in terms ofmore expansive urban populations, includingboth urbanized areas and smaller urbanclusters. Central cities are no longer partof the new definitions.13. The previous criteria for adding outlyingcounties included both density and commutingrequirements. The new criteriahave dropped the density requirements butmade the commuting requirements morestringent. (See Appendix B for details.) Aconsequence of the more stringent commutingrequirements was the eliminationof outlying counties that would have qualifiedunder the old system; however, insome cases new counties with low populationdensities now qualify as outlying countiesunder the new standards where theywould have been omitted under the previousones.14. The new system does not define a PMSAcounterpart for large areas with populationsexceeding one million (as was thecase for CMSAs in the old system). However,for 11 MetroSAs, with populationsexceeding 2.5 million, the new system creates“metropolitan divisions,” which insome cases approximate the formerPMSAs. These are discussed later in thetext.15. Frey, 2004a.16. Springfield, MA and Providence, RI werethe only New England metros to experiencea net addition of counties.17. For instance, the county seat of fully ruralKing George County, VA, is a full 70 milesfrom the District of Columbia. In 2000,only 3 percent of the county’s workerscommuted to D.C.28November 2004 • The Brookings InstitutionThe Living Cities Census Series

18. Of the 22 metro areas under the old systemthat have combined in the new system,fully seven are located in the New Yorkregion.19. This change has brought recognition tolarge suburban economic centers and hasbrought places into titles that never wouldhave been able to qualify in the past (forinstance, Paradise, NV; Sandy Springs, GA;and Towson, MD).20. Additional principal cities within a metropolitanarea include any with more than250,000 people or 100,000 workers. Placeswith more than 50,000 can also be principalcities if the number of jobs locatedthere meets or exceeds the number ofemployed residents. Finally, principal citiesalso include places with more than 10,000people that are at least one-third the size ofthe largest place in the metro area, andthat have at least as many jobs as employedresidents.21. See, e.g., William H. Frey, “Melting PotSuburbs: A Census 2000 Study of SuburbanDiversity” (Washington: BrookingsInstitution, 2001); Alan Berube andWilliam H. Frey, “A Decade of MixedBlessings: Urban and Suburban Poverty inCensus 2000” (Washington: BrookingsInstitution, 2002); Audrey Singer, “TheRise of New Immigrant Gateways” (Washington:Brookings Institution, 2004).22. See Frey 2004b for a critique of employingthis practice to designate the suburbanpopulation.23. At the same time, many Brookings analyseshave employed a modified set of centralcities in the largest metropolitan areas, recognizingonly cities that appear within themetropolitan area name—and in somecases, only those that exceed certain populationthresholds. See, e.g., William H.Frey and Alan Berube, “City Families, SuburbanSingles: An Emerging HouseholdStory from Census 2000” (Washington:Brookings Institution, 2002); Roberto Suroand Audrey Singer, “Latino Growth in MetropolitanAmerica: Changing Patterns,New Locations” (Washington: BrookingsInstitution, 2002). This approach discountedsmall employment centers in largeregions, such as Frederick, MD (Washington–BaltimoreCMSA) and Port Huron,MI (Detroit CMSA); future Brookingsanalyses may employ a similar approachwith principal cities.24. There are some exceptions to this rule,where local opinion favored a differentname. See Discussion.25. According to the old standards, metropolitanarea names included the largest centralcity and each additional city with at least250,000 persons. Under the new standards,the names of the second and thirdlargest principal cities are included in metropolitanarea titles.26. Under the old standards, Austin and SanMarcos were the two central cities in theAustin, TX MSA. Round Rock was not acentral city because it did not have anemployment/residence ratio of at least 0.75and at least 40 percent of its employed residentsworking within the city. Under thenew standards, Round Rock qualifies as aprincipal city because its population is over50,000 and its employment/residence ratiois at least 1.0. Because San Marcos’ populationis less than 50,000, and it does nothave both an employment/residence ratioof at least 1.0 and a population of at leastone-third that of Austin’s, it did not qualifyas a principal city and was thus droppedfrom the metropolitan area title.27. State laws and regulations make use ofOMB-defined metropolitan areas as well,but we focus on federal policy here to keepthe scope reasonable, and to comment onpolicies potentially applicable to all metroareas.28. Many of these special designations affordrural hospitals additional reimbursement.29. In fact, CMS oversees a Medicare GeographicClassification Review Board toconsider special circumstances underwhich hospitals designated as “rural” canpetition to receive an “urban” designation,and vice versa.30. Federal Register 69 (96) (May 18, 2004):28249–28252.31. This is somewhat at odds with the notionthat as metro areas grow larger, theybecome eligible for more federal funds.See, e.g, Chris Poynter, “Louisville makesgains on federal map; Area’s growth opendoors for more funding, businesses.”Louisville Courier-Journal, June 10, 2003,p. 1A.32. Office of Management and Budget,“Update of Statistical Area Definitions andAdditional Guidance on Their Uses.” OMBBulletin No. 04-03 (February 18, 2004).33. One private-sector firm, ACCRA, hasalready adopted Metropolitan Divisions toanalyze cost-of-living differences amongU.S. metropolitan areas. ACCRA andFargo Cass County Economic DevelopmentCorporation, 2004. “ACCRA Cost ofLiving Index.”34. Haya El Nasser, “Metro area’s suburbsmake name for themselves.” USA Today,July 22, 2003, p. A3.35. Laurent Belsie, “Small rural towns get newname—and new attention.” Christian ScienceMonitor, June 20, 3003, p. 2.November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series 29

ReferencesBrown, David L. and Louis E. Swanson,eds., 2004. Challenges for RuralAmerica in the Twenty-First Century.University Park: Pennsylvania StateUniversity Press.Fitzsimmons, James D. and MichaelR. Ratcliffe, 2004. “Reflections on theReview of Metropolitan Area Standardsin the United States, 1990-2000” in Tony Champion and GraemeHugo, eds., New Forms of Urbanization:Beyond the Urban-RuralDichotomy. Burlington, Vermont: AshgatePublishing.Frey, William H. 2003. “Metro Magnetsfor International and DomesticMigrants.” Washington: BrookingsInstitution.——. 2004a. “Micropolitan America:Small is Interesting.” Charticle,Milken Institute Review, SecondQuarter, April.——. 2004b. “The Fading of City-Suburband Metro-Nonmetro Distinctionsin the United States.” in Tony Championand Graeme Hugo, eds., NewForms of Urbanization: Beyond theUrban-Rural Dichotomy. Burlington,Vermont: Ashgate Publishing.Frey, William H. and Alan Berube,2002. “City Families and SuburbanSingles: An Emerging HouseholdStory” in Bruce Katz and Robert E.Lang, eds., Redefining Urban and SuburbanAmerica: Evidence from Census2000, Volume 1. Washington: Brookings.Frey, William H. and Alden Speare,1995. “Metropolitan Areas as FunctionalCommunities” in Donald C.Dahmann and James D. Fitzsimmons,eds., Metropolitan And NonmetropoolitanAreas: New Approaches To GeographicDefinition. Working Paper No.12. Washington DC: US CensusBureau.Johnson, Kenneth M., 1999. “TheRural Rebound.” PRB Reports onAmerica. Washington, DC: PopulationReference Bureau.Lang, Robert E. and Dawn Dhavale.2004. “Micropolitan America: A BrandNew Geography.” Census Note 05:01.Metropolitan Institute at VirginiaTech.Savageau, David. 2000. Places RatedAlmanac. Foster City, California: IDBBooks Worldwide.Office of Management and Budget,1998. “Alternative Approaches toDefining Metropolitan and NonmetropolitanAreas.” Federal Register. Vol.63, No. 244, December 21.Office of Management and Budget,1999. Bulletin 99–04. June 30.Office of Management and Budget,2000. “Standards for Defining Metropolitanand Micropolitan StatisticalAreas.” Federal Register. Vol. 65, No.249, December 27.Office of Management and Budget,2003. Bulletin No. 03–04. June 6.Office of Management and Budget,2004. Bulletin 04–03. Feb. 18.U.S. General Accounting Office,2004. Metropolitan Statistical Areas:New Standards and Their Impact onSelected Federal Programs. June,2004. Report GAO-04-758. Availableat http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04758.pdf.30November 2004 • The Brookings InstitutionThe Living Cities Census Series

AcknowledgmentsThe authors express their gratitude to Michael Ratcliffe, Elizabeth Grieco,and Amy Liu for their comments on earlier drafts of the paper and to CathySun for her technical assistance.For More Information:William H. FreyVisiting FellowThe Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program(202) 797-6292Frey’s co-authors, also with the Metropolitan Policy Program, are ResearchAnalyst Jill H. Wilson, Fellow Alan Berube, and Immigration FellowAudrey Singer.For General Information:The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program(202) 797-6139www.brookings.edu/metroNovember 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series 31

About the Living Cities Census SeriesCensus 2000 provides a unique opportunity to define the shape of urban and metropolitanpolicy for the coming decade. With support from Living Cities: The National CommunityDevelopment Initiative, the Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Programhas launched the Living Cities Census Series, a major three-year effort to illustrate howurban and suburban America has changed in the last two decades. As a part of this effort,Brookings is conducting comparative analyses of the major social, economic, and demographictrends for U.S. metropolitan areas, as well as a special effort to provide censusinformation and analysis in a manner that is tailored to the cities involved in the LivingCities initiative.Living Cities: The National Community Development Initiative is a partnership ofleading foundations, financial institutions, nonprofit organizations, and the federal governmentthat is committed to improving the vitality of cities and urban communities.Living Cities funds the work of community development corporations in 23 cities anduses the lessons of that work to engage in national research and policy development.Visit Living Cities on the web at www.livingcities.org55 West 125th Street • 11th Floor • New York, NY 10027Tel: 646-442-2200 • Fax: 646-442-2239www.livingcities.orgThe Brookings Institution1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW • Washington D.C. 20036-2188Tel: 202-797-6000 • Fax: 202-797-6004www.brookings.eduDirect: 202-797-6139 • Fax/direct: 202-797-2965www.brookings.edu/metro