metropolitan areas

Metropolitan Growth: 2020 Census

Wendell Cox — Thu, 19 Aug 2021 11:57:48 -0400

The recently released 2020 Census count indicates that the nation now has 56 major metropolitan areas (over 1,000,000 residents), with the addition of Fresno, Tulsa and Honolulu toward the end of the decade. The Table below provides detailed information.

New York, the largest metropolitan area, climbed to 20.1 million from 18.9 million in 2010. New York had the second largest population increase, at 1,243,000. This was a 6.6% population increase, slightly below the 7.4% national growth rate. For the first time in decades, New York led Los Angeles in population growth, and it wasn’t even close. New York’s population increase was 3.3 times that of second ranked Los Angeles, which gained 372,000. The Los Angeles percentage growth rate (2.9%) was stunningly low for a metro that had been among the faster growing in the world for decades. Out of the 20 largest metropolitan areas, Los Angeles grew slower than all but two. Los Angeles edged up to 13.2 million according to the census count.

Chicago ranked third, at 9.6 million, having added only 157,000 (1.7%) over the last 10 years.

Fourth ranked Dallas-Fort Worth reached 7.6 million, an increase of 1,271,000, the largest increase of any metropolitan area (20.0%). However, in-state rival Houston had greater percentage growth, at 20.3%, adding 1,202,000 to reach 7.1 million and now ranks 5th largest.

Washington continued its strong growth, adding 736,000 new residents, the fifth strongest gain (13.0%). Washington now ranks sixth largest in the nation, at 6.4 million. During the decade, Washington passed Philadelphia, now ranked 7th , having also been passed by Houston and by Dallas-Fort Worth in the 2000s. In the 2020 census and since the 1960 census, Philadelphia had been the nation’s fourth largest metropolitan area. Philadelphia added 278,000 residents, with a population of 6.2 million in 2020.

Boston added 389,000 residents (8.5%) since 2010 and ranked 10th. Boston had a population of 4.9 million. Phoenix ranked 11th and had a 653,000 population increase (15.6%). San Francisco reached 4.8 million, with Riverside-San Bernardino following closely at 4.7 million. Both of these California metros had larger census count increases than Los Angeles.

Fourteenth ranked Detroit grew by nearly 100,000, for a 2.2% increase, which is rivals that of Los Angeles. Detroit’s count was 4.4 million. Detroit was passed by Phoenix and Riverside-San Bernardino over the decade.

Seattle ranked 14th and had a population of 4.0 million. Seattle gained 579,000 residents for a growth rate of 16.8%.

The fastest growing major metropolitan area was Austin, at 33.0% (567,000). Austin reached 2.3 million and ranks 28th largest. One other major metropolitan area had growth over half-a-million, Orlando, at 539,000, a growth rate of 25.3%. Orlando had a count of 2.7 million, ranking 22nd.

Overall, the major metropolitan areas grew above the national rate, at 9.4%. The 2020 total count for the 56 metros was 189.1 million, representing 57.1% of the national population. This is up from 55.9% in 2010. None of the major metros lost population, though there were some very thin gains. The slowest growing was Hartford, at 0.1%, followed by Cleveland (0.5%) and Pittsburgh (0.6%). Finally, areas outside the historical core municipalities had 78.2 % of the population growth, somewhat more than their 73.4% 2010 share of major metro population (see Note below).

Click the image above to download a PDF of the census information (opens in new tab or window)

Note: This definition of “suburbs” excludes functionally suburban areas within historical core municipalities. About 58% of historical core municipality population is functionally suburban or exurban, according to the City Sector Model, while 86% of the major metro population is functionally suburban or exurban.

Wendell Cox is principal of Demographia, an international public policy firm located in the St. Louis metropolitan area. He is a founding senior fellow at the Urban Reform Institute, Houston, a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy in Winnipeg and a member of the Advisory Board of the Center for Demographics and Policy at Chapman University in Orange, California. He has served as a visiting professor at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers in Paris. His principal interests are economics, poverty alleviation, demographics, urban policy and transport. He is co-author of the annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey and author of Demographia World Urban Areas.

Mayor Tom Bradley appointed him to three terms on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (1977-1985) and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich appointed him to the Amtrak Reform Council, to complete the unexpired term of New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman (1999-2002). He is author of War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life and Toward More Prosperous Cities: A Framing Essay on Urban Areas, Transport, Planning and the Dimensions of Sustainability.

Cities and Opportunity in 21st Century America

Cullum Clark — Mon, 30 Nov 2020 14:04:44 -0500

I’m happy to share our new George W. Bush Institute report, “Cities and Opportunity in 21st Century America.” This report is the first in our new Blueprint for Opportunity series, which aims to explore the challenge of expanding opportunity and economic mobility in America, particularly in U.S. cities, and to lay out a market-oriented opportunity agenda. We plan on publishing additional reports in the series approximately once a quarter over the next couple years.

This report examines how America is doing in promoting economic mobility, why cities and neighborhoods so strongly influence economic mobility for people who live there, and which metropolitan areas are outperforming as engines of opportunity. Our second report will consider lessons from history on cities and opportunity and recent trends remaking the geography of opportunity in the U.S. cities, and subsequent reports will focus on particular policy areas like metropolitan economic development, new business creation, the future of work, the role of anchor institutions, housing attainability, and more.

Click here to download Cities & Opportunities paper

J.H. Cullum Clark is a Director in the George W. Bush Institute-SMU Economic Growth Initiative and an Adjunct Professor of Economics at SMU in Dallas. His work focuses on policies to expand opportunity and economic mobility in America’s cities. He worked for 25 years in the investment industry, at two Wall Street firms in New York then as CEO of his own small investment company for 18 years. He is co-author of a forthcoming book on the metropolitan areas of the “Texas Triangle” region that Texas A&M Press will publish in 2021. He serves on the boards of the leading charter school network in North Texas and several arts and civic organizations in Dallas.

You Can Grow Your Own Way

Delore Zimmerman — Wed, 05 Jul 2017 13:28:25 -0400

A confluence of potent forces is creating an era of localism and decentralization across the planet making local decision-making and action more important than ever before. This is particularly true in the economic realm, where cities and regions must take full advantage of their unique combination of resources, culture, infrastructure, core competencies in industry and agriculture and the skills of entrepreneurs and workers.

There is no single formula for success for any place in the 21st century. Your economic strategy may need a shot in the arm (or a kick in the butt), a total remodel or perhaps it needs to be meaningfully modernized.

The NewGeography Economic Opportunity & Growth Forum is a one-day strategy event that helps leaders, innovators and entrepreneurs develop strategies for grappling with challenges and seizing opportunities that will propel local growth.

The one-day Forum addresses the basic fundamentals to propel growth including policies that stress essential physical infrastructure, investments in basic and skill-oriented education, and a favorable business environment that facilitates free enterprise and entrepreneurship.

Joel Kotkin, an internationally recognized authority on economic and social trends and, a founder and Executive Editor of NewGeography.com, begins each forum with a high-level look at consequential trends and circumstances that affect local and regional growth. This is followed by an economic assessment of the local and regional economy and subsequent panel discussions involving key local leaders in business, government, education and the civic sectors.

Each Forum culminates in afternoon strategy sessions that lead to the identification of priorities where enhanced collaboration is needed and action steps are identified for building support and mobilizing resources and talents to put your city or region on a solid growth trajectory.

NewGeography anticipates doing only two to three Forums in the remainder of 2017 so contact us at your earliest convenience to get the ball moving. Download this pdf for more information about how to bring the forum to your community. For e-mail inquiries contact Delore Zimmerman at delore@praxissg.com.

Metropolitan Populations from 1900 Posted (Current Geographies)

Wendell Cox — Thu, 16 Oct 2014 16:03:37 -0400

We have posted population data for the nation's major metropolitan areas for censuses from 1900 to 2010 and as estimated in 2013. These data are use the current (2013) boundaries to define metropolitan areas. There is no consistent list historical listing of metropolitan area populations using the commuting criteria that define the 2010 and 2013 metropolitan areas. Thus, in using the data in this new report, caution should be employed.

New Metropolitan Area Definition Winners: New York, Charlotte, Grand Rapids, and Indianapolis

Wendell Cox — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:21:35 -0400

Metropolitan America continues to expand. The new Office of Management and Budget metropolitan area definitions, based upon the 2010 census indicate that the counties composing the 52 metropolitan areas with more than 1 million population increased by 1.65 million from the previous definition. This includes more than 1.4 million new residents in the previous 51 major metropolitan areas and more than 200,000 in Grand Rapids, which has become the nation's 52nd metropolitan area with more than 1 million population.

The fastest growers due to the addition of counties were New York, Charlotte, Grand Rapids, and Indianapolis. New York had a 670,000 increase in its metropolitan population, resulting from the addition of Dutchess and Orange counties. New counties also increased the population of the Charlotte metropolitan area by 459,000, the Grand Rapids metropolitan area by 215,000 and Indianapolis by 132,000. The largest percentage gains were in Grand Rapids (28%) and Charlotte (26%).

Ten metropolitan areas had population increases under 100,000 from expansion of the metropolitan area definitions.

For the most part, the major metropolitan area county components were unchanged, with 31 having the same boundaries as under the previous definition. Six metropolitan areas were reduced in geographic size.

The changes in population for 2000 based upon the new metropolitan area definitions are indicated in the table. The components of metropolitan areas are determined by commuting patterns to urban areas (not to the historical core municipalities).

Effect of New Metropolitan Area Geographic Definition on Population: 2010
Population Change Rank	Metropolitan Area	Old Definition	New Definition (2013)	Change	% Change
12	Atlanta, GA	5,268,860	5,286,728	17,868	0.3%
15	Austin, TX	1,716,289	1,716,289	0	0.0%
15	Baltimore, MD	2,710,489	2,710,489	0	0.0%
15	Birmingham, AL	1,128,047	1,128,047	0	0.0%
15	Boston, MA-NH	4,552,402	4,552,402	0	0.0%
15	Buffalo, NY	1,135,509	1,135,509	0	0.0%
2	Charlotte, NC-SC	1,758,038	2,217,012	458,974	26.1%
15	Chicago, IL-IN-WI	9,461,105	9,461,105	0	0.0%
46	Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN	2,130,151	2,114,580	(15,571)	-0.7%
15	Cleveland, OH	2,077,240	2,077,240	0	0.0%
7	Columbus, OH	1,836,536	1,901,974	65,438	3.6%
8	Dallas-Fort Worth, TX	6,371,773	6,426,214	54,441	0.9%
15	Denver, CO	2,543,482	2,543,482	0	0.0%
15	Detroit, MI	4,296,250	4,296,250	0	0.0%
3	Grand Rapids, MI	774,160	988,938	214,778	27.7%
15	Hartford, CT	1,212,381	1,212,381	0	0.0%
49	Houston, TX	5,946,800	5,920,416	(26,384)	-0.4%
4	Indianapolis. IN	1,756,241	1,887,877	131,636	7.5%
15	Jacksonville, FL	1,345,596	1,345,596	0	0.0%
48	Kansas City, MO-KS	2,035,334	2,009,342	(25,992)	-1.3%
15	Las Vegas, NV	1,951,269	1,951,269	0	0.0%
15	Los Angeles, CA	12,828,837	12,828,837	0	0.0%
51	Louisville, KY-IN	1,283,566	1,235,708	(47,858)	-3.7%
13	Memphis, TN-MS-AR	1,316,100	1,324,829	8,729	0.7%
15	Miami, FL	5,564,635	5,564,635	0	0.0%
15	Milwaukee,WI	1,555,908	1,555,908	0	0.0%
6	Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI	3,279,833	3,348,859	69,026	2.1%
5	Nashville, TN	1,589,934	1,670,890	80,956	5.1%
11	New Orleans. LA	1,167,764	1,189,866	22,102	1.9%
1	New York, NY-NJ-PA	18,897,109	19,567,410	670,301	3.5%
15	Oklahoma City, OK	1,252,987	1,252,987	0	0.0%
15	Orlando, FL	2,134,411	2,134,411	0	0.0%
15	Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD	5,965,343	5,965,343	0	0.0%
15	Phoenix, AZ	4,192,887	4,192,887	0	0.0%
15	Pittsburgh, PA	2,356,285	2,356,285	0	0.0%
15	Portland, OR-WA	2,226,009	2,226,009	0	0.0%
15	Providence, RI-MA	1,600,852	1,600,852	0	0.0%
15	Raleigh, NC	1,130,490	1,130,490	0	0.0%
52	Richmond, VA	1,258,251	1,208,101	(50,150)	-4.0%
15	Riverside-San Bernardino, CA	4,224,851	4,224,851	0	0.0%
10	Rochester, NY	1,054,323	1,079,671	25,348	2.4%
15	Sacramento, CA	2,149,127	2,149,127	0	0.0%
47	St. Louis,, MO-IL	2,812,896	2,787,701	(25,195)	-0.9%
50	Salt Lake City, UT	1,124,197	1,087,873	(36,324)	-3.2%
15	San Antonio, TX	2,142,508	2,142,508	0	0.0%
15	San Diego, CA	3,095,313	3,095,313	0	0.0%
15	San Francisco-Oakland, CA	4,335,391	4,335,391	0	0.0%
15	San Jose, CA	1,836,911	1,836,911	0	0.0%
15	Seattle, WA	3,439,809	3,439,809	0	0.0%
15	Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL	2,783,243	2,783,243	0	0.0%
14	Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC	1,671,683	1,676,822	5,139	0.3%
9	Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV	5,582,170	5,636,232	54,062	1.0%

	Total	167,861,575	169,512,899	1,651,324	1.0%

Metro Job Recovery in 2011

Aaron M. Renn — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 17:13:38 -0400

The latest BLS release for metro area unemployment has full year averages for 2011 available, so we can see which cities added the most jobs last year. On the whole, it was a much better year for metros than we’ve seen in the recent past. The national economy added jobs, and all but two large metros did as well. New York City added the most jobs of any region, but given that it is far and away the biggest city in America, it should do so. NYC ranked only the middle of the pack on a percentage growth basis. On that measure, Austin, Texas was number one.

The top percentage gainer in the Midwest region? Detroit, Michigan. Perhaps this shouldn’t be surprising either, as manufacturing is pro-cyclical.

Here is the performance of the metro areas in the United States with more than one million people, ranked by percentage change. The data is also available in spreadsheet form.

Rank	Metro Area	2010	2011	Total Change	Pct Change
1	Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX	769.5	791.4	21.9	2.85%
2	San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA	855.2	878.2	23.0	2.69%
3	Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX	2528.1	2593.1	65.0	2.57%
4	Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC	807.5	826.7	19.2	2.38%
5	Nashville-Davidson–Murfreesboro–Franklin, TN	734.3	751.7	17.4	2.37%
6	Salt Lake City, UT	608.1	622.0	13.9	2.29%
7	Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI	1737.1	1775.3	38.2	2.20%
8	Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX	2860.9	2921.7	60.8	2.13%
9	Raleigh-Cary, NC	498.1	508.6	10.5	2.11%
10	Pittsburgh, PA	1125.3	1148.6	23.3	2.07%
11	Oklahoma City, OK	558.5	569.6	11.1	1.99%
12	Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL	1112.0	1132.3	20.3	1.83%
13	Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA	968.8	986.1	17.3	1.79%
14	Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI	1697.1	1727.1	30.0	1.77%
15	Baltimore-Towson, MD	1274.0	1293.5	19.5	1.53%
16	Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA	1641.2	1666.1	24.9	1.52%
17	Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO	1193.5	1211.6	18.1	1.52%
18	Columbus, OH	903.3	916.9	13.6	1.51%
19	Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL	2185.6	2218.3	32.7	1.50%
20	Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ	1688.9	1712.8	23.9	1.42%
21	Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA	2272.6	2302.9	30.3	1.33%
22	New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA	519.1	526.0	6.9	1.33%
23	San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX	843.0	853.2	10.2	1.21%
24	Richmond, VA	602.4	609.5	7.1	1.18%
25	New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA	8306.8	8403.9	97.1	1.17%
26	Indianapolis-Carmel, IN	871.1	881.2	10.1	1.16%
27	Jacksonville, FL	583.1	589.6	6.5	1.11%
28	Rochester, NY	503.1	508.7	5.6	1.11%
29	Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV	2962.9	2995.5	32.6	1.10%
30	Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT – Metro	533.2	538.9	5.7	1.07%
31	Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI	4246.6	4291.4	44.8	1.05%
32	Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI	805.8	814.1	8.3	1.03%
33	Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN	592.9	599.0	6.1	1.03%
34	Kansas City, MO-KS	971.6	981.4	9.8	1.01%
35	Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL	1001.1	1011.0	9.9	0.99%
36	Memphis, TN-MS-AR	589.8	595.4	5.6	0.95%
37	Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN	980.8	989.4	8.6	0.88%
38	Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY	538.2	542.7	4.5	0.84%
39	San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA	1880.2	1894.3	14.1	0.75%
40	Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH – Metro	2426.5	2443.3	16.8	0.69%
41	Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA	5126.8	5162.2	35.4	0.69%
42	San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA	1222.8	1231.2	8.4	0.69%
43	St. Louis, MO-IL	1286.9	1295.4	8.5	0.66%
44	Las Vegas-Paradise, NV	803.6	808.3	4.7	0.58%
45	Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA	1125.9	1129.7	3.8	0.34%
46	Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD	2697.0	2705.9	8.9	0.33%
47	Providence-Fall River-Warwick, RI-MA – Metro	541.3	542.8	1.5	0.28%
48	Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC	735.2	736.8	1.6	0.22%
49	Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH	991.1	992.7	1.6	0.16%
50	Birmingham-Hoover, AL	489.5	488.6	-0.9	-0.18%
51	Sacramento–Arden-Arcade–Roseville, CA	809.9	802.0	-7.9	-0.98%

This first appeared at Aaron's blog, Urbanophile.com.

Urban Densities Exclude Rural Areas: Avent Postscript

Wendell Cox — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 01:09:51 -0400

We recently noted that Ryan Avent was one third right in his recent Sunday New York Times article on urban density. Avent has posted a response suggesting that it is inappropriate to use average urban densities in urban productivity analyses, as we had done, but that "weighted average densities" should be used instead. Weighted average density was not mentioned in his New York Times article.

In the interim, we were able to find the studies on urban density and productivity that seem to match those Avent refers to in his New York Times article. There are two studies concluding that doubling employment (not population) density increases productivity by six percent (Ciccone & Hall, 1996 and Harris & Ioannides, 2000), as Avent noted. Another study (Davis, Fisher & Whited, 2007) indicates that doubling employment densities could increase productivity by as much as 28 percent, also as Avent noted.

Urban and Rural Density Combined Are Not Urban Density: In contrast to Avent's preference for weighted average density, each of the studies uses average density, like with our analysis. More importantly the econometric formulas in the studies do not include an urban density variable. The density variables in all three studies include rural areas.

The studies use county, metropolitan area and sub-metropolitan area densities, each of which contain far more rural land than urban land. By definition, urban areas exclude rural areas and, as a result, the moment rural areas become a part of the calculation, the result cannot be urban densities. In 2000, Census Bureau data showed counties (county equivalent level jurisdictions), which comprise the entire nation, to be less than three percent urban and more than 97 percent rural (Figure 1). Metropolitan areas also have a similar predominance of rural land (Figure 1). Among major metropolitan areas (those with more than 1,000,000 population) in 2000, approximately 85 percent of the land was rural and 15 percent of the land was urban (Figure 2).

Ciccone & Hall use employment density at the county level and thus mix urban and rural densities. Harris & Ioannides use employment densities at the metropolitan statistical area or the primary metropolitan statistical area level (a sub-metropolitan designation since replaced by the more appropriately titled "metropolitan division"). Davis, Fisher & Whited use employment densities at the metropolitan statistical area level. The two studies using metropolitan areas or parts of metropolitan areas also mix urban and rural densities.

Urban Area Densities: Urban density is calculated at the urban area level, which is the area of continuous urban development. This is also called the urban footprint, which is generally indicated by the lights of the city one would see from an airplane on a clear night. Urban areas are delineated using the smallest census geographical units ("census blocks," which are smaller than census tracts) each ten years. The 2010 data will be released next year. Among urban areas, the highest density core urban area in a major metropolitan area (Los Angeles) is approximately four times the lowest (Birmingham).

Nonsensical Metropolitan Area Densities: Theoretically, metropolitan areas are labor market areas, which include a core urban area (and sometimes more than one urban area) and nearby rural areas from which people commute to work in the urban area (can be called the "commuter shed"). However, in the United States, metropolitan areas are too coarsely defined for density comparisons with one another. US metropolitan areas are composed of complete counties or, in the six New England states, complete towns. This jurisdictionally based criteria can produce metropolitan areas that are much larger than genuine labor markets in a number of cases and some that are smaller. American metropolitan areas are not spatially consistent by any functional labor market definition. Metropolitan densities are thus nonsensical, no matter what density is being measured (such as population or employment density). Among major metropolitan areas, the highest density metropolitan area (New York) is 24 times that of the lowest density (Salt Lake City), six times the maximum difference in urban area density.

Metropolitan Ireland and Happenstance: In the similarly sized San Francisco (as used by Davis, Fisher and Whited) and Riverside-San Bernardino metropolitan areas, San Francisco has 1,700 square miles of rural land, while Riverside-San Bernardino has 26,000, approximately 15 times as much. At more than 27,000 square miles, Riverside-San Bernardino covers more land area than the Republic of Ireland. The difference in population densities between metropolitan areas is determined in considerable measure by the size (land area) of the included counties, not by the number of people in cities.

If the state of California were to carve out a new county composed of western Riverside and San Bernardino counties (as Colorado created Bloomfield County in the early 2000s), the land area of the metropolitan area could be reduced 95 percent, because the remainder would not meet the criteria for inclusion in Riverside-San Bernardino. The importance of the density variable for Riverside-San Bernardino in econometric formulas would be increased many times. With only 3,100 county level jurisdictions of varying sizes, this kind of incomparability cannot help but occur. The boundaries of metropolitan areas are defined by political happenstance.

On the other hand, the nation's urban areas are built up from 7,000,000 census blocks. This permits a fine grained definition that makes urban areas appropriate for density comparisons. The definition of urban areas is beyond political fiat.

Metropolitan areas in the United States could be readily defined at the census block level, just like urban areas. Regrettably, the Office of Management and Budget missed another opportunity in the 2010 census to make the necessary criteria change. U.S. metropolitan area data is of great value for most analysis, but misleading for spatial or density analysis.

Low-Density Productivity: Subregionalizing the density and productivity analysis would pose problems. Avent uses household incomes as his standard (and we agree that cost of living differentials are important). The San Jose metropolitan area has the highest household incomes of any major metropolitan area and would therefore be among the most productive. Yet, San Jose's automobile-oriented Silicon Valley, to which much of the productivity is attributable, has a far lower employment density than the transit and pedestrian oriented cores of Manhattan and San Francisco (and yes, even not-so-transit oriented downtown Phoenix). In low-density Seattle, Microsoft's automobile oriented Redmond campus probably ranks among the most productive real estate in the country, yet its employment density (like that of Silicon Valley) pales by comparison to the higher density cores of Seattle, Phoenix, Nashville, Oklahoma City and virtually every other downtown core of a major metropolitan area.

At the End, Agreement: Avent concludes, "I just want to make sure we stop costing ourselves easy opportunities for growth." I could not agree more. It is time to abandon regulations that artificially raise housing prices, deprive households of a better standard of living, and drive them to places they would rather not live. For centuries, people have flocked to urban areas for better economic opportunities. Urban areas should be places where people can realize their aspirations, not places that repel them because it doesn't suit the interests of those already there.

The Transportation Politics of Envy: The United States & Europe

Wendell Cox — Tue, 03 May 2011 13:06:40 -0400

The Department for Transport of the United Kingdom may be surprised to learn that the average round-trip commute in the nation is up to a quarter hour less than reflected in its reports. This revelation comes from an article in The Economist, ("Life in the Slow Lane") citing a survey indicating that the average commuter in the United Kingdom spends less than 40 minutes daily traveling to and from work in 2000. According to Regional Transport Statistics, published by the Department for Transport, the average commuter spent 50 minutes traveling to and from work in 2000. The UK government further indicates that the average commute time had risen to 56 minutes by 2009. The Economist relies on the much lower figure (and other similarly low estimates from other European nations) in fashioning an article criticizing transportation policy in the United States.

Shorter US Commute Times: The Economist begins with the contention that the average work trip travel time in the United States is substantially greater than that of the number of European nations. The most reliable data says otherwise.

The most comprehensive work trip data in Europe is maintained by Eurostat, the statistical agency of the European Commission. The Eurostat data indicates that average commute times in Europe are somewhat more than in the United States in metropolitan areas of similar size (Figure 1), when compared to the comprehensive data from the US Census Bureau. For example, among metropolitan areas of more than 5 million population, the daily round-trip average commute is under 58 minutes in the United States, less than the 64 minutes in Europe. European commute times are longer in all population categories (Note).

Overall, the average round-trip travel time in the US metropolitan areas over 500,000 population is 23.6 minutes and 25.3 minutes in the European metropolitan areas.

Moreover, there are indications that the US trend is favorable, at least in comparison to the United Kingdom. Between 2000 and 2009, UK government data shows average round trip commute times to have increased six minutes, while US government data indicates a decline of nearly one minute (Figure 2).

The US: Less Traffic Congestion: The Economist then asserts that traffic congestion is worse in US metropolitan areas than in Europe. According to The Economist:

...with few exceptions (London among them) American traffic congestion is worse than western Europe’s. Average delays in America’s largest cities exceed those in cities like Berlin and Copenhagen.

The reality is the opposite, according to the INRIX Traffic Scorecard and a more correct rendering of the point above would have been:

... with few exceptions (Los Angeles among them) western Europe's traffic congestion is worse than America's. Average delays in some of western Europe's smallest cities exceed those in cities like Atlanta, Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth.

INRIX compared 2010 peak period traffic delays in metropolitan areas of the United States and Europe. As with commuting time, the average travel delay per driver was greater in Europe than in the United States in every population classification. While Los Angeles has the worst congestion the approximately 200 metropolitan areas (one-half in the US and one-half in Europe), the next 13 worst were in Europe (Honolulu ranks 15th) and 18 of the worst 20 were in Europe (Figure 3). The third worst ranking US metropolitan area was San Francisco, at 28th, while Washington was 29th. Only seven of the 50 most congested metropolitan areas were in the United States. Of course, anyone who has driven extensively in the metropolitan areas of the US and western Europe knows that congestion is generally far worse in Europe, a fact confirmed by the INRIX data.

Indeed, traffic congestion in the smallest European metropolitan areas (under 500,000) was worse than in the largest US metropolitan areas, those with over 5 million (There were no US metropolitan areas with less than 500,000 population in the INRIX data, see Figure 4). Those automobile-oriented, highly suburbanized banes of urban planning, Atlanta, Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston all ranked in the middle, between 90th and 110th. At least 75 European metropolitan areas had worse traffic congestion than all three.

High-Speed Rail Envy: Finally, The Economist decries the lack of high-speed rail in the United States, noting that:

The absence of true high-speed rail is a continuing embarrassment to the nation’s rail enthusiasts.

It is hard to imagine a more pathetic standard for evaluating public policy than "satisfying rail enthusiasts." It is well known that that governments from Washington to London, Athens and Lisbon are in serious financial difficulty. It is a time for limiting public expenditures to matters of genuine priority. That does not include high speed rail.

The intercity road and airport systems are principally financed by users, in contrast to the operating subsidies and intense (100 percent) capital subsidies required by high-speed rail. This is evident in California with its now $65 billion first line that has more than doubled in real cost in a decade. It is also evident, closer to home for The Economist, where the controversial HS-2 high-speed rail proposal from London to Manchester and Leeds could easily double in cost (to £65 billion), based upon the best international research. Astoundingly, a doubling of cost would be a bargain for Britain's taxpayers compared to two previous high-speed rail failures in the same corridor (See: The High Speed Rail Battle of Britain). The recurring environmental justifications ring hallow due to the high costs and the three generations or more it would require in California and the United Kingdom to eliminate the first gram of greenhouse gas.

Transport policy could be improved in the United States, as well as in Europe. However, the starting point must be facts, not fancy, and certainly not envy.

-------

Note: this analysis includes all data available for metropolitan areas in the United States (metropolitan statistical areas) and Europe (larger urban zones, the closest equivalent to US metropolitan areas). US data is complete, covering all 100 metropolitan areas with more than 500,000 population and is from the United States Census Bureau. European data is principally from Eurostat (94 larger urban zones and three from other sources). Paris data is from IAURIF (Institut d'aménagement et d'urbanisme de la région Île-de-France). Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Leeds data is from the UK Department for Transport. Data is not available for a number of metropolitan areas with more than 500,000 population in Europe.

What's in a (Metropolitan Area) Name?

Wendell Cox — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:32:17 -0500

Only two of the world's megacities (metropolitan areas or urban areas with more than 10 million people) have adopted names that are more reflective of their geographical reality than their former core-based names. It is likely that this will spread to other megacities and urban areas as the core jurisdictions that supplied the names for most become even less significant in the dispersing urban area.

The first metropolitan area to make a change was Jakarta which became "Jabotabek," a title derived from the names of four major municipalities in the metropolitan area, Jakarta, Bogor, Tangerang and Bekasi. However, since that name did not include letters from the fifth largest municipality, Depok, the metropolitan area is sometimes called Jabodetabek. But adding a couple of letters for municipalities could lead to an exceedingly long name. For example, a new municipality of South Tangerang was recently created, representing the sixth municipality with nearly 1,000,000 people or more in Jabotabek. Presumably there will be those who will insist on calling the metropolitan area Jabodetabekst, a more Russian than Indonesian sounding name.

Further, a large part of the metropolitan area is not in one of the six larger municipalities and instead is in one of the many smaller jurisdictions. There is thus the potential of the name even longer than the present world record holder, "Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateahaumaitawhitiurehaeaturipuk-
akapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu," which is the 105 letter name of a hill in the Hawks Bay area of New Zealand.

The second mega-city with a new name is the Mexico City area. Mexico's national statistics bureau, the Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI) has designated the Mexico City metropolitan area as the "Zona Metropolitana del Valle de México," which translates to the Valley of Mexico metropolitan area.

Alternate names for metropolitan areas or urban areas are not unusual. One of the earliest may have been the "Southland," a name apparently given to the Los Angeles area or Southern California many decades ago by the Los Angeles Times. There are Tri-State areas, such as New York and Cincinnati and Seattleites refer to the Puget Sound area. However all of these names have varying definitions depending upon who is using them and none directly corresponds to the boundaries of either an urban area or a metropolitan area.

Perhaps better defined is the Randstad area of the Netherlands, which includes at least the urban areas of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague. However this area is too large to be considered a single metropolitan area or a single urban area.

Similarly, there is the Pearl River Delta, made up of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Dongguan, Guangzhou, Foshan, Jiangmen, Zhongshan, Zhuhai and Macau. This area of virtually continuous urbanization is by far the largest in the world, but does not qualify as a metropolitan area or an urban area because each one of the jurisdictions is essentially a separate labor market. Further, despite the fact that Hong Kong and Macau are a part of China, the border controls between Shenzhen and Hong Kong and Zhuhai and Macau make it structurally impossible for those areas to merge into single labor markets.

The Yangtze River Delta is another accurate title for a large area of urbanization. This includes the city/province of Shanghai, and up to 14 city/prefectures, such as Nanjing, Suzhou, Ningbo, Yangzhou and Hangzhou. However, as in the case of the Pearl River Delta each of these represents a separate labor market and urban area.