Tracking metropolitan America into the 21st century

November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series 1

“An overhaul of

the widely-recog-

nized metropoli-

tan classification

system by the fed-

eral government

will refashion the

way research is

conducted and

federal dollars

are spent.”

M e t r o p o l i t a n P o l i c y P r o g r a m

FindingsAn 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 per-cent of 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 metropol-itan population 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, Sec-tion 8 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.

Tracking Metropolitan Americainto the 21st Century:A Field Guide to the New Metropolitan and Micropolitan DefinitionsWilliam H. Frey, Jill H. Wilson, Alan Berube, and Audrey Singer

Introduction

The term “metropolitan area” isone of the few statisticalterms that is also familiar incommon conversation. A met-

ropolitan area is not a political juris-diction with a mayor or policedepartment, but rather an economi-cally and socially linked collection oflarge and small communities. Residingin a metropolitan area provides identi-fication with a well understoodbroader community, often elicitingcivic pride promoted by local cham-bers of commerce and economicdevelopment commissions. Regionalnewspapers, sports teams and culturalinstitutions all serve to reify the exis-tence of the metropolitan area. More-over, the metropolitan designation ofan area confers on it something of anurbane or cosmopolitan status, placingit in a league with other areas as a rec-ognized economic region.

Such commonly-held perceptions ofmetropolitan areas are reflected in rig-orous statistical definitions of the met-ropolitan concept, developed by thefederal government’s Office of Man-agement and 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 mar-kets, labor markets, and housing mar-kets. 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 nomen-clature.2 However, in the early 1990s

OMB initiated a decade-long effort toreassess the metropolitan classifica-tion system, in light of the manychanges in U.S. settlement patternsthat had taken place over the previous50 years.3

The 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 sur-rounding counties. 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 dis-perse the “core” well beyond thelargest city into smaller clusters of pre-viously “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., Washing-ton, D.C. and Baltimore). It alsobecame apparent that many communi-

ties, considered too small to be part ofa metropolitan area, should nonethe-less be recognized as part of the settle-ment system, rather than be omittedcompletely.

After a series of commissioned stud-ies, convenings with user communi-ties, 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 pub-lish data 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 met-ropolitan or nonmetropolitan status ofU.S. counties according to the old andnew standards. Under the old system,only 20 percent of the country’s terri-tory was defined. The new standardsdouble the coverage, classifying 46percent of U.S. land area. Micropoli-tan areas—a new classification—account for most of the increasedcoverage and fill in a noticeable por-tion of the “empty” space across thecountry.

Given these significant changes,

November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series2

Figure 1. Old versus New Terminology

OLD

Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA)Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA)Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)Central CityNew England County Metropolitan Area (NECMA)

NEW

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MetroSA)Micropolitan Statistical Area (MicroSA)Combined Statistical Area (CSA)Metropolitan DivisionPrincipal CityNew England City and Town Area (NECTA)

Source: OMB

many researchers and policy makerswill have to alter the way they thinkabout and use metropolitan area data.This survey provides a “field guide” tohelp the average consumer of thesestatistics understand how the newmetropolitan and micropolitan areasdiffer from those used previously, andwhat they imply for planning, researchand policy.4 First, we compare the clas-sification of metropolitan statisticalareas under the old and new stan-dards, describing the terminology, cri-teria, and options for defining ametropolitan area. Second, we intro-duce OMB’s new concept—themicropolitan statistical area—anddescribe its geographical and demo-graphic scope. Third, we discuss howthe transition in standards changes thecomposition of metropolitan areas,illustrating four main types of change.Fourth, we discuss the new principalcities and how these affect metropoli-tan area titles. Fifth, we analyze howthe change in standards alters thesocioeconomic attributes and rankingsof metropolitan areas. Finally, we dis-cuss the implications of the new sys-tem for research and policy.

Methodology

To elucidate important featuresof the new metropolitan andmicropolitan areas, much ofthis report contrasts the areas

defined according to the “new stan-dards” (released in June 2003, withupdates in December 2003) with com-parable areas defined under the previ-ous standards (“old standards” in thissurvey—published in 1999).5 We drawcomparative statistics from the 2000U.S. Census for areas located in the50 states.6 Practically all Census 2000publications and data products to datehave utilized the old standards formetropolitan areas as we employ themhere. This also holds for metropolitanstatistics distributed by most otherfederal agencies.


Figure 2. County Classifications, Old and New Standards

2003 County Classifications

Non-core-based (1,362)

Micropolitan (690)

Metropolitan (1,089)

1999 County ClassificationsNon-metropolitan (2,293)Metropolitan (848)

Source: OMB

Source: OMB

The reader should note that metro-politan areas, under both old and newstandards, are not, strictly speaking,urban areas; similarly, the metropoli-tan/non-metropolitan dichotomy is not the same as the urban/ruraldichotomy. OMB defines metropolitanareas for use by all federal agencies, torepresent functional areas. They com-prise large statistically linked sub-areas (counties) that form socially andeconomically integrated regions. OMBdetermines the composition of metroareas by analyzing commuting patternswithin a given region, along with pop-ulation and employment levels. Incontrast, the Census Bureau definesurban areas, which reflect a physical(rather than functional) distinction,mostly at a smaller scale, where urbanor urbanized areas are required to passpopulation size and densitythresholds.7 Most metropolitan areas,then, contain both urban and ruralterritory, as do most parts of the coun-try that are located outside of metro-politan areas. In 2000, approximately12 percent of the nation’s metropoli-tan population was rural; and approxi-mately 41 percen ropolitanpopulation was urb

Nonetheless, prfederal agencies happlied the term “tan areas and “rurpolitan territory.8 Ipractice will contistandards, althougtan areas (designation as MicroSAs)between urban anner the term “subapplied to portionareas that lie outsdespite the fact thnew OMB standato the terms “subuResearchers are anew standards—wcities” defining mguish suburban po

Findings

A. The new classification systempositions the Metropolitan StatisticalArea as a standard tool for analysisacross metropolitan geographies.This section discusses how metropoli-

For example, the Washington-Balti-more, DC-MD-VA-WV CMSA wassubdivided into the Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV PMSA, the Baltimore,MD PMSA, and the Hagerstown, MDPMSA. Nationally, the combined pop-ulation of all CMSAs equaled the

November 204

Figure 3. Metro Area Choices Under the Old and New Standards

METROPOLITAN NOT METROPOLITAN

OLD

NEW

CMSAs orPMSAs*

and MSAs* Non-metropolitan

Metropolitan Statistical Areas*Micropolitan

StatisticalAreas

and Non-CBSA

* The old standards also included the New England Metropolitan Statistical Areas (NECMAs),

which could be used in place of CMSAs, PMSAs, and MSAs in the six New England states. The

new standards created New England City and Town Areas (NECTAs) which can be used in place

of Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Micropolitan Statistical Areas in New England.

Note: See Appendix A for definitions of all terms.

t of its nonmet
an.actitioners and evenave commonlyurban” to metropoli-al” to all nonmetro-t is likely that thisnue under the newh the new micropoli-ted in this publica- may blur the lined rural. In like man-urban” is oftens of metropolitanide of major citiesat neither the old norrds makes referencerban” or “suburb.”9
lso likely to use theith new “principal

ajor cities—to distin-pulations.

tan areas, the basic components ofOMB’s classification system, differbetween the new standards and the oldstandards, leaving to the next section adescription of the new micropolitanareas.

Metro Area Choices under theOld StandardsIn the old system, metropolitan Amer-ica consisted of individual Metropoli-tan Statistical Areas (MSAs) andanother set of areas that could bedefined either as Consolidated Metro-politan Statistical Areas (CMSAs) ortheir component parts, Primary Met-ropolitan Statistical Areas (PMSAs).CMSAs could only be defined forareas with more than one million peo-ple, and where additional criteriaallowed for subdivision of those largemetro areas into component PMSAs(Appendix A and B have further detailson the old and new definition criteria).

combined population of all PMSAs,and when either was added to thecombined MSA population, the resultequaled the total U.S. metropolitanpopulation.

Consumers of these statistics whowished to compare among metropoli-tan areas on some measure had achoice between analyzing: (a) allMSAs and CMSAs; or (b) all MSAsand PMSAs. In other words, PMSAsand CMSAs could not be usedtogether in the same analysis (Figure3). However, consumers of statisticsfor a local CMSA region could choosewhich level of geography—CMSA orPMSA—best represented their “metro-politan area” (e.g., Washington, D.C.analysts could decide between usingthe Washington-Baltimore CMSA orthe Washington, D.C. PMSA, depend-ing on their purposes).

National rankings of metropolitanareas could legitimately employ either

04 • The Brookings Institution The 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 sta-tistics, employment patterns and qual-ity of life indicators in publicationssuch as the popular The Places RatedAlmanac used the MSA/PMSA system,as have most publications in Brook-ings’ Living Cities Census Series. Forthe remainder of this report, we willalso use MSAs and PMSAs as bench-marks for 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 Met-ropolitan Areas (NECMAs). New Eng-land MSAs, CMSAs, and PMSAs werebased on city and town componentsrather than counties, but many ana-lysts were unable to obtain relevantinformation at the town level. Hence,NECMAs were developed as county-based counterparts 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 resid-ual counties 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 cre-ated Rural-Urban Continuum Codes(“Beale Codes”) to distinguish amongnon-metropolitan counties based ontheir urban population and adjacencyto metropolitan areas.11

Metro 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 county-level components in both New Eng-land and non-New England states.MetroSAs are defined using somewhatdifferent criteria than the old MSAs,CMSAs, and PMSAs. As a conse-quence, 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 pat-terns, 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 popula-tion growth and new definitional crite-ria. Together, these changes haveincreased the number of central coun-ties, thus enlarging the potential com-muting fields of many largemetropolitan areas.13

At 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 metro-politan areas 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 compa-rable in size and area to the formerCMSAs than to the former PMSAs.14

As a consequence, users who are

accustomed 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. popula-tion—53 percent—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, compared to 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 Eng-land are comprised of counties, mak-ing counties the basic “buildingblocks” of metropolitan areas bothinside and outside the New Englandstates.

Finally, the most recognizablechange with the new standards is theidentification of smaller “metropolitan-like” communities. These new areas,called micropolitan areas, define mean-ingful “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 sin-gle unit, 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-


ing MetroSAs or MicroSAs. Theyrange in size from the two-county Clo-vis-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 com-muting levels 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 Met-roSAs are 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 Metropoli-tan Division. OMB designated Metro-politan Divisions within each of 11MetroSAs with populations of over2,500,000, and they reflect single ormulti-county areas with close com-muting ties. Examples include theWashington-Arlington-Alexandria,DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Divi-sion and Bethesda-Frederick-Gaithers-burg, MD Metropolitan Divisionwithin the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metro-politan Statistical Area, and theDallas-Plano-Irving, TX MetropolitanDivision and Fort Worth-Arlington, TXMetropolitan Division within the Dal-las-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metro-politan Statistical Area.

These Metropolitan Divisions, ascomponents of MetroSAs, somewhatresemble PMSAs under the old sys-tem. However, because only a few verylarge MetroSAs contain MetropolitanDivisions, while PMSAs were much


Figure 5. New Hierarchy Options for Local Areas

METROPOLITAN NOT METROPOLITANCombinedStatistical

Areas(two or more metros

and/or micros)

MicropolitanStatistical

Areas

MetropolitanStatistical

Areas

MetropolitanDivisions

Note: 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 micropolitan

areas. Twenty-nine metropolitan divisions exist within 11 metroplitan areas.

Source: OMB

Figure 4. Number of Metro Areas by Population Size, 2000, (and Share of Population by Metro Size)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Over 1 million250K to 1 millionUnder 250K

New MetroSAsOld PMSAs/MSAs

331

149 (8.0%)

121 (20.2%)

61 (52.2%)

361

194 (9.9%)

118 (19.7%)

49 (53.0%)

Source: Authors’ calculations of Census 2000 data and OMB

more common, Metropolitan Divisionsare less practical geographic units fornationwide analyses. The highermetro-wide population threshold toestablish Metropolitan Divisions (atleast 2.5 million) versus that to estab-lish PMSAs (at least 1 million) meansthat the new system contains 29 Met-ropolitan Divisions within 11 Met-roSAs, 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 met-ropolitan hierarchy that includes allthree types of areas: CSAs, Met-roSAs, and Metropolitan Divisions.

B. New micropolitan areas, togetherwith their metropolitan area coun-terparts, 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 par-allel manner to MetroSAs in that theyare core-based, meaning they consistof one or more counties centered on a

contiguous urban area. MicroSAs andMetroSAs differ primarily in the popu-lation of 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 mil-lion (New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA).

The new standards define 573MicroSAs in addition to the 361 Met-roSAs. 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 statisti-cal areas (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. pop-ulation and 46 percent of its land area.In comparison, the old metropolitanareas comprised 80 percent of thenation’s population and just 20 per-cent of its land area (Table 1).

For analysts used to distinguishing

between metropolitan and nonmetro-politan populations, MicroSAs belongto the latter category. However, theyrepresent only part of the nation’snonmetropolitan territory. The remain-ing portion 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 statis-tics, opening up a whole new field ofstudy for demographers, planners, andpolicy makers. The location and pro-file of 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) and

November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series

Table 1. Geographic and Demographic Coverage, Old and New Standards

Number Share of National Population Share of

OLD STANDARDS of Counties Land Area in 2000 National Population

Metropolitan 848 20% 226,207,070 80.4%Non-metropolitan 2293 80% 55,214,836 19.6%

NEW STANDARDS

Metropolitan 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 OMB

7

Table 2. Number ofMicroSAs by State

Rank State Micros

1 Texas 412 Ohio 293 North Carolina 264 Indiana 255 Georgia 246 Illinois 237 Pennsylvania 218 Missouri 209 Mississippi 20

10 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 0

Source: OMBNote: Micropolitan areas that cross stateboundaries are counted once in each state.

Frey (2004a) highlight the variationsin micropolitan area demographic pro-files. They find that the fastest-grow-ing MicroSAs 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 metro-politan counterparts.15

C. Under the new system, 81 of thenation’s 102 largest metropolitanareas have undergone changes in territory and population.Analysts and even casual observersfirst encountering the new metropoli-tan areas will likely ask: How differentare the new standards from the oldones? The simple answer is: quite abit. The changes are especially pro-nounced in the nation’s larger metro-politan areas, 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 metro-politan areas.

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 per-cent) 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 coun-ties found 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 metropoli-tan area. So roughly 70 percent of

counties retained a comparable classi-fication in the transition to the newstandards.

Other counties changed classifica-tion due to the introduction of themicropolitan concept, new rules fordefining metropolitan areas, changesin commuting patterns, or simple pop-ulation growth and decentralization.Counties that changed from non-met-ropolitan to micropolitan were fairlycommon, accounting for 21 percentof all counties and nearly 10 percentof U.S. population. Nine percent ofU.S. counties jumped from non-met-ropolitan to 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 popula-tion is now considered metropolitan(83 percent, up from 80 percent). Onnet, 242 counties moved from non-metropolitan to metropolitan standing(46 from metropolitan to non-metro-politan and 288 from non-metropoli-tan to 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 sta-tus from metropolitan to non-metro-politan, only five did not become part of a MicroSA. The 41 previouslymetropolitan counties that becamemicropolitan did not necessarily shrinkin size, but generally failed to meet the 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 sys-tem, 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

tions of at least 500,000 under the oldsystem are defined somewhat differ-ently under the new system. As aresult, two-thirds (56) of the 81 metrosgained population, while the rest (25)lost population. Here, we provide illus-trative examples 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 metro-politan areas experienced a net addi-tion of counties in the transition to thenew system. Most of these metro areasare located in the middle and southernregions of the country, where popula-tion is growing and spreading outquickly.16

Atlanta 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 Statistical Area (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 met-ropolitan definition.

As noted earlier, the vast majorityof counties removed from metropoli-tan areas became part of micropolitanareas, so they do not necessarily rep-resent areas that are losing popula-tion. In almost all cases in whichmicropolitan areas are created on theoutskirts of metropolitan areas, Com-


Table 3. County Transitions

Percent of Population Percent of

Old Classification New Classification Number Counties in 2000 Population

Metropolitan 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 6.9

Source: Authors’ calculations of OMB and Census 2000 data

Table 4. Metropolitan Transitions, Metros with 500,000 orGreater Population, 2000

Transition Type Number of Metros Percent of Top 102

Geographical 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 102 100.0

Population 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 new

definitions.

Source: Authors’ calculations of OMB data

bined Statistical Areas are alsodefined, often matching the formermetropolitan definition.

Knoxville, Tennessee is a typicalexample. Under the old system theKnoxville, TN MSA consisted of sixcounties. Under the new standards,OMB removed outlying Sevier Countyfrom the metropolitan area and namedit the Sevierville, TN MicroSA.Together, the metro area and microarea form the newly defined Knoxville-Sevierville-La Follette, TN CombinedStatistical Area (Figure 7).

Not all counties that transitionedfrom metropolitan to micropolitanstatus became part of a CombinedStatistical Area. For instance, the LasVegas, NV-AZ MSA consisted of threecounties under the old standards(Mohave County in Arizona and Clarkand Nye counties in Nevada). Underthe new standards, only Clark Countyremains in the Las Vegas-Paradise,NV MetroSA. Nye County becomesthe Pahrump, NV MicroSA, andtogether with the Las Vegas metromakes up the Las Vegas-Paradise-Pahrump, NV CSA. Mohave County,Arizona is now the Lake Havasu City-Kingman MicroSA, outside of anyCSA.

The Washington, D.C. metropoli-tan area provides a unique example inthat two of its counties changed frommetropolitan to non-core-based. TheWashington, DC-MD-VA-WV PMSAsaw three counties removed in thetransition: two in Virginia and one inWest Virginia. While BerkeleyCounty, WV became part of a sepa-rate metropolitan area (Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV MetroSA),Culpeper and King George countiesin Virginia became non-core-basedareas. These few instances demon-strate the greater simplicity of thenew classification system, whicheliminated from some MetroSAs far-flung counties with little economicrelationship to the core.17


Figure 7. Knoxville-Sevierville-La Follette Combined Statistical Area

Knox

Sevier

Blount

Union

Anderson

Loudon

Old MSA counties (6)

Micro counties (1)

Other CSA Components

New Knoxville MetroSA counties (5)

Knoxville MetroSA

Sevierville MicroSA

Source: OMB

Figure 6. Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville Combined Statistical Area


Old MSA counties (20)

New MetroSA counties (8)

Metro counties (1)

Micro counties (4)

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta MetroSA

Troup

Bartow

Cobb

Coweta

Upson

Gwinnett

Heard

Meriwether

Butts

Haralson

Barrow

Spalding

Rockdale

Hall

Fulton

Troup

Carroll

Polk

Bartow

Coweta

Chambers

JasperHenry

Pike

Gwinnett

Heard

Walton

Meriwether

Cherokee

Butts

Newton

Paulding

De Kalb

Forsyth

Haralson

Pickens

Lamar

Fayette

Dawson

Douglas

Barrow

Clayton

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta MetroSA

Gainesville MetroSA

CedartownMicroSA

LaGrangeMicroSA

ThomastonMicroSA

Valley, ALMicroSA

Source: OMB

Separating 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 inde-pendence separating formerly close-knit neighbors.

Under the old standards, the area of North Carolina known as the“research triangle”—the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC MSA–con-sisted of six counties. The newstandards split the triangle into twometropolitan areas: the Durham, NCMetroSA and the Raleigh-Cary Met-roSA. 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 Met-roSAs and one MicroSA.

Combining Two or More MetroAreas into One Area—Dallas-Ft. Worth and New YorkTwenty-three MSAs and PMSAs underthe old system combined with neighbor-ing areas to form new, larger MetroSAs.

In Dallas-Fort Worth, the combina-tion produced a region with severaldifferent layers. Under the old stan-dards, 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 stan-dards create the unified Dallas-FortWorth-Arlington, TX MetroSA, com-prised of 12 counties (two of which

November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series 1 1

Figure 8. Raleigh-Durham-Cary Combined Statistical Area

DurhamMetroSA Raleigh-Cary

MetroSA

Dunn MicroSA Old MSA counties (6)

New Raleigh-Cary MetroSAcounties (3)New Durham MetroSAcounties (4)


Micro counties (1)

Person

OrangeDurham

Chatham

Harnett

Wake

Johnston

Franklin

Source: OMB

Figure 9. Dallas-Fort Worth Combined Statistical Area

Ellis

Hunt

Wise Collin

Dallas

Cooke

Parker

Denton

TarrantPalo Pinto

Kaufman

Johnson

Henderson

Hood

Delta

Somervell

Rockwall

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington MetroSA

Gainesville MicroSA

Minerall WellsMicroSA

Athens MicroSA

GranburyMicroSA

Old Dallas PMSA counties (8)

Old Fort Worth-Arlington PMSA counties (4)

New Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington MetroSA counties (12)


Micro counties (5)

Old Dallas-Fort Worth CMSA

Source: OMB

are different from the originals). Andbecause the metro area contains over5 million people, OMB further delin-eated two Metropolitan Divisionswithin the region: Dallas-Plano-Irvingand Fort Worth-Arlington. These divi-sions resemble the old PMSAs, andrecognize that each of the areas stillretains some individual economiccharacter. In addition, the new Dallas-Fort Worth, TX CSA includes the Met-roSA and four surroundingmicropolitan areas.

If the Dallas-Forth Worth changesare complex, the changes to the NewYork metro area might rank as mind-boggling. Yet the new metropolitangeography that results is arguablymore satisfying than the old one.18 Theold New York PMSA consisted of eightcounties—the five New York City bor-oughs and three New York state coun-ties north of the city. Suburbs justacross the Hudson River in New Jer-sey, and those just a county or twoaway on Long Island, occupied differ-ent PMSAs altogether. In cross-metro-politan analyses, the New York metroarea (PMSA) often seemed an outlierbecause the city so dominated thearea’s demographic and economiccharacteristics.

With the release of the new stan-dards, several former PMSAs in theNew York CMSA combined to formthe New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA MetroSA, con-sisting of 23 counties in three states.This expansive new MetroSA incorpo-rates four Metropolitan Divisions.Even the Division that includes NewYork City (the New York-Wayne-WhitePlains, NY-NJ Metropolitan Division)contains 11 counties in two states, andis larger than the old PMSA. At the“macro” level, the New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA con-tains 30 counties in four states (Figure10). As in Dallas-Ft. Worth, the NewYork region can now be viewed atthree hierarchical levels of geography(Figure 11). Instead of one CMSAmade up of fifteen PMSAs, the new


Figure 10. New York-Newark-Bridgeport Combined Statistical Area

Ulster

Pike

Suffolk

Orange

Litchfield

Ocean

Dutchess

Fairfield

Morris

Sussex

New Haven

Monmouth

Hunterdon

Westchester

Nassau

Bergen

Mercer

Putnam

Somerset

Middlesex

PassaicRockland

Richmond

QueensKings

Essex

Union

BronxNY

Hudson

Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT MetroSA

New Haven-Milford, CT MetroSA

Torrington, CTMicroSA

Kingston, NYMetroSA

Trenton, NJMetroSA

Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY MetroSA

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA MetroSA

New MetroSA counties (15)

Old PMSA counties (8)


Metro counties (6)

Micro counties (1)

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long IslandMetroSA

Source: OMB

Figure 11. New York’s Components, Old and New Definitions

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA CMSA

New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA-CSA

OL

DN

EW

Brid

gepo

rt, C

TPM

SA

Bridgeport-Stamford-

Norwalk, CTMetro SA

Kingston, NYMetro SA

New Haven-Milford, CTMetro SA

New York-Northern New Jersey-

Long Island,NY-NJ-PA Metro SA

Trenton-Ewing, NJMetro SA

Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-

Middletown, NYMetro SA

Torrington,CT Micro SA

Edison, NJMetro Div.

Newark-Union,NJ-PA

Metro Div.

Nassau-Suffolk, NYMetro Div.

New York-Wayne-

White Plains,NY-NJ Metro Div

Berg

en-P

assa

ic, N

JPM

SA

New

Hav

en-M

erid

en, C

TPM

SA

Dut

ches

s C

o., N

YPM

SA

Dan

bury

, CT

PMSA

Wat

erbu

ry, C

TPM

SA

New

Yor

k, N

YPM

SA

Tren

ton,

NJ

PMSA

Jers

ey C

ity, N

JPM

SA

New

ark,

NJ

PMSA

New

burg

h, N

Y-PA

PMSA

Mon

mou

th-O

cean

, NJ

PMSA

Nas

sau-

Suffo

lk, N

YPM

SA

Mid

dles

ex-S

omer

set-

Hun

terd

on, N

JPM

SA

Stam

ford

-Nor

wal

k, C

TPM

SA

Source: OMB

CSA includes six MetroSAs, furthersubdivided into four MetropolitanDivisions, and one MicroSA.

National metropolitan analyses arelikely to adopt the New York MetroSA,and some demographic consequencesof that transition are explored below.But those focusing specifically on theNew York region now benefit from awider variety of options codified inOMB’s metropolitan definitions.

Multiple ChangesThe new metropolitan standardschanged some metropolitan areas inmore than one way. Detroit providesthe most complicated example: Theold Detroit PMSA gained a county,lost a county, and split into two sepa-rate MetroSAs in the new system. TheDetroit, MI PMSA consisted of sixcounties: Lapeer, Macomb, Monroe,Oakland, St. Clair, and Wayne. Thenew Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI Met-roSA still consists of six counties, butone changed. Livingston County, for-merly in the Ann Arbor, MI PMSA,moved into the Detroit metro area.Meanwhile, Monroe County becameits own metropolitan area. BesidesDetroit, six other MSAs/PMSAs havenew compositions through a mixtureof county additions and subtractions,or metropolitan splits and combina-tions.

All of these examples show that thetransition to a new classification sys-tem reshuffled many pieces of themetropolitan puzzle. Yet the basic con-tours of most metropolitan areasremain largely intact. The streamlinedrules for defining metropolitan areashave resulted in some sensiblechanges (a slightly smaller Washingtonmetro area, a larger New York metroarea, a combined Dallas-Forth Worthmetropolis), and offer researchers aricher variety of options for analyzingsome of the nation’s largest regions. Ina later section, we explore how thenew metropolitan areas rank on basicdemographic attributes compared totheir previous counterparts.

D. Both metropolitan and micropoli-tan areas contain principal cities,which replace central cities in thenew names given these areas.Some of the examples above highlightthe implications of another significantchange between the old and new stan-dards: the identification of new prin-cipal cities for MetroSAs andMicroSAs. These replace the old sys-tem’s central cities, and designateprominent places within these areas;specifically, OMB uses principal citiesand Census-designated places (CDPs)to derive the official names for allMetroSAs and MicroSAs.19

While the concept of principal citiesmay seem familiar to most analysts,these places are somewhat differentthan central cities. First, the term“principal” rather then “central”denotes that these cities are no longeras fundamental to the identification ofmetropolitan areas and their commut-ing fields. The current standardsemploy urban areas rather than citiesor incorporated places as “cores” todefine their central and outlying coun-ties. Nonetheless, most urbanizedareas contain recognizable citieswhich developers of the new standardsdetermined should be identified sincetheir names are well known as impor-tant jurisdictions within MetroSAs andMicroSAs.

Second, the rules for identifyingprincipal cities are slightly differentfrom those used to identify centralcities (Appendix B has a comparison).The principal city(s) of an area alwaysincludes the largest incorporated placeor census designated place, as well asadditional cities that meet populationand employment thresholds.20 The newstandards identify 646 principal citiesamong the 361 MetroSAs, up from554 central cities under the old sys-tem. OMB also recognizes 609 princi-pal cities among the 573 Micro SAs.

As noted earlier, some analysts haveused central cities to identify subur-ban populations, by subtracting cen-tral city populations from metropolitan

area populations and designating theresult as “suburban.” This fairly crudemeans of defining the suburbs has fig-ured in several Brookings analyses.21

Although neither the previous nor thenew metropolitan standards confer“suburban” status on this residual ter-ritory, it is likely that analysts will con-tinue to employ a similar techniquewith principal cities to derive the sub-urbs.22 As such, the introduction of anew and larger set of cities withinmetropolitan areas may shrink some-what the differences between “urban”and “suburban” territories overall.23

On this note, Figure 12 provides acomparison of the share of metropoli-tan populations residing in centralcities and principal cities. Principalcities comprise a somewhat largershare of metropolitan population thandid central cites (39.8 percent versus35.5 percent). This owes to the identi-fication of additional principal citieswithin existing metropolitan areas, andto the creation of many smaller metro-politan areas that now have their ownprincipal cities. Figure 8 also showsthe share of micropolitan populationliving in their principal cities. Princi-pal cities’ smaller share of MicroSApopulation (33.2 percent) reflects themore dispersed settlements commonin these smaller areas.

While the population or demo-graphic changes caused by the shift to principal cities may intrigueresearchers, these new principal citiesmake even more noticeable changes tothe names of MetroSAs. As with cen-tral cities, most metropolitan areastitles now incorporate the names ofthe three largest principal cities indescending population size.24 However,because some new cities are identifiedin existing areas, and some metropoli-tan areas split or combined with oth-ers, title changes are common. Amongthe 102 largest MSAs and PMSAs,two-thirds (67) registered somechange in their official names in thetransition to MetroSAs. Examples ofthese changes appear in Table 5. In


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 recogni-tion and enhance its status. Scottsdale,Arizona, for example, gained promi-nence by entering the title of thePhoenix-Mesa metropolitan area. WhileScottsdale did not meet the old popula-tion threshold, 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 sim-ilar benefits from the change in namingconvention.

The order of city names in a metro-politan area title is also significant,since sometimes the first-named city isthe only one used to refer to a metro-politan area. In the case of the Nor-folk-Virginia Beach-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 Ven-tura, CA PMSA became the Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura MetroSA.And in Austin, Texas, Round Rockreplaced San Marcos as the second-named city in the metropolitan areatitle, thanks to the more streamlinedrules for defining principal cities (ver-sus central cities).26

E. The new definitions alter thesocial and economic attributes ofmany metropolitan areas, as well astheir national rankings on theseattributes.The new standards provide one stan-dard choice 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 for


Figure 12. Share of Core-Based Population in Central or Principal Cities, 2000

Suburbs

Central Cities

35.5%

64.5%

Old Metropolitan Areas

Suburbs

Principal Cities

39.8%

60.2%

New Metropolitan Areas

Outlying Areas

Principal Cities

33.2%

66.8%

New Micropolitan Areas

Source: OMB and Census 2000


Table 5. Title Changes for Selected Metropolitan Areas

Former Title Current TitleAustin-San Marcos, TX MSA Austin-Round Rock, TX MetroSABoulder-Longmont, CO PMSA Boulder, CO MetroSABryan-College Station, TX MSA College Station-Bryan, TX MetroSA*Chicago, IL PMSA Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI MetroSAFort Myers-Cape Coral, FL MSA Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL MetroSA*Houston, TX PMSA Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land, TX MetroSALas Vegas, NV-AZ MSA Las Vegas-Paradise, NV MetroSALos Angeles-Long Beach, CA PMSA Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA MetroSAMinneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI MSA Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI MetroSANew Orleans, LA MSA New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA MetroSANew York, NY PMSA New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA MetroSANorfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA-NC MSA Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC MetroSA*Phoenix-Mesa, AZ MSA Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ MetroSASan Diego, CA MSA San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA MetroSASan Francisco, CA PMSA San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA MetroSASan Jose, CA PMSA San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA MetroSAVentura, CA PMSA Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA MetroSA*Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV PMSA Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MetroSA

* Order of place names in the metropolitan area title changed.

Source: OMB

Table 6. Comparing “Old” and “New” New York

Population Income Race/Ethnicity Education

Households Households

with Annual with Annual Asian- Less than BA or

Population Income Income Pacific HS Higher

(millions) Below $25K Above $75K White Hispanic Black Islander Education Education

Old 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%


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 stan-dards, the choice a user makes indefining a local area for study can sig-nificantly affect the results. For NewYork, there are now three ways todefine the metro area, rather than two(Finding C). Table 6 compares popula-tion sizes and socio-economic attrib-utes for the former New York CMSAand PMSA with the new CSA, Met-roSA, and Metropolitan Division con-taining New York City. The formerCMSA and the current CSA are simi-lar in 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 stan-dards. Whereas the former PMSAcomprised only 44 percent of theCMSA’s population, the current Met-roSA accounts 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 (Met-roSA) and the “old” New York(PMSA). The MetroSA is wealthier,whiter, more educated, and has ahigher percentage of its population inmarried-couple households. These dif-ferences reflect 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—MetropolitanRankings

New York presents one of the moreextreme examples of how the new clas-sification system may alter our under-standing of 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 immedi-ately apparent change is that New Yorkreplaces Los Angeles as the most pop-ulated metropolitan area in the coun-try, with nearly 6 million more peoplethan its West Coast counterpart. Dal-las, 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 college

towns 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 nine-teenth to second in the ranking. IowaCity, meanwhile, added anothercounty outside the University of Iowa,dropping it from second to eighth.Likewise, Bloomington, IN, and Madi-son, WI, each added two counties totheir metropolitan definitions, causingthem to fall out of the top 15. AndIthaca, NY, one of the 49 new metro-politan areas and home to CornellUniversity, now ranks third. Perhapsthe most notable change in the educa-tional rankings is the drop San Fran-cisco takes from fourth to fourteenth,due to its combination with Oakland.

In summary, these examples demon-strate that the rules governing metro-politan area definitions may greatlyinfluence our understanding of whichregions are biggest, richest, or brightest.

Discussion and Implications

The real-world implications ofthe new metropolitan classifi-cations discussed here haveyet to be realized, in large part

because many individuals and organi-zations are 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 sta-tistical areas, metropolitan divisions,and combined statistical areas. Revi-sions during the 1990s, by contrast,merely updated existing concepts withnew population data. In any case,whatever effects the new classifica-tions have, they are likely to occur


Table 7. Rankings of Old and New Metropolitan Areas, 2000

OLD (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 18,323

2 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 4,453

10 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 3,044

Rank 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 40.7

NJ 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 34.3

10 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 31.7

Rank 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 39.9

10 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 38.3


over time as users gradually adapt tothis new system.

Moving to the new classificationscheme is, at its root, a statistical pol-icy change—not a programmatic one.In fact, in its guidance announcing therevised definitions, OMB cautionsgovernment agencies against employ-ing the definitions to develop andimplement “nonstatistical programsand policies without full considerationof the effects of using these definitionsfor such purposes.” Yet as the new sys-tem gains 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 pur-poses other 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 implementa-tion of federal laws through regula-tion. Nearly every major federalagency—from those involved in agri-culture to homeland security to educa-tion—oversees one or more programsthat make use of OMB-defined metro-politan areas. Federal agencies typi-cally use the metropolitan areaconcept as a basis for reporting infor-mation, to establish program eligibility,and/or to set program features; anexample of each is offered here.27

1. As a basis for reporting infor-mation—Home Mortgage DisclosureUnder the regulations that imple-ment the Home Mortgage Disclo-sure Act (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. Institu-tions must compile and report thisinformation to the appropriatebanking regulators (e.g., the FederalReserve, the Comptroller of theCurrency, etc.) annually. Metropoli-tan areas 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 deter-mined that wage rates should beadjusted. There are a total of 32locality pay areas, 31 of which coin-cide generally with metropolitanarea definitions, and one that

encompasses the remainder of theUnited States. A review of therevised metropolitan standards bythe FSC in December 2003 recom-mended that 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 statisti-cal area. As a result of boundarychanges to several metropolitanareas under the new standards, thenumber of federal employees sub-ject to locality pay adjustments maychange. Final regulations on imple-menting the new locality pay areaswill be issued by OPM in January2005.

3. To set program features—MedicarePerhaps no federal program attractsmore attention to OMB’s metropoli-tan definitions than Medicare. Thisis largely because many of the pay-ments made to providers underMedicare rely on cost data specificto the geography in which aprovider is located. A hospital’s loca-tion inside or outside a metropolitanarea is used as an eligibility crite-rion for various special Medicaredesignations that can raise reim-bursement rates.28 The most notableexample of metro area usage withinMedicare policy derives from pro-gram reimbursement for hospitals’operating costs based on prospec-tively set rates specific to eachpatient diagnosis. In making pay-ments to a particular hospital, theCenter for Medicare and MedicaidServices (CMS) adjusts each diag-nostic rate by a wage index applica-ble to the area in which the hospitalis located, in order to account forgeographic differences in the laborcosts hospitals bear. CMS definesthese areas using OMB metropoli-tan areas (MSAs, PMSAs, andNECMAs), and uses survey data toupdate the index annually for all


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.29

Recognizing the significantimpact that the new metropolitanstandards will have on the calcula-tion of 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 pro-posed rule opts for consideringMicroSAs and statewide non-CBSAs together, in large partbecause moving to MicroSA-specificindexes could result in large one-time changes 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 stan-dards will continue to play a high-profile role 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” exam-ple—to establish whether, by virtue ofits location, an individual or commu-nity is eligible for a particular pro-gram, or certain regulations apply toindividuals, businesses, or govern-ments. 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 pro-

gram and then indexes pay levelsaccording to local wages.

Nonetheless, the decision to changemetropolitan definitions can have far-reaching consequences 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 pro-gram (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 communi-ties. As a result, HUD decided not toswitch immediately to the new OMBmetropolitan definitions.

The impacts that the new defini-tions will have on federal programs arestill unclear overall, and will dependnot only on the particular characteris-tics of the metropolitan areas undergo-ing changes, but also on howlawmakers and rulemakers integratethe new concepts into existing sys-tems. In this regard, OMB recentlyoffered more explicit guidance to fed-eral agencies that use metropolitanareas for nonstatistical purposes.32

OMB urges agencies that had usedPMSAs to now consider using MetroDivisions, which it describes as the“comparable geographic units of clas-sification.” In addition, it suggests thatin cases where old metro areas dividedinto more than one new metro area,the CSA may form a “more appropri-ate geographic 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 defi-nitions are adopted, and the extent towhich programmatic changes result.


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 metropoli-tan America has produced a greaternumber of MetroSAs than MSAs andPMSAs, and more metropolitan prin-cipal cities than central cities.

A potentially expansive researchcommunity, including federal and stateagencies, nonprofit research organiza-tions, and private-sector marketresearchers, will use the new metro-politan classifications. The federal sta-tistical agencies themselves willinfluence the speed at which otherresearchers move towards the new sys-tem, and the choices that researchersmake within that system. Some agen-cies like the Bureau of EconomicAnalysis have already begun to releasedata that conform to the new metro-politan and micropolitan definitions.Many, like the Bureau of Labor Statis-tics and 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 classi-fication system.

The greater number of choices avail-able to researchers under the new sys-tem may 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 differ-ent classifications, it may become moredifficult to compare across their find-ings. Some, as OMB suggests, maychoose to work with metropolitan divi-sions for comparability with PMSAs.33

Others 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 cho-sen their 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, urbaniza-tion, and commuting patterns. Thesenew areas likely exhibit a greaterdegree of economic and social cohe-sion today than do the old metropoli-tan definitions, which were rootedprimarily in 1990 census data. Thenew methods for defining metropoli-tan areas and principal cities are alsosimpler than under the old system,and help resolve some of the odderoutcomes apparent in the 1999 defini-tions (like King George County, VAappearing in the Washington, DCmetro area).

What changes might the new sys-tem produce in actual researchresults? In this survey, we offer a lookat how certain demographic and eco-nomic indicators 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 Fran-cisco, Dallas, and Raleigh-Durham. Inmany other areas like Atlanta, Port-land, Wichita, and Washington, theaddition, subtraction, or “relegation”to micropolitan of smaller counties atthe metropolitan fringe does not domuch to influence the overall empiri-cal picture.


Popular UsageThe new system may, at least over thelong run, exert as much influence onour popular understanding of metro-politan areas 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 met-ropolitan America, given that the pol-icy and research communities have yetto completely embrace the changes. Inpart, this is because institutions likeregional media and chambers of com-merce mediate between what the fed-eral government decides is ametropolitan area, and what averagecitizens consider to be their region.Newspaper “Metro” sections, forinstance, typically report on jurisdic-tions in which they have a substantialsubscriber base. Thus, news in TheWashington Post covers roughly 14counties, rather than the 18 that makeup the Washington-Arlington-Alexan-dria, 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 recep-tivity than 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 included

only Los Angeles County, now takes inOrange County as well, better reflect-ing the economic ties between thesetwo jurisdictions.

Names, however, seem to carry evenmore weight than geographic composi-tion in the public eye. The status ofsuburban places like Sandy Springs,GA (Atlanta), Sugar Land, TX (Hous-ton), 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 dis-may. Consultations with local officialsresulted in OMB changing the NewYork-Newark-Edison, NY-NJ-PA Met-roSA to the New York-Northern NewJersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Met-roSA in December 2003. Public opin-ion simultaneously 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 Cleve-land metro area) and Nye, NV (for-merly in the Las Vegas metro area),may gain more stature from a microp-olitan label than they lost in separatingfrom a metropolitan center.

These examples of definitionalchanges demonstrate that federal sta-tistical policy can impact how we liveand work. In the end, both researchand policy have an important role to

play in bridging the gap between thestatistical versions of metropolitanareas and the popular notions of theregions in which metropolitan resi-dents live. To the extent that researchcan narrow this gap over time, metro-politan-level research will providegreater insights for government andbusiness decisions. OMB’s new metro-politan classification system thus pres-ents both a unique challenge and afresh opportunity for metropolitanresearch to make a real-world impact.



Appendix A. Definitions of Metropolitan Concepts

Old Standards

Metropolitan 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 des-ignations. 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 city-and town-based metropolitan areas in the six New England states (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hamp-shire, 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 desig-nated place) 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 Standards

Core-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 metropoli-tan or 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 metropoli-tan NECTAs 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.


Appendix B. Comparing Old and New Standards*

Levels/Categories and

Terminology

Building Blocks

Qualification of Areas

Qualification of Central

Counties

Qualification of Outlying

Counties

Metropolitan statistical areas based on total populations of at least

1,000,000 (level A), 250,000 to 999,999 (level B), 100,000 to 249,999

(level C), and less than 100,000 (level D), respectively. Metropolitan

statistical areas of 1,000,000 or more population can be designated as

consolidated metropolitan statistical areas if local opinion is in favor

and component primary metropolitan statistical areas can be identified.

Counties and equivalent entities throughout the U.S. and Puerto Rico,

except in New England, where cities and towns are used to define met-

ropolitan areas. County based alternative provided for the New Eng-

land states.

City of at least 50,000 population, or Census Bureau defined urbanized

area of at least 50,000 population in a metropolitan area of at least

100,000 population.

Any county that includes a central city or at least 50% of the popula-

tion of a central city that is located in a qualifier urbanized area. Also

any county in which at least 50% of the population is located in a quali-

fier urbanized area.

Combination of commuting and measures of settlement structure:

50% or more of employed workers commute to the central

county/counties of a metropolitan statistical area and: 25 or more per-

sons per square mile (ppsm), or at least 10% or 5,000 of the population

lives in a qualifier urbanized area; OR

40% to 50% of employed workers commute to the central county/coun-

ties of a metropolitan statistical area and: 35 or more ppsm, or at least

10% or 5,000 of the population lives in a qualifier urbanized area; OR


ties of a metropolitan statistical area and: 35 ppsm and one of the fol-

lowing: (1) 50 or more ppsm, (2) at least 35% urban population, (3) at

least 10% or 5,000 of population lives in a qualifier urbanized area; OR


ties of a metropolitan statistical area and: 50 or more ppsm and two of

the 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 of

population lives in a qualifier urbanized area; OR


ties of a metropolitan statistical area and less than 50 ppsm and two of

the following: (1) at least 35% urban population, (2) population growth

rate of at least 20%, (3) at least 10% or 5,000 of population lives in a

qualifier urbanized area; OR

at least 2,500 of the population lives in a central city located in a quali-

fier urbanized area of a metropolitan statistical area.

If a county qualifies as outlying to two or more metropolitan areas, it is

assigned to the area to which commuting is greatest; if the relevant commut-

ing percentages are within 5 points of each other, local opinion is considered.

Metropolitan statistical areas based around at least one Census Bureau

defined urbanized area of 50,000 or more population, and micropolitan

statistical areas, based around at least one urban cluster of 10,000 to

49,999 population. A metropolitan statistical area with a single core of

at least 2,500,000 population can be subdivided into component metro-

politan divisions. Collectively, the metropolitan and micropolitan statis-

tical areas 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 based

areas, provided for the New England states.

Census Bureau defined urban area of at least 10,000 population and

less than 50,000 population for micropolitan statistical area designa-

tion. Census Bureau defined urbanized area of at least 50,000 for met-

ropolitan statistical area designation.

Any county in which at least 50% of the population is located in urban

areas of at least 10,000 population, or that has within its boundaries a

population of at least 5,000 located in a single urban area of at least

10,000 population.

Commuting ties:

At least 25% of the employed residents of the county work in the cen-

tral county/counties of a CBSA; or at least 25% of the employment in

the county is accounted for by workers residing in the central

county/counties of the CBSA.

A county that qualifies as outlying to two or more CBSAs is included in

the area with which it has the strongest commuting tie.

Old Standards New Standards

*Source: Michael R. Ratcliffe, U.S. Census Bureau


Appendix B. Comparing Old and New Standards (continued)

Merging Statistical Areas

Central Cities/Principal

Cities

Primary Metropolitan Sta-

tistical Areas/Metropolitan

Divisions

If a county qualifies as a central county of one metropolitan statistical

area and as an outlying county on the basis of commuting to a central

county of another metropolitan statistical area, both counties become

central counties of a single metropolitan statistical area.

Central cities include the largest city in a metropolitan statistical

area/consolidated metropolitan statistical area AND each city of at least

250,000 population or at least 100,000 workers AND each city of at

least 25,000 population and at least 75 jobs per 100 workers and less

than 60% out commuting AND each city of at least 15,000 population

that is at least 1/3 the size of largest central city and meets employment

ratio and commuting percentage above AND the largest city of 15,000

population or more that meets employment ratio and commuting per-

centage above and is in a secondary noncontiguous urbanized area

AND each city in a secondary noncontiguous urbanized area that is at

least 1/3 the size of largest central city in that urbanized area and has

at least 15,000 population and meets employment ratio and commuting

percentage above.

Primary metropolitan statistical areas outside New England consist of

one or more counties within metropolitan areas that have a total popu-

lation of 1 million or more. Specifically, these primary metropolitan sta-

tistical areas consist of: (A) One or more counties designated as a

standard metropolitan statistical area on January 1, 1980, unless local

opinion does not support continued separate designation.

(B) One or more counties for which local opinion strongly supports

separate designation, provided one county has: (1) at least 100,000

population; (2) at least 60 percent of its population urban; (3) less than

35 percent of its resident workers working outside the county; and (4)

less than 2,500 population of the largest central city in the metropoli-

tan statistical area.

(C) A set of two or more contiguous counties for which local opinion

strongly supports separate designation, provided at least one county

also 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 the

county; (2) each county has a commuting interchange of at least 20

percent with the other counties in the set; and (3) less than 35 percent

of the resident workers of the set of counties work outside the area.

Each county in the metropolitan area not included within a central

core under sections (A) through (C), is assigned to the contiguous pri-

mary metropolitan statistical area to whose central core commuting is

greatest, provided this commuting is: (1) at least 15 percent of the

county’ s resident workers; (2) at least 5 percentage points higher than

the commuting flow to any other primary metropolitan statistical area

central core that exceeds 15 percent; and

(3) larger than the flow to the county containing the metropolitan

area’s largest central city.

Two adjacent CBSAs are merged to form one CBSA if the central

county/counties (as a group) of one CBSA qualify as outlying to the

central county/counties (as a group) of the other.

Principal cities include the largest incorporated place with a population

of 10,000 or more or, if no incorporated place of at least 10,000 is pres-

ent, the largest incorporated place or census designated place in the

CBSA AND each place of at least 250,000 population or in which at

least 100,000 persons work AND each place with a population of at

least 50,000, but less than 250,000 in which employment meets or

exceeds the number of employed residents AND each place with a pop-

ulation that is at least 10,000 and 1/3 the size of the largest place, and

in which employment meets or exceeds the number of employed resi-

dents.

Metropolitan divisions consist of one or more counties within metropol-

itan statistical areas that have a single core of 2.5 million or more popu-

lation.

A county is identified as a main county of a metropolitan division if 65

percent or more of its employed residents work within the county and

the ratio of its employment to its number of employed residents is at

least .75.

A county is identified as a secondary county of a metropolitan division

if 50 percent or more, but less than 65 percent, of its employed resi-

dents work within the county and the ratio of its employment to its

number of employed residents is at least .75 .

A main county automatically serves as the basis for a metropolitan divi-

sion. For a secondary county to qualify as the basis for forming a metro-

politan division, it must join with either a contiguous secondary county

or a contiguous main county with which it has the highest employment

interchange measure of 15 or more.

After all main counties and sceondary counties have been identified

and grouped (if appropriate), each additional county that already has

qualified for the metropolitan statistical area is included in the metro-



Appendix B. Comparing Old and New Standards (continued)

Primary Metropolitan Sta-

tistical Areas/Metropolitan

Divisions

Combining Statistical

Areas

Titles

If a county has qualifying commuting ties to two or more primary met-

ropolitan statistical area central cores and the relevant values are

within 5 percentage points of each other, local opinion is considered.

Two adjacent metropolitan statistical areas are combined as a single

metropolitan statistical area if: (A) the total population of the combina-

tion is at least one million and (1) the commuting interchange between

the two metropolitan statistical areas is equal to at least 15% of the

employed workers residing in the smaller metropolitan statistical area,

or equal to at least 10% of the employed workers residing in the smaller

metropolitan statistical area and the urbanized area of a central city of

one metropolitan statistical area is contiguous with the urbanized area

of a central city of the other metropolitan statistical area or a central

city in one metropolitan statistical area is included in the same urban-

ized area as a central city in the other metropolitan statistical area;

AND (2) at least 60% of the population of each metropolitan statistical

area is urban. (B) the total population of the combination is less than

one million and (1) their largest central cities are within 25 miles of

one another, or the urbanized areas are contiguous; AND (2) there is

definite evidence that the two areas are closely integrated economically

and socially; AND (3) local opinion in both areas supports combina-

tion.

Titles of metropolitan statistical areas include the names of up to three

central cities in order of descending population size. Local opinion is

considered under specified conditions.

Titles of primary metropolitan statistical areas include the names of up

to three cities in the primary metropolitan statistical area that have

qualified as central cities. If there are no central cities, the title will

include the names of up to three counties in the primary metropolitan

statistical area in order of descending population size.

Titles of consolidated metropolitan statistical areas include the names

of up to three central cities or counties in the consolidated metropoli-

tan statistical area. The first name will be the largest central city in the

consolidated metropolitan statistical area; the remaining two names

will be the first city or county name that appears in the title of the

remaining primary metropolitan statistical area with the largest total

population and the first city or county name that appears in the title of

the primary metropolitan statistical area with the next largest total pop-

ulation. Regional designations can be substituted for the second and

third names if there is strong local support.

politan division associated with the main/secondary county to which the

county 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 rate

between the two areas is at least 25. The employment interchange rate

is the sum of the percentage of employed residents of the CBSA with

the smaller total population who work in the CBSA with the larger total

population and the percentage of employment in the CBSA with the

smaller total population that is accounted for by workers residing in the

CBSA with the larger total population. Adjacent CBSAs that have an

employment interchange rate of at least 15 and less than 25 may com-

bine if local opinion in both areas favors combination. The combining

CBSAs also retain separate recognition.

Titles of CBSAs include the names of up to three principal cities in

order of descending population size.

Titles of metropolitan divisions include the names of up to three princi-

pal cities in the metropolitan division in order of descending population

size. If there are no principal cities, the title includes the names of up

to three counties in the metropolitan division in order of descending

population size.

Titles of combined statistical areas include the name of the largest prin-

cipal city in the largest CBSA that combines, followed by the names of

up to two additional principal cities in the combination in order of

descending population size, or a suitable regional name, provided that

combined statistical area title does not duplicate the title of a compo-

nent metropolitan or micropolitan statistical area or metropolitan divi-

sion. Local opinion will be considered when determining the titles of

combined statistical areas.



Appendix C. Metropolitan Statistical Areas with Populations of 500,000 or Greater, New Standards, 2000

Rank Metropolitan Statistical Area Population in 2000

1 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 4,452,557

10 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 1,052,238


Appendix C. Metropolitan Statistical Areas with Populations of 500,000 or Greater, New Standards, 2000 (continued)

Rank Metropolitan Statistical Area Population in 2000

49 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 501,774

Endnotes

1. In 1947, the Bureau of the Budget (prede-cessor of the current Office of Manage-ment and Budget), in coordination withthe Census Bureau, the Bureau of LaborStatistics and other agencies coordinatedefforts to define the initial Standard Met-ropolitan Areas (SMAs). They were formedon the basis of a large population nucleustogether with adjacent components (coun-ties, 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 Stan-dard Metropolitan Areas (SMAs) in 1949,different terms and slight changes in defi-nitions were incorporated to establish thebasic areas as Standard Metropolitan Sta-tistical Areas (SMSAs) in 1958, and Metro-politan Statistical Areas (MSAs) in 1983(Frey and Speare, 1995). Concepts associ-ated with 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 Con-solidated Metropolitan 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 popula-tion and commuting data; to the new stan-dards which 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 classi-fication system; 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 popula-tion of 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 Contin-uum Codes.” USDA Economic ResearchService, www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/rural-ity/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, includ-ing both 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 com-muting requirements. The new criteriahave dropped the density requirements butmade the commuting requirements morestringent. (See Appendix B for details.) Aconsequence of the more stringent com-muting requirements was the eliminationof outlying counties that would have quali-fied under the old system; however, insome cases new counties with low popula-tion densities now qualify as outlying coun-ties under the new standards where theywould have been omitted under the previ-ous ones.

14. The new system does not define a PMSAcounterpart for large areas with popula-tions exceeding one million (as was thecase for CMSAs in the old system). How-ever, for 11 MetroSAs, with populationsexceeding 2.5 million, the new system cre-ates “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 experi-ence a 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.


18. Of the 22 metro areas under the old sys-tem that 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 metro-politan area include any with more than250,000 people or 100,000 workers. Placeswith more than 50,000 can also be princi-pal cities 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 Subur-ban Diversity” (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” (Wash-ington: 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, rec-ognizing only cities that appear within themetropolitan area name—and in somecases, only those that exceed certain popu-lation thresholds. See, e.g., William H.Frey and Alan Berube, “City Families, Sub-urban Singles: An Emerging HouseholdStory from Census 2000” (Washington:Brookings Institution, 2002); Roberto Suroand Audrey Singer, “Latino Growth in Met-ropolitan America: Changing Patterns,New Locations” (Washington: BrookingsInstitution, 2002). This approach dis-counted small employment centers in largeregions, such as Frederick, MD (Washing-ton–Baltimore CMSA) 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, metropoli-tan area names included the largest centralcity and each additional city with at least250,000 persons. Under the new stan-dards, the names of the second and thirdlargest principal cities are included in met-ropolitan area 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 res-idents working 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’ popu-lation is 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 Geo-graphic Classification 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 Develop-ment Corporation, 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 Sci-ence Monitor, June 20, 3003, p. 2.


References

Brown, David L. and Louis E. Swan-son, 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 Stan-dards in the United States, 1990-2000” in Tony Champion and GraemeHugo, eds., New Forms of Urbaniza-tion: Beyond the Urban-RuralDichotomy. Burlington, Vermont: Ash-gate Publishing.

Frey, William H. 2003. “Metro Mag-nets for International and DomesticMigrants.” Washington: BrookingsInstitution.

——. 2004a. “Micropolitan America:Small is Interesting.” Charticle,Milken Institute Review, Second Quarter, April.

——. 2004b. “The Fading of City-Sub-urb and Metro-Nonmetro Distinctionsin the United States.” in Tony Cham-pion and 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 Sub-urban America: Evidence from Census2000, Volume 1. Washington: Brook-ings.

Frey, William H. and Alden Speare,1995. “Metropolitan Areas as Func-tional Communities” in Donald C.Dahmann and James D. Fitzsimmons,eds., Metropolitan And Nonmetropooli-tan Areas: New Approaches To Geo-graphic Definition. 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 Nonmetro-politan Areas.” 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 Metro-politan and 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.



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) 797-6292

Frey’s co-authors, also with the Metropolitan Policy Program, are ResearchAnalyst Jill H. Wilson, Fellow Alan Berube, and Immigration Fellow Audrey Singer.

For General Information:The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program(202) 797-6139www.brookings.edu/metro

About the Living Cities Census Series

Census 2000 provides a unique opportunity to define the shape of urban and metropoli-tan policy for the coming decade. With support from Living Cities: The National Com-munity Development 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 demo-graphic trends 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 gov-ernment that 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.org

The Brookings Institution

1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW • Washington D.C. 20036-2188Tel: 202-797-6000 • Fax: 202-797-6004

www.brookings.edu

Direct: 202-797-6139 • Fax/direct: 202-797-2965

www.brookings.edu/metro

55 West 125th Street • 11th Floor • New York, NY 10027Tel: 646-442-2200 • Fax: 646-442-2239

www.livingcities.org

Tracking metropolitan America into the 21st century

Documents

Transcript of Tracking metropolitan America into the 21st century