2016 city population estimates

[golden eagle]

Stockton went through bankruptcy and, from my understanding, has high crime issues. Yet, it's still growing.

[Max Rockatansky]

Stockton went through bankruptcy and, from my understanding, has high crime issues. Yet, it's still growing.

That's more or less a result of cheaper living costs from the Bay Area.  People will LITERALLY commute to either Oakland and San Francisco from Stockton.  The city has an extremely high poverty in the 30% and traditionally a crime rate in the top 10 for major US Cities. 

[sparker]

Stockton went through bankruptcy and, from my understanding, has high crime issues. Yet, it's still growing.

That's more or less a result of cheaper living costs from the Bay Area.  People will LITERALLY commute to either Oakland and San Francisco from Stockton.  The city has an extremely high poverty in the 30% and traditionally a crime rate in the top 10 for major US Cities. 

IIRC, Stockton annexed most of the land to its immediate north (north of Hammer Lane) in order to encompass a number of planned housing developments, many of which are now on the ground.  That's about the farthest commute (at least from the South Bay/Silicon Valley) that can be considered reasonable -- the ACE commute line terminates in central Stockton (a saving grace of having to live within Stockton city limits).  Lodi, just north of there (as in "Oh Lord, stuck in Lodi again!"), besides being a relatively recent wine-tasting destination, also serves as an outer exurb for North Bay commuters (straight down CA 12), since housing prices remain relatively low in the general region.  As long as housing costs remain exorbitant near the coast, Stockton and environs will likely witness regular if not spectacular growth patterns.

[Roadgeekteen]

Stockton went through bankruptcy and, from my understanding, has high crime issues. Yet, it's still growing.

That's more or less a result of cheaper living costs from the Bay Area.  People will LITERALLY commute to either Oakland and San Francisco from Stockton.  The city has an extremely high poverty in the 30% and traditionally a crime rate in the top 10 for major US Cities.

How far is it?

[sparker]

Stockton went through bankruptcy and, from my understanding, has high crime issues. Yet, it's still growing.

That's more or less a result of cheaper living costs from the Bay Area.  People will LITERALLY commute to either Oakland and San Francisco from Stockton.  The city has an extremely high poverty in the 30% and traditionally a crime rate in the top 10 for major US Cities.

How far is it?

Via I-580, I-205, and I-5 it's 74 miles from the I-80/580/880 interchange in west Oakland to the I-5/CA 4 interchange in Stockton.  From what might be considered central "Silicon Valley" (the 101/237 interchange in Sunnyvale) to the same point in Stockton is 77 miles (via 237, 880, 262, 680, and onto 580 in Dublin).  Some mileage can be saved by cutting over on surface roads, but at peak commute hours, those can be as congested as the nearby freeways.  BTW, add 8 miles to the Oakland distance to get to downtown S.F.  And don't consider CA 4 to be a viable alternative; it's still a work in progress in the Brentwood area, and the 2-lane segment through the Delta is best reserved for the adventurous or masochistic!

[freebrickproductions]

Huntsville might be the second-largest city by the end of the decade, but the Birmingham Metro area is still much larger in population than the Huntsville-Decatur / North Central Alabama area.

Keep in mind that the city of Birmingham itself only had 212,461 people as of 2015, and has been steadily dropping in population since the 1960s. So while the Birmingham Metro Area does have about 1/4 of the state's ~4 million people, Huntsville may still become the state's largest city in the next decade or two, should the current trends continue. However, Birmingham has started redeveloping their downtown in recent years, when may help bring people back into the city.

Though either way, it'll be a long time before the Huntsville-Decatur Statistical Area (Huntsville Metro Area?) is larger than the Birmingham Metro Area.

[sparker]

5. Fresno (515, 486) - now larger than the state capital Sacramento, 6th place with 485,199.

That, IMO, is more surprising than San Jose being larger than San Fran. San Fran is landlocked. Sacramento isn't.
This is the NY equivalent of Utica or Binghamton passing Albany.

Part of the reason the incorporated-city Fresno population is larger than that of Sacramento is that Fresno has only one sizeable adjoining incorporated suburb (Clovis), while Sacramento is largely hemmed in by Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova, Carmichael, and Citrus Heights -- not to mention the fact that the city is bounded on the west by the Sacramento River, which is the county line (in CA, incorporated cities don't cross county lines).  There's just more room -- and directions -- for Fresno to grow (most of the growth occurs along the northern and eastern perimeters; west encroaches on large agribusiness tracts).  Sacramento metro is quite massive, including southwest Placer County, which contains Roseville (well over 100K population) and Lincoln (exceptionally fast-growing).  While Sacramento is the clearly central city, it's not the only game in town within its metro region; while Fresno itself does dominate its metro area.   

[DTComposer]

5. Fresno (515, 486) - now larger than the state capital Sacramento, 6th place with 485,199.

That, IMO, is more surprising than San Jose being larger than San Fran. San Fran is landlocked. Sacramento isn't.
This is the NY equivalent of Utica or Binghamton passing Albany.

Part of the reason the incorporated-city Fresno population is larger than that of Sacramento is that Fresno has only one sizeable adjoining incorporated suburb (Clovis), while Sacramento is largely hemmed in by Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova, Carmichael, and Citrus Heights

But other than Elk Grove, Sacramento is mostly surrounded by CDPs, not incorporated cities. Rio Linda, North Highlands, Arden-Arcade, Florin, Carmichael, etc. - all unincorporated. The incorporated cities (Citrus Heights, Rancho Cordova) are "buffered" from Sacramento by these CDPs. If Sacramento just annexed the Florin-Parkway area (which it surrounds on three sides) it would add over 80,000 to the city. Arden-Arcade is over 90,000; Carmichael is over 60,000.

I don't know if those areas don't have the tax base to be viable as incorporated cities, and if not, what their aversion to annexing to another city is (I lived in Carmichael for 2 years and Sacramento for 5, but it was decades ago), but Sacramento could easily top 600,000 or more by taking in some of the adjacent CDPs.

The Fresno urban area, on the other hand, has very little outside the incorporated cities of Fresno and Clovis.

[Max Rockatansky]

Surprisingly Sacramento and Fresno are similar in size at about 100 and 110 square miles for each.  The population density of Sacramento is slightly higher, but it is way closer than what I thought.  Based off 2016 estimates Sacramento is the 27th largest Metro Area at 2.3 million people while Fresno way below in the 56th spot at about 980,000 residents. 

That said Metro Fresno is pretty close to beginning to merge with some other MSAs:

276:  Hanford-Corcoran 149,785
112:  Visalia-Porterville 460,473
263:  Madera 154,697

[The Nature Boy]

While these numbers are fun, and do have some meaning, because what a "city" is is do different from place to place, you can learn more about the economic health of different places by looking at the population of the entire metropolitan area.  Another good measure is Neilsen's TV DMA, which is the number of people that get TV from a particualr city's set of stations, which is more or less the cultural influence of a particular city.

Another measure I find useful is to look at the every 10 year House districts.  There are some gaps, due to gerrymanders, but more or less you can see how many CDs a particular city and its hinterland have over time, which will be a function (since the total since 1910, with a nitpick exception, is a constant) it clearly shows one area relative to another.  For example people always say Pittsburgh is not doing too bad, which is true, if you just look at the city.  But the number of people in the surrounding region over which Pittsburgh is the central focus, has colapsed.

As to Chicago, no, Detroit has always been a one-industry town and that one industry has plenty of wounds, both self-inflicted and otherwise.  Chicago is much more diverse.  I honestly do believe that Detroit will become a wasteland in the next 100 years.

Anyway in WV, Charleston and Huntington have been bleeding population for decades, as has the state as a whole, and have been near a tie.  Huntington is bleeding slightly slower recently and is only 1025 behind.  If you project it out, the two should be almost exactly tied by the next Census.

Population numbers for the "city" itself is an incredibly poor measure of how "big" a city is and it's a metric that disadvantages cities in the Northeast, which tend to be smaller but more dense. Sunbelt cities do a great job of adding population by annexation, a luxury that older cities don't really have.

If you switch this list to "largest metropolitan areas," Phoenix falls out of the top 10 entirely while DC and Boston jump up.

[hotdogPi]

While these numbers are fun, and do have some meaning, because what a "city" is is do different from place to place, you can learn more about the economic health of different places by looking at the population of the entire metropolitan area.  Another good measure is Neilsen's TV DMA, which is the number of people that get TV from a particualr city's set of stations, which is more or less the cultural influence of a particular city.

Another measure I find useful is to look at the every 10 year House districts.  There are some gaps, due to gerrymanders, but more or less you can see how many CDs a particular city and its hinterland have over time, which will be a function (since the total since 1910, with a nitpick exception, is a constant) it clearly shows one area relative to another.  For example people always say Pittsburgh is not doing too bad, which is true, if you just look at the city.  But the number of people in the surrounding region over which Pittsburgh is the central focus, has colapsed.

As to Chicago, no, Detroit has always been a one-industry town and that one industry has plenty of wounds, both self-inflicted and otherwise.  Chicago is much more diverse.  I honestly do believe that Detroit will become a wasteland in the next 100 years.

Anyway in WV, Charleston and Huntington have been bleeding population for decades, as has the state as a whole, and have been near a tie.  Huntington is bleeding slightly slower recently and is only 1025 behind.  If you project it out, the two should be almost exactly tied by the next Census.

Population numbers for the "city" itself is an incredibly poor measure of how "big" a city is and it's a metric that disadvantages cities in the Northeast, which tend to be smaller but more dense. Sunbelt cities do a great job of adding population by annexation, a luxury that older cities don't really have.

If you switch this list to "largest metropolitan areas," Phoenix falls out of the top 10 entirely while DC and Boston jump up.

Metro areas as currently defined don't work either, as they are defined by counties. You get people included who are far away from the metro area but happen to be in the same county, and you also have people who could possibly be in two metro areas (like Boston and Providence) but can only be counted in one, with the border between them arbitrarily being defined by county.

[Roadgeekteen]

While these numbers are fun, and do have some meaning, because what a "city" is is do different from place to place, you can learn more about the economic health of different places by looking at the population of the entire metropolitan area.  Another good measure is Neilsen's TV DMA, which is the number of people that get TV from a particualr city's set of stations, which is more or less the cultural influence of a particular city.

Another measure I find useful is to look at the every 10 year House districts.  There are some gaps, due to gerrymanders, but more or less you can see how many CDs a particular city and its hinterland have over time, which will be a function (since the total since 1910, with a nitpick exception, is a constant) it clearly shows one area relative to another.  For example people always say Pittsburgh is not doing too bad, which is true, if you just look at the city.  But the number of people in the surrounding region over which Pittsburgh is the central focus, has colapsed.

As to Chicago, no, Detroit has always been a one-industry town and that one industry has plenty of wounds, both self-inflicted and otherwise.  Chicago is much more diverse.  I honestly do believe that Detroit will become a wasteland in the next 100 years.

Anyway in WV, Charleston and Huntington have been bleeding population for decades, as has the state as a whole, and have been near a tie.  Huntington is bleeding slightly slower recently and is only 1025 behind.  If you project it out, the two should be almost exactly tied by the next Census.

Population numbers for the "city" itself is an incredibly poor measure of how "big" a city is and it's a metric that disadvantages cities in the Northeast, which tend to be smaller but more dense. Sunbelt cities do a great job of adding population by annexation, a luxury that older cities don't really have.

If you switch this list to "largest metropolitan areas," Phoenix falls out of the top 10 entirely while DC and Boston jump up.

Metro areas as currently defined don't work either, as they are defined by counties. You get people included who are far away from the metro area but happen to be in the same county, and you also have people who could possibly be in two metro areas (like Boston and Providence) but can only be counted in one, with the border between them arbitrarily being defined by county.

City lines can be arbitrarily too.

[The Nature Boy]

While these numbers are fun, and do have some meaning, because what a "city" is is do different from place to place, you can learn more about the economic health of different places by looking at the population of the entire metropolitan area.  Another good measure is Neilsen's TV DMA, which is the number of people that get TV from a particualr city's set of stations, which is more or less the cultural influence of a particular city.

Another measure I find useful is to look at the every 10 year House districts.  There are some gaps, due to gerrymanders, but more or less you can see how many CDs a particular city and its hinterland have over time, which will be a function (since the total since 1910, with a nitpick exception, is a constant) it clearly shows one area relative to another.  For example people always say Pittsburgh is not doing too bad, which is true, if you just look at the city.  But the number of people in the surrounding region over which Pittsburgh is the central focus, has colapsed.

As to Chicago, no, Detroit has always been a one-industry town and that one industry has plenty of wounds, both self-inflicted and otherwise.  Chicago is much more diverse.  I honestly do believe that Detroit will become a wasteland in the next 100 years.

Anyway in WV, Charleston and Huntington have been bleeding population for decades, as has the state as a whole, and have been near a tie.  Huntington is bleeding slightly slower recently and is only 1025 behind.  If you project it out, the two should be almost exactly tied by the next Census.

Population numbers for the "city" itself is an incredibly poor measure of how "big" a city is and it's a metric that disadvantages cities in the Northeast, which tend to be smaller but more dense. Sunbelt cities do a great job of adding population by annexation, a luxury that older cities don't really have.

If you switch this list to "largest metropolitan areas," Phoenix falls out of the top 10 entirely while DC and Boston jump up.

Metro areas as currently defined don't work either, as they are defined by counties. You get people included who are far away from the metro area but happen to be in the same county, and you also have people who could possibly be in two metro areas (like Boston and Providence) but can only be counted in one, with the border between them arbitrarily being defined by county.

City lines can be arbitrarily too.

Especially in Sun Belt states where there is often a surplus of unincorporated land. City lines can change frequently, county lines RARELY change.

If Boston, a relatively small city in terms of land, were to behave like a Southern or Sunbelt city and annex all of Suffolk County (it practically did in the 19th century so it wouldn't get much from this) then its population rises to 778,121. If it annexes Cambridge and Somerville then it goes to 966,716. This combined entity would still just be 131.33 square miles, still smaller than Charlotte (297.7) or Phoenix (517.9).

[TXtoNJ]

I still think it's funny that the largest city in the Bay Area is not San Francisco! When was the last time it was, 1989?

It still "feels" like it is; it's certainly the most urban location in the Bay Area, and far more like a Boston, Philadelphia or even NYC than San Jose is.

This gets me thinking: is there any way we could rank cities by how big they "feel"? Such a ranking would certainly place San Francisco in the top 5 nationally, and such cities as Boston, New Orleans and Wilmington, DE would move a good ways up the list from where population alone would place them.



iPhone

I find the Primary Statistical Areas to be the best representation of how big a city feels:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_primary_statistical_areas_of_the_United_States

1. NYC
2. LA
3. Chicago
4. DC/Baltimore
5. SF Bay Area

6. Boston
7. DFW Metroplex
8. Philly/Delaware Valley
9. Miami/S. Fla.
10. Houston

11. Atlanta
12. Detroit
13. Seattle
14. Phoenix
15. Twin Cities

16. Cleveland
17. Denver
18. San Diego
19. Portland
20. Orlando

21. Tampa Bay Area
22. St. Louis
23. Pittsburgh
24. Charlotte
25. Sacramento

That's a pretty good representation of how "big" American cities feel, based on my travel experience.

[empirestate]

I still think it's funny that the largest city in the Bay Area is not San Francisco! When was the last time it was, 1989?

It still "feels" like it is; it's certainly the most urban location in the Bay Area, and far more like a Boston, Philadelphia or even NYC than San Jose is.

This gets me thinking: is there any way we could rank cities by how big they "feel"? Such a ranking would certainly place San Francisco in the top 5 nationally, and such cities as Boston, New Orleans and Wilmington, DE would move a good ways up the list from where population alone would place them.



iPhone

I find the Primary Statistical Areas to be the best representation of how big a city feels:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_primary_statistical_areas_of_the_United_States

1. NYC
2. LA
3. Chicago
4. DC/Baltimore
5. SF Bay Area

6. Boston
7. DFW Metroplex
8. Philly/Delaware Valley
9. Miami/S. Fla.
10. Houston

11. Atlanta
12. Detroit
13. Seattle
14. Phoenix
15. Twin Cities

16. Cleveland
17. Denver
18. San Diego
19. Portland
20. Orlando

21. Tampa Bay Area
22. St. Louis
23. Pittsburgh
24. Charlotte
25. Sacramento

That's a pretty good representation of how "big" American cities feel, based on my travel experience.

It still raises a lot of anomalies for me. In my imagined ranking, Pittsburgh would be much higher than Phoenix, LA wouldn't be #2, Philly would be above Boston and certainly DC, etc. And then you have the problem of combining cities that should rank separately: does DC feel bigger than Baltimore, or vice-versa? Tampa, or St. Pete? Dallas, or Fort Worth? And how do we reconcile the inaugural issue of San Jose vs. San Francisco, if we just lump them together? At the least, this system gives them equivalent ranking, whereas my whole point is that they aren't equivalent.

[7/8]

I'd agree, to put things in perspective you need to look at the MSA rather than the city population.

Many southern and western cities include most of the suburbs in the city population itself. *cough* San Antonio.
Personally, I don't like this method of artificially pumping city size. Perhaps I'm biased but I like each suburb to have it's own unique name and character.

While I can understand your point of view, I think having the suburbs in the same city helps keep the city centre in better shape, since the suburbs' taxes help support the downtown area. If the suburbs are their own cities, than the downtown can lose a lot of its tax base when people move to the suburbs.

Neighbourhood names can still keep some character to different areas of the city. For example, people in Toronto still refer to the old names from before amalgamation, like Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, etc.

[sparker]

..........Sacramento could easily top 600,000 or more by taking in some of the adjacent CDPs.

The fact that they haven't speaks volumes.  Also, Sacramento County has been less than cooperative regarding giving up any of its territory that yields tax revenue (I was living in Roseville back when they were fighting tooth & nail to keep Sunrise Mall under county jurisdiction -- when it was smack in the middle of Citrus Heights, then in the process of incorporation).  Nevertheless, at this juncture it's likely Sacramento has enough on its plate with the territory it presently encompasses and is not looking to add more places to maintain, educate, and police just to attain a higher position on a list!   

[kalvado]

5. Fresno (515, 486) - now larger than the state capital Sacramento, 6th place with 485,199.

That, IMO, is more surprising than San Jose being larger than San Fran. San Fran is landlocked. Sacramento isn't.
This is the NY equivalent of Utica or Binghamton passing Albany.

Albany's suburb, Colonie NY (83200 per estimate, +2% since 2010) , is about to pass landlocked Albany NY (98100, +0.27% since 2010) within next 20-30 years if current  trend holds. Probably sooner than that, as Albany does everything to make city go the way of Detroit. So never say never....

[kalvado]

I'd agree, to put things in perspective you need to look at the MSA rather than the city population.

Many southern and western cities include most of the suburbs in the city population itself. *cough* San Antonio.
Personally, I don't like this method of artificially pumping city size. Perhaps I'm biased but I like each suburb to have it's own unique name and character.

While I can understand your point of view, I think having the suburbs in the same city helps keep the city centre in better shape, since the suburbs' taxes help support the downtown area. If the suburbs are their own cities, than the downtown can lose a lot of its tax base when people move to the suburbs.

Neighbourhood names can still keep some character to different areas of the city. For example, people in Toronto still refer to the old names from before amalgamation, like Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, etc.

I am a bit split on that. Over here in upstate NY, area's namesake city is pretty urbanist. Spending a lot on police (per capita it is more than NYC), knee deep in fiscal problems, love their school with 60% graduation rate and dream about demolition of through-city 3di. I am not sure what would happen if  city annexes the rest of the county. Apparently that would solve at least some of city fiscal problems, but more suburban votes would overcome urbanist trends, and there would be two groups of pissed off people: current residents of the city, and current residents of suburbs.

Commuter tax is the dream of the city, but only as taxation without representation...

[Roadgeekteen]

I'd agree, to put things in perspective you need to look at the MSA rather than the city population.

Many southern and western cities include most of the suburbs in the city population itself. *cough* San Antonio.
Personally, I don't like this method of artificially pumping city size. Perhaps I'm biased but I like each suburb to have it's own unique name and character.

While I can understand your point of view, I think having the suburbs in the same city helps keep the city centre in better shape, since the suburbs' taxes help support the downtown area. If the suburbs are their own cities, than the downtown can lose a lot of its tax base when people move to the suburbs.

Neighbourhood names can still keep some character to different areas of the city. For example, people in Toronto still refer to the old names from before amalgamation, like Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, etc.

I really do not want to live in Boston. I will keep living in Needham, thanks very much.

[The Nature Boy]

I'd agree, to put things in perspective you need to look at the MSA rather than the city population.

Many southern and western cities include most of the suburbs in the city population itself. *cough* San Antonio.
Personally, I don't like this method of artificially pumping city size. Perhaps I'm biased but I like each suburb to have it's own unique name and character.

While I can understand your point of view, I think having the suburbs in the same city helps keep the city centre in better shape, since the suburbs' taxes help support the downtown area. If the suburbs are their own cities, than the downtown can lose a lot of its tax base when people move to the suburbs.

Neighbourhood names can still keep some character to different areas of the city. For example, people in Toronto still refer to the old names from before amalgamation, like Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, etc.

You see this in some places in the US. Detroit would certainly be in better shape if it could get taxes from more affluent Oakland County. Suburban flight devastated a lot of cities like Detroit and Cleveland.

I'm not against the practice. I just don't think that city population totals are an adequate indicator of how "large" a city is.

[golden eagle]

While these numbers are fun, and do have some meaning, because what a "city" is is do different from place to place, you can learn more about the economic health of different places by looking at the population of the entire metropolitan area.  Another good measure is Neilsen's TV DMA, which is the number of people that get TV from a particualr city's set of stations, which is more or less the cultural influence of a particular city.


Metro areas as currently defined don't work either, as they are defined by counties. You get people included who are far away from the metro area but happen to be in the same county, and you also have people who could possibly be in two metro areas (like Boston and Providence) but can only be counted in one, with the border between them arbitrarily being defined by county.

Redefining metro areas has merit, especially when it comes to western areas. How else can Blythe and Needles, CA, be in the Riverside-San Bernardino metro when those two towns are 160-165 miles (as the crow flies) from R/SB? R/SB counties combined are larger than ten states. Also, how does Tonopah, NV (Nye County) be included in Las Vegas' metro when it's so far from Las Vegas?

I don't think using DMA boundaries are the way to go since counties in a DMA may be too far away to have significant commuter ties to the central city. Palm Springs, in Riverside County, has a separate DMA from the western part of the county.

[DTComposer]

While these numbers are fun, and do have some meaning, because what a "city" is is do different from place to place, you can learn more about the economic health of different places by looking at the population of the entire metropolitan area.  Another good measure is Neilsen's TV DMA, which is the number of people that get TV from a particualr city's set of stations, which is more or less the cultural influence of a particular city.

Metro areas as currently defined don't work either, as they are defined by counties. You get people included who are far away from the metro area but happen to be in the same county, and you also have people who could possibly be in two metro areas (like Boston and Providence) but can only be counted in one, with the border between them arbitrarily being defined by county.

Redefining metro areas has merit, especially when it comes to western areas. How else can Blythe and Needles, CA, be in the Riverside-San Bernardino metro when those two towns are 160-165 miles (as the crow flies) from R/SB? R/SB counties combined are larger than ten states. Also, how does Tonopah, NV (Nye County) be included in Las Vegas' metro when it's so far from Las Vegas?

I don't think using DMA boundaries are the way to go since counties in a DMA may be too far away to have significant commuter ties to the central city. Palm Springs, in Riverside County, has a separate DMA from the western part of the county.

The Census Bureau has Urban Areas/Urban Clusters, which should be the building blocks for metro areas. However, even these are flawed and subject to arbitrary criteria and adjustments by the Bureau:

Look at a satellite photo of the area between Menlo Park and Mountain View - a continuous swath of development. Somewhere in there, the Bureau has decided, is the dividing line between the San Francisco and San Jose urban areas. In 2000 they had that boundary dividing the city of Palo Alto in half, using their commuting data as rationale. However, in 2010 they moved the boundary to coincide with the Santa Clara/San Mateo county line (also the boundary between the MSAs), not because the commuting data had shifted, but because it was cleaner. So, they decide commuting data is the basis of defining urban areas, except when they don't.

But the real issue for me is using commuter data at all, or at least to the exclusion of other factors. Commuter data may have worked well in an older model where most if not all metro areas had one dominant employment center, and most households had one wage-earner with one job; but with many areas now having multiple large employment centers, multiple-job households with those jobs often in locations distant from one another, telecommuting, long-distance commuting, etc., I feel it is outdated. We should be able to use other socio-cultural factors - DMAs, perhaps, but also where people shop, dine, play, etc. Newspaper circulation, while not what it once was, could also be factored in. And of course, just the idea that the continuous built-up area mentioned above is somehow part of two distinct urban areas seems silly when you apply the eye test. Could you drive down that stretch of US-101 and tell me when you've entered a new urban area?

In the current system the result is things like:
-There is no Census Bureau-defined area that matches the nine-county definition of the Bay Area that is used "in real life";
-As mentioned above, small towns like Blythe, isolated by 150+ miles of desert, are included in the Riverside-San Bernardino metro area;
-Medium-sized urban areas like Santa Barbara and Santa Maria, who have virtually no commuting ties (they're 75 miles apart), are in the same metro area because they're in the same county.

Again, this is more of an issue in the West with its large and strangely-shaped counties.

[empirestate]

Certainly the Census Bureau is aware of the problem with metro area definitions–they've essentially been redesigning the system with every decennial census since urban areas were first introduced. But the necessities and/or hindrances of bureaucracy seem to stymie any successful solution; the closest they've come is realizing that county-based metro areas don't make sense in New England, where towns are the basic building block.

[JJBers]

Well, I guess I'll do a run down of CT

• 1. Bridgeport, 145,936
• 2. New Haven, 129,934
• 3. Stamford, 129,113
• 4. Hartford, 123,243
• 5. Waterbury, 108,272

Well, except for Stamford, all the cities were either stagnant in growth, or went down in population.