• American Community Survey
• Census Transportation Planning Products (CTPP)
  • Data Products
  • Training
  • Articles
  • CTPP Status Report
  • FAQ
  • Contacts
  • Related Links
  • Archives
• Environmental Justice
• Longitudinal Employment and Household Dynamics (LEHD)
• Census Urbanized Areas and MPO/TMA Designation
• Standard Decennial Census Products
• Archives

Chapter 2. METRO AREA TRENDS

This chapter summarizes the changes in demographic characteristics of population,households, workers in the large metropolitan areas of the U.S., or those with one million or more people. Exhibit 2.1 is a profile of the various commute characteristics comparing the nation, the 49 metropolitan areas of 1 million or more in population, and the rest of the country.

We used the 1993 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) definition (updated on June 30,1999) to select the counties to include in metropolitan areas. In 1980, only 34 areas had 1 million or more residents, in 1990, 39 areas met the definition, in 2000,49 metropolitan areas included one million or more in population. Allocating the counties in these 49 areas to the 1993 definition over the 1980 - 2000 time period ensures that we are comparing the same geographies across time, but this difference should be kept in mind since the numbers presented here for 1980 and even 1990 may differ from previously published data. Appendix A lists the county lists for each MSA.

Since one of the major forces of commute characteristics in the last forty years has been suburbanization of the MSA landscape, we separated the central counties from suburban counties for trend analysis. In the June 1999 definition, many MSAs had more than one central county. In order to keep the series of reports on Journey-to-Work Trends consistent, we decided to hold the central county definitions to the one county defined as 'central' in 1990 for 39 MSAs. In the remaining 10 MSAs, one county was chosen as the central county based on location of the "primary" downtown.

This report can only examine the characteristics of workers and flows at the county level.The use of full counties has great limitations. For instance, the designation of a county as "suburban" simply identifies counties within the MSA that surround the central county.The term "suburban" does not connote any specific land-use or development pattern. In fact, some suburban counties may have higher population density than the central county in the MSA. Also, because several MSAs included two or more stand-alone cities located in different counties (e.g. Washington, DC MSA includes Baltimore, MD), the suburban counties sometimes include these stand-alone cities. In addition, counties are large, and can include urbanized and rural areas. Further analysis at small geography is required to fully understand development and commuting patterns for each of the metro areas.

Discussions about journey-to-work characteristics and vehicle availability for the large metro areas are in Chapters 3 through 5. Since no single story emerges to tell the tale of how commute patterns have changed in U.S. metropolitan areas, Chapter 6 presents examples of worker flow data in general for all MSAs and in more detail for five selected areas.

Exhibit 2-1 Journey to Work Profile: Summary Statistics (2000)

Population Characteristics

Nearly 60 percent of all the people in the U.S. reside in one of the large metro areas, and nearly one-third of the population lives in the 10 largest areas. The major metro areas also account for

• 53.6 percent of population over the age of 65
• 56.7 percent of traditional families (married couples with children) - but the number of these families is just 14 million nationwide
• 57.5 percent of all occupied housing units (or households)
• 53.3 percent of households with income in 1999 below poverty level

Major metropolitan areas as a group grew in both population and land area in the nineties--ten areas now have over 5 million people. New York MSA is home to 20 million people or 7.5 percent of the nation's total. Dallas-Ft. Worth grew by 29 percent in the decade adding 1.2 million people (see Exhibit 2.2). Many other metro areas that experienced rapid growth (25 percent or more in the decade) were in the South and the West.

International immigration was a more significant factor in the growth of cities than migration from rural or other metropolitan areas. The South was the only region with significant population gain as a result of internal migration. Unlike population growth by childbearing, many immigrants are of working age and add directly to the pool of workers where they settle.

Exhibit 2.2 Largest Metropolitan Areas in 2000

Three of the fastest growing large MSAs added over a million people-Dallas-Ft. Worth,Atlanta, and Phoenix. Las Vegas was the fastest growing MSA for the fourth decade in a row (see Exhibits 2.3 and 2.4).

Exhibit 2.3 Population Change for the Ten Fastest Growing Metropolitan Areas:1990-2000

Exhibit 2.4 Five Metropolitan Areas with Largest Number of People Added:1990 - 2000

Seven of the ten metropolitan areas (CMSAs and MSAs) with the largest numerical gain in population were in the South and the West. New York, Chicago, and Washington,D.C. are the three metro areas not in this category. Two of the largest 49 MSAs lost in population: Pittsburgh, and Buffalo.

With the overall population growth in the U.S. since 1950, all major metro areas increased in population, but eight areas lost population in the central county during the last fifty years. St. Louis lost half of the residents in the central county, Washington,D.C. and Philadelphia lost nearly 30 percent (See Exhibit 2.5).

Exhibit 2.5 Change in Central and Suburban Population: 1950-2000

Most of the population growth in the major metropolitan areas has occurred in the suburban count ies. For example, Denver's suburban population increased steadily from 1950 through 1990 with corresponding declines in the central county share. In 1950, the suburban counties' share was about 40 percent, and in 1990 the share in suburban counties had increased to 75 percent. Only in the last decade, from 1990-2000, was there a significant increase in the central county population.

New Orleans had a similar half-century of ups and downs for central county population,but shows continuing declines in central population in the 90s (see Exhibits 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7).

Exhibit 2.8 shows some of the demographic characteristics of the 49 major MSAs,including household size, vehicles per household, workers per household, and urban and rural share of population. Since the MSA definitions include full counties (which can be expansive), some of the major MSAs include significant rural populations. The urban and rural population estimates are based on the Census Bureau's 2000 definitions: urban includes urbanized areas and urban clusters, rural area is the remainder in the MSA.

While average household size does not vary much between metro areas, vehicles per household and workers per household are more variable. For example, the Salt Lake City metro has the largest average household size and a high average in the number of workers and vehicles available. New York also is clearly different, with the lowest average number of vehicles per household in spite of similar household size and workers per household to the other areas. Metros in Florida (West Palm Beach, Miami, and Tampa) had fewer vehicles available and fewer workers per households, reflecting older retired populations.

Exhibit 2.6 Percent Share of Population in Central and Suburban Counties:1960-2000

Notes: Data for New York, Providence, Boston, and Hartford prior to 1990 are tabulated for NECMAs. The NECMA population is omparable to MSA populations for NY, Boston, and Hartford. However, population for Providence NECMA for 1990 was 24% less than MSA population.Common geographies (based on June 1999 definition) were maintained for all MSAs

Exhibit 2.7 Percent Change in population - MSA, Central, and Suburban Counties:1970-2000

Exhibit 2.8 Demographic Ratios and Percent Urban/Rural Population: 2000

Exhibit 2.9 Median Age and Income: 1990-2000

Note: Median Income for 1989 was calculated using disaggregate data on income from 1990 SF 3 data. The "Pareto interpolation" method was used.

Exhibit 2.9 shows median age and income for 1990 and 2000. The areas with aging populations (ten areas' populations aged by three years or more in the decade) included northern cities of Cleveland, Washington, D.C., Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Rochester, and Hartford, CT, but also Jacksonville and Orlando. Norfolk had the largest shift, adding nearly four years to the median age of its population. Salt Lake City, plus four metros in Texas (Austin, Houston, Dallas, and Austin) are metros with younger populations,indicating both households with more children and economies that attract younger workers.

The top ten areas for median household income are San Francisco, Washington, D.C.,Minneapolis, Boston, Hartford, Atlanta, Denver, Chicago, New York and Seattle. While many of the older northeastern cities have remained on the highest income list since the 80s, many new areas have been added in the 1990s, such as Atlanta and Denver and Seattle. Ten areas added over fifteen thousand dollars to their areas' median incomes;San Francisco and Austin adding over $20,000, shown in Exhibit 2.10.

Exhibit 2.10 Areas with Greatest Change in Median Income: 1990 - 2000