New 2013 MSA and CSA definitions.

[plinko]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Same with San Luis Obispo. I'm don't think enough people are making a commute to LA enough to warrant it being included in the CSA.

Santa Barbara makes more sense to me. I would also include the Coachella, Yucca, and Apple Valleys. Perhaps one day even San Diego. Bakersfield is a long way off, though.

I don't know what they are specifically, but I seriously doubt the commuter interchanges are large enough or even close for either SB or SLO counties to get added to LA. In fact, there are substantially more commuters FROM Ventura County into Santa Barbara than the other way around. And beyond that I would suspect that there are substantially more commuters FROM Santa Barbara County into SLO than the other way around. (yes, I realize that it is an aggregate number for inclusion).

[Rail Claimore]

Kern County going to the LA CSA is way more likely than SB or SLO.

[JonathanGRR]

Originally Posted by hudkina

The most likely CSA (besides with Battle Creek) that Kalamazoo would form would be with Grand Rapids. Granted, Allegan and Barry Counties would need to be a part of the Grand Rapids MSA for that to happen.

If the Grand Rapids MSA included Kent, Ottawa, Allegan, Barry, Ionia, Montcalm, and Newaygo (as it should) the commuter interchange rate between the Kalamazoo MSA (Kalamazoo and Van Buren Counties) and the Grand Rapids MSA would be just under 12% which isn't all that far off of the 15% needed.

What's so fascinating (and frustrating) about the Grand Rapids MSA is that it is always changing. Every bordering county teeters on the edge of being included, so slight miscalculations in sampling could lead to either a one-county MSA or a nine-county one.

In my opinion, Ottawa County should be included with Kent County (Grand Rapids) as a core county. The county contains 76,000 residents of the Grand Rapids urbanized area. If Ottawa County were a core county, Allegan (36.9%), Ionia (25.8%) and Newaygo (26.3%) Counties would qualify to become a part of the MSA.

Source: http://www.michigan.gov/cgi/0,4548,7...6788--,00.html

@Accra Ghana: MSAs and CSAs do not directly measure the built-up area surrounding a particular city. Rather, they measure the economic ties to that city based on commuting patterns. It is not the fault of the Census for under-representing Detroit; the metro is simply less centralized than many other metro areas in the country. This is why the Detroit MSA only has 3,914.07 sq. miles of land compared to Grand Rapid's 2,686 sq. miles even though the population of Detroit's MSA is four times larger. Grand Rapids is more centralized, so the commuting patterns draw more counties in; Detroit is not.

[CCs77]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Hmm, not sure I would add Bakersfield to the LA CSA just yet... I mean yeah, sure, a lot of people make that 1½- 3 hour commute, but it's still not as connected to it as, say, San Diego is. To me, Frazier Park and Lebec are the border between the two CSAs.

Same with San Luis Obispo. I'm don't think enough people are making a commute to LA enough to warrant it being included in the CSA.

Santa Barbara makes more sense to me. I would also include the Coachella, Yucca, and Apple Valleys. Perhaps one day even San Diego. Bakersfield is a long way off, though.

The CSA's are made with counties, entire counties, they don't split them. So, all those valleys are already included in Los Angeles CSA, since they are in the Riverside and San Bernardino counties, both of them forming part of Los Angeles CSA.



In a different issue, it is to be remarked that now the entire state of New Jersey forms part of either the New York CSA or the Philadelphia CSA. Before it had some counties left, but now all the counties are in one of those two CSA's

[fflint]

Santa Barbara doesn't even send 10,000 commuters into the Ventura-Oxnard MSA. The numbers don't show anything like what's necessary to conjoin SB with Ventura, let alone with LA.

[AccraGhana]

Originally Posted by jonathan.jam

What's so fascinating (and frustrating) about the Grand Rapids MSA is that it is always changing. Every bordering county teeters on the edge of being included, so slight miscalculations in sampling could lead to either a one-county MSA or a nine-county one.

In my opinion, Ottawa County should be included with Kent County (Grand Rapids) as a core county. The county contains 76,000 residents of the Grand Rapids urbanized area. If Ottawa County were a core county, Allegan (36.9%), Ionia (25.8%) and Newaygo (26.3%) Counties would qualify to become a part of the MSA.

Source: http://www.michigan.gov/cgi/0,4548,7...6788--,00.html

@Accra Ghana: MSAs and CSAs do not directly measure the built-up area surrounding a particular city. Rather, they measure the economic ties to that city based on commuting patterns. It is not the fault of the Census for under-representing Detroit; the metro is simply less centralized than many other metro areas in the country. This is why the Detroit MSA only has 3,914.07 sq. miles of land compared to Grand Rapid's 2,686 sq. miles even though the population of Detroit's MSA is four times larger. Grand Rapids is more centralized, so the commuting patterns draw more counties in; Detroit is not.

Thanks all….but I am not confused about what MSA and CSA’s are designed to measure. My point is akin to this. If one plays baseball why would you get dressed for a game with a uniform and equipment designed for the needs of a football player? I am not a marketer; I do not work for government or departments of transportation, etc. I am not any of the entities that these metrics are designed for the specific consumption of…and neither are 99% of the people, likely, who use this forum.

We, if I may be presumptuous, meaning the vast majority of people on these forums, are not the audience that these statistics are presented for. I have traveled and or lived in many large cities, including Detroit, Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, LA, San Fran, San Diego and more. Not once have I heard anyone mention or ask what the commuter interchange rate is between core counties or anyone using the metrics of CSA and MSA delineation to make any decisions in their daily lives in a given human settlement area.

We throw around these statistics like they are designed and are of some use to us, when they mostly are not (for most people). Their value is mostly in TREND ANALYSIS and snap shot analysis for current and future decision making for governments and businesses. I do find the data useful for measuring populate growth trends, but not absolute statistics. For example, it certainly sends a false signal about REAL growth when Grand Rapids MSA increases by about a third since the 2010 census. The logical (based upon commuting formulas) populations increased by about 30% while the physical (actual population within the given counties) population increased by only 2 or 3 percent.

When I visit an area or on the occasions that I have relocated, things to do and travel time to get to the persons, places and things are my primary interest and concerns. These are also the things that I hear other people concerned with. This, for the most part, is a function of population and population density. People are concerned with how far away things are from where they are and or how long does it take to get there (which might be negatively influenced by high commuter interchange rates). The typical persons metric is spatial and physical......not logical (based upon formulas or artifcial boundaries and points of demarcation) like MSA, CSA and other metrics.

[JonathanGRR]

Originally Posted by AccraGhana

We throw around these statistics like they are designed and are of some use to us, when they mostly are not (for most people). Their value is mostly in TREND ANALYSIS and snap shot analysis for current and future decision making for governments and businesses. I do find the data useful for measuring populate growth trends, but not absolute statistics. For example, it certainly sends a false signal about REAL growth when Grand Rapids MSA increases by about a third since the 2010 census. The logical (based upon commuting formulas) populations increased by about 30% while the physical (actual population within the given counties) population increased by only 2 or 3 percent.

I'm still confused at what your point is. The statistics are used to provide valuable insight into how the region is operating as a whole. It does not matter what one person feels like; this is macro, not micro. In the case of Grand Rapids, of course no one is going to make the absurd assumption that Grand Rapids grew by 30%. Most articles that I have read that discuss the new MSA definition specifically point this out and place the metro growth at 1.7%. There is nothing misleading about it...

[AccraGhana]

Originally Posted by jonathan.jam

I'm still confused at what your point is. The statistics are used to provide valuable insight into how the region is operating as a whole. It does not matter what one person feels like; this is macro, not micro. In the case of Grand Rapids, of course no one is going to make the absurd assumption that Grand Rapids grew by 30%. Most articles that I have read that discuss the new MSA definition specifically point this out and place the metro growth at 1.7%. There is nothing misleading about it...

I don't think how the region is operating as a whole has changed drastically.....at least not as much as the change in MSA population suggest. I mean really....24% commute rates vs 25% commute rates does not suggest a change in the way the region is operating. The way the Grand Rapids area operates is a gradual evolution. There has been no radical change in the way the region operates, despite a radical change in the MSA numbers.

The last time I looked at the MSA population of Grand Rapids it was 700k.....now when I look its nearly 1 million and the region is basically just the same. People on this thread have complained about the absurdity of the CSA but the MSA are absurd as well.

[hudkina]

Grand Rapids is just a good example of what happens when you choose an arbitrary threshold of 25%. If the threshold was 2% less (23%) then the Grand Rapids MSA would have a population of 1.1 million. If the threshold was 2% more (27%) then the Grand Rapids MSA would have a population of 600,000.

Essentially, a swing of 4% doubles the metropolitan population...

In reality, Grand Rapids has a sphere of influence of roughly 1.4 million people and eventually, as the city continues to grow, that number will be reflected in the MSA population.

If the Ottawa County portion of the Grand Rapids urban area surpasses the Ottawa County portion of the Holland urban area, then Ottawa County becomes a core county of the Grand Rapids MSA.

Allegan County ----> Kent = 16.9% -- Kent/Ottawa = 36.9%
Barry County ----> Kent = 25.1% -- Kent/Ottawa = 26.1%
Ionia County ----> Kent = 24.8% -- Kent/Ottawa = 25.8%
Montcalm County ----> Kent = 26.2% -- Kent/Ottawa = 26.8%
Newaygo County ----> Kent = 22.9% -- Kent/Ottawa = 26.3%

Even Muskegon County would be getting close to the 25% threshold with just over 20%.

BTW, as of 2010, Holland's UA has a population of just over 90,000 within Ottawa County, whereas the Grand Rapids UA has a population of just over 76,000 within Ottawa County. Holland's UA is up from about 82,000 in 2000, while Grand Rapid's UA is up from 59,000 in 2000. If this trend continues, then both UAs might have just under 100,000 within the county come 2020. If Grand Rapids "wins" then Ottawa becomes a core county of the Grand Rapids MSA, if Holland "wins" then Ottawa at best comes an outlying county of the Grand Rapids MSA.

[simms3_redux]

Hudkina, where do you get commuter information?

[JonathanGRR]

Some of that information can be found here: http://www.michigan.gov/cgi/0,4548,7...6788--,00.html

I do hope (and envision) that Ottawa County will become a core county pretty soon. Depending on how development goes, the Grand Rapids and Holland UAs could even become connected (probably not merged, though) within the next decade. The Grand Haven-Muskegon area will also be interesting to keep an eye on. 1/4 of Muskegon's UA is in Ottawa County, and Muskegon, Norton Shores and the Tri-Cities are all becoming very interconnected.

[AccraGhana]

Originally Posted by hudkina

Grand Rapids is just a good example of what happens when you choose an arbitrary threshold of 25%. If the threshold was 2% less (23%) then the Grand Rapids MSA would have a population of 1.1 million. If the threshold was 2% more (27%) then the Grand Rapids MSA would have a population of 600,000.

Essentially, a swing of 4% doubles the metropolitan population...

In reality, Grand Rapids has a sphere of influence of roughly 1.4 million people and eventually, as the city continues to grow, that number will be reflected in the MSA population.

If the Ottawa County portion of the Grand Rapids urban area surpasses the Ottawa County portion of the Holland urban area, then Ottawa County becomes a core county of the Grand Rapids MSA.

Allegan County ----> Kent = 16.9% -- Kent/Ottawa = 36.9%
Barry County ----> Kent = 25.1% -- Kent/Ottawa = 26.1%
Ionia County ----> Kent = 24.8% -- Kent/Ottawa = 25.8%
Montcalm County ----> Kent = 26.2% -- Kent/Ottawa = 26.8%
Newaygo County ----> Kent = 22.9% -- Kent/Ottawa = 26.3%

Even Muskegon County would be getting close to the 25% threshold with just over 20%.

BTW, as of 2010, Holland's UA has a population of just over 90,000 within Ottawa County, whereas the Grand Rapids UA has a population of just over 76,000 within Ottawa County. Holland's UA is up from about 82,000 in 2000, while Grand Rapid's UA is up from 59,000 in 2000. If this trend continues, then both UAs might have just under 100,000 within the county come 2020. If Grand Rapids "wins" then Ottawa becomes a core county of the Grand Rapids MSA, if Holland "wins" then Ottawa at best comes an outlying county of the Grand Rapids MSA.

This is why I keep coming back to the logical vs. the physical. There has to be some formula, the logic, to standardize the way human settlement areas are grouped and counted. Whatever the logical methodology may be, it will always involve points of demarcation for inclusion or exclusion, whether it be a percentage of commuters or a given density threshold. The problem with this, and not that there are not problems and issues with other methodologies, is exemplified by the potential wild fluctuations of the Grand Rapids MSA population. If an entity is looking to market their product in a million plus metro area Grand Rapids could be on or off the list based upon slight variations or fluctuations in commuter interchange rates. If an entity is seeking a site location or convention and it is looking at areas of a million people Grand Rapids inclusion or exclusion is based upon very marginal changes in commutes.

The fact that an area does not meet the logical criteria for population does not mean that it does not meet the physical criteria of population. A Grand Rapids metro area of 600,000 vs. 1.1 million could put Grand Rapids in the league of Des Moines Iowa or Oklahoma City. Is it a small market or midsize market? One year it may be a small market and the next year it’s a mid-size market, while its physical population remains pretty much the same. This is MSA and CSA figures should not be viewed alone, but rather, in conjunction with radial population analysis. What is the 50 mile radius population of Grand Rapids vs. say Oklahoma City would help reveal the true physical population of the area to use in conjunction with logical counts? It’s true that that 50 miles is a logical demarcation as well, but both used together (the MSA and Radial population) helps to compliment the other to reveal a better picture of an area.

This goes back to the point I was attempting to make about Detroit. The physical Detroit area is much larger and more populated than its logical population. The logic does not work in favor of capturing what exist in the physical area of Southeastern Michigan, and parts of Ontario, Canada. On the other hand, many Southern Areas logical counts comports with their physical counts. In other words, the MSA logic maximizes the physical area of many southern metros while the logic minimizes the physical area in the case of places like Detroit. What does the pull or influence of the hub really matter if there are nearly 6 million people in an a 50 mile radius area to market to, relative to another market with 6 million whose hub has a much stronger influence or pull?

[kingchef]

accra, i understand your argument, and i agree w/ it. if you have some time, i wish you would consider the nashville-davidson-franklin-williamson-murfreesboro-rutherford msa + the old csa, that included columbia-maury county, + the new shelbyville designation. this area is almost 7,000 sq miles and is estimated to contain approximately 1.85 million. there are those who are absolutely going wild saying that the new number is the nashville-davidson county designation, which is showing a huge number for growth in the msa. would this situation be near the same as the one pointed out in grand rapids, michigan?

[AccraGhana]

Originally Posted by kingchef

accra, i understand your argument, and i agree w/ it. if you have some time, i wish you would consider the nashville-davidson-franklin-williamson-murfreesboro-rutherford msa + the old csa, that included columbia-maury county, + the new shelbyville designation. this area is almost 7,000 sq miles and is estimated to contain approximately 1.85 million. there are those who are absolutely going wild saying that the new number is the nashville-davidson county designation, which is showing a huge number for growth in the msa. would this situation be near the same as the one pointed out in grand rapids, michigan?

Here is a pretty good article listing all the current metro areas of 1 million or more and how their MSA populations were impacted, percentage wise, by the Office of Management and Budget logical methodology. The article shows that the Nashville MSA increased by 80,000, which is not as radical of a jump as Grand Rapids, which led the list in percentage increase in population.

Again, to beat a dead horse, if one were to take the 7,000 physical square miles of metro Nashville, which you say, formed from the logical application of MSA methodology, and superimpose that same physical area over Grand Rapids, there would probably be about the same number of people in both areas. Of course, the argument is that the Nashville hub or core has a greater pull and influence, and hence commute rates, than does Grand Rapids which gives it a greater logical population and area than Grand Rapids, even though they are comparable in physical population given a 7,000 square mile footprint.

MSA numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt and in conjunction with other methodologies for counting. I think MSA, Urban Areas and Radial counts, all together, gives the best understanding of an area and each individual methodology is of value mainly for specific entities who need to track specific phenomenon. One size does not fit all.

[plinko]

Originally Posted by fflint

Santa Barbara doesn't even send 10,000 commuters into the Ventura-Oxnard MSA. The numbers don't show anything like what's necessary to conjoin SB with Ventura, let alone with LA.

Exactly. The number that always gets tossed around here going the OTHER way (living in VTA, commuting to SB) is 30,000. In either case (or aggregated), it's not close.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by plinko

Exactly. The number that always gets tossed around here going the OTHER way (living in VTA, commuting to SB) is 30,000. In either case (or aggregated), it's not close.

According to this month's ACS estimates:

Commuters who live in Santa Barbara and work in Ventura: 1,865
Commuters who live in Ventura and work in Santa Barbara: 11,360

[unusualfire]

Take this with a gain of salt. I have no idea which program the census uses. But this tool shows commuter data. Im not sure if it's up-to-date with the new 2013 definitions thou.

Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA

Jobs Counts by Metropolitan/Micropolitan Areas (CBSA) Where Workers Live - All Jobs
2010
Count Share
All Metropolitan/Micropolitan Areas (CBSA) 167,144 100.0%

Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA 114,055 68.2%

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 13,382 8.0%

Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA 12,316 7.4%

Jobs Counts by Metropolitan/Micropolitan Areas (CBSA) Where Workers are Employed - All Jobs
2010
Count Share
All Metropolitan/Micropolitan Areas (CBSA) 161,906 100.0%

Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA 114,055 70.4%

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 15,749 9.7%

Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA 7,865 4.9%



http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/

[fflint]

This thread isn't about 2010 Census data, though. It's about 2013 estimates and decennial definitions/redefinitions.

Originally Posted by unusualfire

Take this with a gain of salt. I have no idea which program the census uses. But this tool shows commuter data. Im not sure if it's up-to-date with the new 2013 definitions thou.

Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA

Jobs Counts by Metropolitan/Micropolitan Areas (CBSA) Where Workers Live - All Jobs
2010
Count Share
All Metropolitan/Micropolitan Areas (CBSA) 167,144 100.0%

Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA 114,055 68.2%

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 13,382 8.0%

Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA 12,316 7.4%

Jobs Counts by Metropolitan/Micropolitan Areas (CBSA) Where Workers are Employed - All Jobs
2010
Count Share
All Metropolitan/Micropolitan Areas (CBSA) 161,906 100.0%

Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA 114,055 70.4%

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 15,749 9.7%

Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA 7,865 4.9%



http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/

[unusualfire]

All the definitions are off of 2010 numbers.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by unusualfire

All the definitions are off of 2010 numbers.

The CSA and MSA defs are brank spanking new, and the commuter stats are ACS estimates released just this month.