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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1 and 2: Metropolitan Policy ProgramTracking
Page 5 and 6: the MSA/CMSA combined list (276area
Page 7 and 8: Table 1. Geographic and Demographic
Page 9: Table 3. County TransitionsPercent
Page 14 and 15: most cases, the result is a longern
Page 16 and 17: analysis in one large region, New Y
Page 18 and 19: over time as users gradually adapt
Page 20 and 21: ResearchAs OMB’s suggestions indi
Page 22 and 23: Appendix A. Definitions of Metropol
Page 24 and 25: Appendix B. Comparing Old and New S
Page 26 and 27: Appendix C. Metropolitan Statistica
Page 30 and 31: ReferencesBrown, David L. and Louis
Page 32: About the Living Cities Census Seri

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?