Commuting in America 2013

Commuting in America 2013 The National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends Brief 4. Population and Worker Dynamics September 2013

About the AASHTO Census Transportation Planning Products Program Established by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), the AASHTO Census Transportation Planning Products Program (CTPP) compiles census data on demographic characteristics, home and work locations, and journeyto-work travel flows to assist with a variety of state, regional, and local transportation policy and planning efforts. CTPP also supports corridor and project studies, environmental analyses, and emergency operations management. In 1990, 2000, and again in 2006, AASHTO partnered with all of the states on pooled-fund projects to support the development of special census products and data tabulations for transportation. These census transportation data packages have proved invaluable in understanding characteristics about where people live and work, their journey-to-work commuting patterns, and the modes they use for getting to work. In 2012, the CTPP was established as an ongoing technical service program of AASHTO. CTPP provides a number of primary services: Special Data Tabulation from the U.S. Census Bureau CTPP oversees the specification, purchase, and delivery of this special tabulation designed by and for transportation planners. Outreach and Training The CTPP team provides training on data and data issues in many formats, from live briefings and presentations to hands-on, full-day courses. The team has also created a number of electronic sources of training, from e-learning to recorded webinars to downloadable presentations. Technical Support CTPP provides limited direct technical support for solving data issues; the program also maintains a robust listserv where many issues are discussed, dissected, and resolved by the CTPP community. Research CTPP staff and board members routinely generate problem statements to solicit research on data issues; additionally, CTPP has funded its own research efforts. Total research generated or funded by the current CTPP since 2006 is in excess of $1 million. Staff Penelope Weinberger, CTPP Program Manager Matt Hardy, Program Director, Policy and Planning Janet Oakley, Director of Policy and Government Relations Project Team Steven E. Polzin, Co-Author, Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida Alan E. Pisarski, Co-Author, Consultant, Falls Church, Virginia Bruce Spear, Data Expert, Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Liang Long, Data Expert, Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Contact Penelope Weinberger, e-mail: pweinberger@aashto.org, phone: 202-624-3556; or CTPPinfo@aashto.org 2013 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. Pub Code: CA04-4 ISBN: 978-1-56051-574-6

Commuting in America 2013: The National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends Brief 4. Population and Worker Dynamics This brief is the fourth in a series describing commuting in America. This body of work, sponsored by American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and carried out in conjunction with a National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) project that provided supporting data, builds on three prior Commuting in America documents that were issued over the past three decades. Unlike the prior reports that were single volumes, this effort consists of a series of briefs, each of which addresses a critical aspect of commuting in America. These briefs, taken together, comprise a comprehensive summary of American commuting. The briefs are disseminated through the AASHTO website (www.transportation.org). Accompanying data tables and an Executive Summary complete the body of information known as Commuting in America 2013 (CIA 2013). Brief 3 described the composition of the population and workforce as a basis for understanding commuting. This brief goes beyond the basic national description of the population and workforce to describe some of the relevant trends that shaped the workforce in communities. Among the most critical aspects of population and workforce that impact commuting are the trends relating to how the national population and workforce are distributed across the country. Individuals pursue employment opportunities and quality-of-life amenities as they determine locations to settle. This constant process of responding to employment and quality-of-life characteristics of different geographies results in continuing change in state and local population and workforce levels. As data in this brief reveal, the variation across geography is often significant relative to national averages. Workforce Residential Mobility Of the 308 million persons in households in 2011, 261 million of them, 85 percent, remained in the same home as the previous year, and more than 28 million of the 47 million movers moved within their present county of residence. Therefore, almost 290 million had no impact on county population levels. Of the 18 million who left their home counties, almost 10 million remained in-state. So the impact on state populations consisted of the 7 million interstate movers plus the 1.8 million movers from abroad. Figure 4-1 shows the shares by category. Since 2005, the American Community Survey (ACS) has measured annual household mobility, monitoring the process through what has been perhaps its most volatile period.

Same House 85% Different House Same County 9% Different County Same State 3% Different County Different State 2% Abroad 1% Figure 4-1. Housing Location One Year Ago, ACS 2011 Among the 243 million persons of working age (16 or older) more than 27 million move each year, about 11 percent. More than 215 million persons of working age do not move. Over the past several years, the rate of moving has Among the 243 declined sharply during the recession, reaching its nadir million persons of in 2008 when the Current Population Survey 1 measured working age (16 or the lowest rate of moving since the survey began in 1948. older) more than 27 This should not have been a shock given the housing and million move each employment problems in the nation overall, but moving year, about 11%. has begun recovering in more recent years. Of those 27 million movers, about two thirds, 17.5 million, move within their same county of residence, another five million stay within their state, about 4 million move from another state, mostly nearby states, and roughly one million arrive from abroad. Table 4-1 describes these flows in greater detail, for the population 16 and above, by their employment characteristics. Table 4-1. General Work Force Mobility Summary 2011 2012 Location of Residence Last Year United States, 16+ years (000 s) Different County, Same State Different State, Same Region Nonmover Same Different Total County Region Abroad Total 243,538 215,885 17,476 5,263 1,827 2,146 941 Employed (civilian) 140,970 123,986 11,030 3,327 1,020 1,189 418 Unemployed 13,243 10,760 1,499 462 189 243 91 Armed Forces 936 664 85 36 53 71 25 Not in labor force 88,390 80,475 4,863 1,438 564 643 407 Source: Census, Current Population Survey, 2012 Annual Supplement. 1 The Current Population Survey (CPS), sponsored jointly by the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), is the primary source of labor force statistics for the population of the United States. http://www.census.gov/cps/. 4 Commuting in America 2013: The National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends

The proportion of movers is sharply affected by their labor force status. Those not in the labor force are the least mobile as fewer than 9 percent move in a year; the employed are average movers at 12 percent, just slightly greater than the average. The unemployed are very active movers with almost 19 percent movers. The Armed Forces, a small group comprised of those military living with their families, are exceptional at almost 30 percent movers. In terms of distances moved, the unemployed have Of all movers, the greatest tendency for long distance moves. At only 5.4 those unemployed percent of the population in this period, they comprise over move most and 10 percent of those going to a different state and over 11 move farthest. percent of those going to an entirely different region of the country. This likely includes some retirees relocating and other workers seeking out locations with employment opportunities a positive given the importance of the mobility of the work force in balancing jobs and workers. Table 4-2 disaggregates the work force age population into three age categories: the early years of work, the main work force population, and the older work force that is just now becoming increasingly significant. Table 4-2. Work Force Movers by Age, 2011 2012 Labor Force Total Movers % Movers All 16+ 155,148,000 19,738,000 12.7% 16-24 20,913,000 4,918,000 23.5% 25-64 126,461,000 14,561,000 11.5% 65+ 7,775,000 260,000 3.3% Source: Census, Current Population Survey, 2012 Annual Supplement. The 16 24 age group is by far the most active group in terms of moving and the 65 and over group is the least active. More than 23.5 percent of those in the 16 24 cohort were movers. This is understandable given the educational and military activities, new job changes, and household formations occurring in that age group. Among the 65 and over group a small portion, 3.3 percent, moved in the 2011 2012 period. This is even lower than the share of movers in the not in labor force population, which includes a significant share of those 65 and over as well. All groups shared similar tendencies regarding locations with just below two-thirds in each group moving within the same county. Regional Trends The Census Bureau delineates a set of Regions (see Figure 4-8 for region delineation) for the nation which helps in understanding patterns and trends at broader than the state level. Figure 4-2 shows the population and worker levels of the regions. Flows between Census Brief 4. Population and Worker Dynamics 5

Regions are a relatively small component of the overall flow of population and workers within the country. As might be expected, the largest moves are local and the scale of moves typically decline as distances increase. 140 120 Population Workers 116 100 Millions 80 60 55.5 67.2 50.3 72.9 40 20 25.6 30.7 31.7 0 Northeast Midwest South West Figure 4-2. Geographic Distribution of Population and Workers Source: Census, ACS 2011. The long-term trends show that national population growth, which has approximately doubled since 1950, has been very unevenly distributed. The Northeast and Midwest have changed much less significantly over the decades with a growth from 1950 of 40 percent and 50 percent, respectively. In the same time period, the South, already the largest area in 1950, grew by 150 percent; and the West increased 260 percent. Figure 4-3 shows the pattern relationships. Perhaps the most significant point of Figure 4-3 is that the West, the smallest region in 1950, has now surpassed both the East and Midwest, while the South has increased its lead over the other regions. In fact, more than 75 percent of the growth in the nation since 1950 went to the South and West. Figure 4-4 shows the annual growth rate comparisons among regions in this decade with no region reflective of the national average. 6 Commuting in America 2013: The National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends

Millions 140 120 100 80 60 40 Northeast Midwest South West 20 0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Figure 4-3. Regional Population Growth Trends 1950 2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 1.40% Annual Growth Rate 1.20% 1.00% 0.80% 0.60% 0.40% 0.20% 0.00% United States Northeast Midwest South West Figure 4-4. Annual Population Growth Rates by Region 2010 2012 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. Figure 4-5 shows state population change trends over the past decade, in ascending order of growth. Figure 4-6 shows a map version of the state population trend with both metro area and county detail. Brief 4. Population and Worker Dynamics 7

MI RI LA OH NY WV VT MA IL PA IA ME MS NJ ND CT DC WI KS NH IN NE MO KY AL MN SD OK MD AR MT U.S. CA TN OR HI VA NM AK WA WY DE SC CO FL GA NC TX ID UT AZ NV Half National Average Growth National Average = 9.7% 1.5 Times National Average -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Figure 4-5. Population Growth Rates by State, 2000 2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 8 Commuting in America 2013: The National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends

Figure 4-6. Population Growth Pattern by County, 2000 2010 Brief 4. Population and Worker Dynamics 9

More than 30 states were below the national average growth rate of 9.7 percent for the decade, with only Michigan losing population, largely due to the volatile economy in the period. State growth levels are shown at either 50 percent more or less than the national average, with the states growing more than 1.5 times the national average all from the South and West. Five states together Texas, California, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina accounted for half of the national growth in the period. One explanation for the sharp differences in growth rates is shown in Figure 4-7, describing the net migration trends for the year July 2011 to July 2012. Note that overall Regional shifts are relatively minor, peaking at an approximate 350,000 net increase in the South and ranging to a loss of approximately 220,000 in the Northeast. What stands out immediately in the Regional picture is that international migration is positive in all regions and additive to growth in the South and West but only serves to mitigate the strong outward migration of residents in the Northeast and Midwest. In the absence of international migration, the Northeast region would have had a declining population. In the West region, international immigration exceeds domestic immigration by approximately 4 to 1. The South is approximately equal in growth shares with a slightly greater growth level from domestic migration. The South received more than 87 percent of the nation s domestic migration in the period, with job opportunities and living costs being among the major factors influencing change. 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 Total Pop Change International Natural Increase Domestic 1,000,000 500,000 0-500,000 United States Northeast Midwest South West Figure 4-7. Components of Change 2011 to 2012 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 10 Commuting in America 2013: The National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends

Table 4-3 presents the net regional migration flows. Figure 4-8 depicts the actual inter-regional flows. The figure shows that recent patterns indicate that on a net basis the Northeast has lost population, more than a quarter million, to all other regions, predominantly to the South, while at the opposite extreme the South has gained from all regions, an amount just less than a quarter million. The Midwest is of interest, in that it has shown gains from both the Northeast and the West, losing population only to the South. The South received more than 87% of the nation s domestic migration in the period, with job opportunities and living costs being among the major factors influencing change. Table 4-3. Net Regional Flows 2010 to 2011 (Thousands) From/To Northeast Midwest South West Total From Northeast 127 307 90 524 Midwest 29 324 141 494 South 188 257 385 830 West 31 153 424 608 Total To 248 537 1055 616 2,456 Net -276 43 225 8 0 Source: U.S. Census Bureau. As the population grows and redistributes itself, so too the demand for transportation for commuting and other purposes is changing. There is a relatively consistent level of workers per capita across the different regions. The South, while the most populous region, has the lowest share of workers to overall population, 43 percent, with the West only very slightly greater in share. Both the Northeast and Midwest are at 46 percent. This may be a product of fewer retirees and young children in those regions. Brief 4. Population and Worker Dynamics 11

Figure 4-8. Regional Migration Flows 2010 to 2011 Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Reasons for Moving There were 36+ million movers in the United States over Roughly 2 million one-year old in the July 2011 July 2012 period. It is clear workers, about 5% of movers, that the dominant factor in moving is home and housing move each year related such as finding a better place to live or work, or in order to be changing household status. The group of greatest interest closer to work/have here is the 19 percent that are identified as being job related. easier commute. Of these, about half are related to new jobs or job transfers, and another 12 percent are related to leaving a job through job loss or retirement. There is a group of 28 percent of the job-related movers who are seeking an easier commute or being closer to work. Given the percentages, this amounts to about 5.5 percent of all movers, roughly 2 million workers, seeking to improve their commute. Figure 4-9 presents these statistics. The intra-county move rate was 5.2 percent and the inter-county move rate was 6.4 percent. 12 Commuting in America 2013: The National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends

Other Reasons 1.91% To Look for Work or Lost Job 1.81% To Be Closer to Work/Easier Commute 5.47% Housing Related 49.44% Job Related 19.34% Retired 0.50% Household Reasons 29.30% Figure 4-9. Reasons for Moving, 2011 2012 New Job or Job Transfer 9.51% Other Job Related Reason 2.06% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2012 Annual Social and Economic Supplement. Among the 140 million employed civilians, about 17 million were movers in the 2011 2012 period. Table 4-4 shows the rates of movers among the main occupational categories in America, for all movers and for movers in the youngest working age group of 16 24. Note the higher than average rates of the 4 million movers in the 16 24 age group for almost every occupational grouping, except farming. The rates for all categories tend to be in the same ranges for each of the population groups from 9.6 percent to 15.2 percent for the work force at large, and 17.6 percent to 28.9 percent for the younger group. The much higher move rate for the younger age groups would be expected among people at the lower rungs of the job ladder seeking out promotions and subject to lower seniority and perhaps still settling on a career path. Brief 4. Population and Worker Dynamics 13

Table 4-4. Occupation and Age of Movers United States Employed 16+ % of Employed Moving Employed 16 24 % of Employed 16 24 Moving Employed civilians 140,970,000 12.0% 17,303,000 23.3% Management, business, and financial 22,054,000 9.6% 816,000 28.4% Professional 31,103,000 11.2% 2,020,000 28.9% Service 25,373,000 15.2% 5,538,000 21.7% Sales 15,180,000 12.8% 3,201,000 20.6% Office and administrative support 18,058,000 11.6% 2,552,000 26.2% Farming, fishing, and forestry 927,000 13.8% 207,000 12.6% Construction and extraction 6,754,000 12.4% 604,000 21.4% Installation, maintenance, and repair 4,628,000 9.7% 490,000 17.6% Production 8,502,000 11.9% 849,000 27.3% Transportation and material moving Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2012. 8,390,000 12.7% 1,027,000 20.6% Metropolitan Patterns Figure 4-10 presents the long-term trend in the national population distribution between rural and metropolitan populations with the metro populations separated between central city (a central city is the largest incorporated city based on population within the metro area) and suburban groupings. These data present the historically identified central city/cities in green. The remaining cities in a metropolitan area, designated as other principal cities, are included as part of the suburban component. These distinctions will be treated more fully later in this brief. 14 Commuting in America 2013: The National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends

Understanding Metropolitan Area Delineation The challenge in attempting to understand population and employment trends relative to geography is in determining the best possible means of understanding comparability over time. We are forced to address what can be labeled the tyranny of geography to overcome the changing meaning of the words metropolitan, rural, central city, and suburban as areas grow and change. For Commuting in America the goal is to provide the most consistent categorization of development patterns such that changes over time are a true reflection of differences in settlement patterns and not simply a figment of boundary changes or methodological differences in classification criteria over time. Specifically, the goal is to understand the degree to which population and employment are concentrated in areas with given settlement densities and extents and how that changes over decades. Towards that end, the project team relied on the decennial censuses demographic data as categorized across Metro and Non-Metro areas by applying the post-census metropolitan area definitions. For example, this means that references to 2010 utilize 2010 census population data applied to metropolitan area definitions based on that population data, which were released in 2013. The project team believes this strategy presents the most logical picture of what is happening over time relative to settlement patterns. However, this classification will not be consistent with some other sources (e.g., American Fact Finder) that utilize older metropolitan area definitions to stratify 2010 census data. For a more detailed discussion of data classification see the Data Notes section on the Commuting in America 2013 website. Brief 4. Population and Worker Dynamics 15

350 300 Non-Metro Suburbs 15.0% Population (Millions) 250 200 150 100 Central City 60.6% 50 0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 24.4% Figure 4-10. Long Term Population Trend 1950-2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Perhaps the clearest way to address the changes in metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas is by stripping the data down to the fundamental county building blocks of metropolitan areas. Table 4-5 shows that 34 percent of counties (1,095) lost Different population between 2000 and 2010. Only 14 percent of transportation those counties were in metro areas in 2010, but those counties accounted for nearly two-thirds of the total losses. The challenges are obvious when one realizes metro and non-metro groups lost approximately the same 1,095 counties shares, 4.3 and 4.5 percent, respectively. More than 2,000 lost population counties gained population. Over 1,056 non-metro counties between 2000 and gained 2.2 million in population while 992 metro counties 2010, while 992 gained 27.3 million, which is to say that less than a third of Metropolitan area U.S. counties accounted for over 90 percent of the national counties account population growth. for 93% of national population growth. To further understand the effects of county patterns, Table 4-6 shows the shifts resulting from redefinitions of metropolitan area boundaries by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Since 1990, 58 new Metropolitan Statistical Areas have been added to reach a total of 381 MSAs, shifting 328 counties from the rural to the metropolitan side of the ledger. The addition of these new metropolitan counties added 16 Commuting in America 2013: The National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends

nearly 12 million in population to the metropolitan share. It is important to recognize that most of the changes occurred between 1990 and 2000. Boundary shifts and their consequent population changes have been more limited in the most recent decade. Table 4-5. County Level Population Gains and Losses 2 Number of Total County Population Total Gain Percent Counties 2000 2010 or Loss Change Lost Population 1095 45,594,771 43,594,419 (2,000,352) -4.4% Metro Areas 175 29,845,172 28,548,371 (1,296,801) -4.3% Non-Metro Areas 920 15,749,599 15,046,048 (703,551) -4.5% Gained Population 2048 235,806,580 265,151,119 29,344,539 12.4% Metro Areas 992 206,792,785 233,903,761 27,110,976 13.1% Non-Metro Areas 1056 29,013,795 31,247,358 2,233,563 7.7% All Counties 3143 281,401,351 308,745,538 27,344,187 9.7% Metro Areas 1167 236,637,957 262,452,132 25,814,175 10.9% Non-Metro Areas 1976 44,763,394 46,293,406 1,530,012 3.4% Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2 For this table, the metro versus non-metro designations are based on 2013 metropolitan area definitions. Between 2000 and 2010 a net total of 78 counties were shifted from non-metro to metro. Brief 4. Population and Worker Dynamics 17

Table 4-6. County Shifts to Metropolitan Areas 20 Year Trend 1990 2000 2010 Number of MSAs 323 362 381 Change in MSAs 39 19 Total U.S. Population 248,709,873 281,421,906 308,745,538 MSA Population 198,237,844 232,579,940 262,371,167 MSA Share of U.S. Population 79.7% 82.6% 85.0% Principal City Population 78,679,696 93,849,307 99,348,866 Principal City Share of U.S. Population 31.6% 33.3% 32.2% Principal City Share of MSA Population 39.7% 40.4% 37.9% Central City Population 65,793,580 70,287,434 75,283,196 Central City Share of U.S. Population 26.5% 25.0% 24.4% Central City Share of MSA Population 33.2% 30.2% 28.7% % Change in U.S. Population 13.2% 9.7% % Change in MSA Population 17.3% 12.8% % Change in Principal City Population 19.3% 5.9% % Change in Central City Population 6.8% 7.1% Number of Principal cities 533 677 674 Change in Principal Cities 144-3 MSA Counties 839 1089 1167 County Change 250 78 Population Change MSA Counties 34,342,096 29,872,192 Population Change Base MSA Counties 27,095,541 25,074,816 Population Change New MSA Counties 7,246,555 4,797,376 New County Share of Change 21.1% 16.1% Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Beginning with the 2003 metropolitan area delineations, OMB began using the term principal city instead of central city. This change in terminology did not change the underlying definition; principal cities (and central cities prior to 2003) consisted of the largest incorporated place (based on population) within the defined metropolitan area, plus other places that met certain OMB criteria. 3 Generally, the largest principal city is both the historical core of the metropolitan area and has the largest share of metropolitan area employment. Many of the other principal cities in a metropolitan area are significant cities in themselves with sizeable employment as well as population; however, some of the places defined as principal cities are actually smaller communities that have been overtaken by suburban growth, sharing in that expansion along with the suburban counties in which they reside. 3 OMB criteria for defining a principal city can be found in the 2010 Standards for Delineating Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas, Federal Register Notice, Vol. 75, No. 123, June 28, 2010: Part D, Section 5. 18 Commuting in America 2013: The National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends

To better understand the distribution of population growth within metropolitan areas for Commuting in America, the principal cities, as defined by OMB, have been stratified into central cities (sometimes referred to as core cities), representing the single largest city in the metropolitan area, and other principal cities, comprised of all other named principal cities in the metropolitan area. These stratifications are presented in Table 4-7, and further illustrated in Figure 4-11 for 1990, 2000, and 2010. Separation of central cities from other principal cities for previous decades is not feasible. The data reveal some important aspects of change. In the 20-year period central cities, as defined, gained 9.5 million, exceeding 75 million in 2010. At the same time, suburbs rose from 119.5 million to 163 million, a gain of 43.6 million. The new component, other principal cities, gained 11.2 million, nearly all of it (10.7 million) in the first decade of the period, due primarily to substantial Table 4-7. National Population Trends by Geographic Elements % Change 2000-2010 1990 2000 2010 % Change 1990-2000 % of Metro Total % of U.S. Total Count Millions % of Metro Total % of U.S. Total Count Millions % of Metro Total % of U.S. Total Count Millions 248.7 281.4 308.7 13.1% 9.7% Total U.S. Population 198.2 79.7% 232.6 82.7% 262.5 85.0% 17.4% 12.9% Living in Metro Areas 65.8 26.5% 33.2% 70.3 25.0% 30.2% 75.3 24.4% 28.7% 6.8% 7.1% Living in Central Cities 12.9 5.2% 6.5% 23.6 8.4% 10.1% 24.1 7.8% 9.2% 82.9% 2.1% Living in Other Principal Cities 119.5 48.0% 60.3% 138.7 49.3% 59.6% 163.1 52.8% 62.1% 16.1% 17.6% Living Outside Principal Cities (Suburbs) 50.5 20.3% 48.8 17.3% 46.2 15.0% -3.4% -5.3% Living Outside of Metro Areas Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Brief 4. Population and Worker Dynamics 19

numbers of new suburban principal cities being added to the metropolitan roster. As the table shows, in the 1990 2000 decade central cities lost share while suburbs and other principal cities gained share. In the 2000 2010 decade, both central cities and other principal cities share of metropolitan area population declined slightly, while suburbs continued to increase share at the expense of principal cities and non-metropolitan areas. Population (Millions) 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Non-Metro Suburbs Principle Cities Central City 15.0% 52.8% 7.8% 24.4% 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Figure 4-11. Identification of Principal Cities Trends Source: U.S. Census Bureau. The Distribution of Metro Areas by Size Class Given so many changes, the summaries of population trends by area size need to be examined with some care. Here shifts between metro area size categories, as expected, caused marked changes in population by category, although the metro area size categories in the CIA series have been kept intact. Table 4-8 itemizes the size trends for metropolitan areas. In the over 5 million metro area size, there are now 12 areas instead of the 8 in 1990. The four metro areas added to this category, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, and Miami, account for 23.2 million, or almost 69 percent of the total increase in population in this category. That 23.2 million consists of 13.9 million in the base populations of those areas in 1990 and a growth of 9.3 million in those metros between 1990 and 2010. Thus, the actual growth in the over 5 million class was approximately 19.8 million, for a rate of growth of 23 percent over the 1990 population for those Summaries of population trends by area size and character need to be examined with some care due to the reclassification and boundary redefinitions used in characterizing metropolitan areas. 20 Commuting in America 2013: The National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends

12 metro areas. This growth rate is slightly less than the growth rate of 24.1 percent for the nation as a whole. The 2.5 5 million metro area size category added seven new areas between 1990 and 2010: Denver, Phoenix, Portland, Oregon, St. Louis, San Diego, Orlando, and Tampa- St. Petersburg. The population increase for the ten metro areas in this category (adding seven but losing four to the over 5 million category) was 10.1 million, for a rate of growth of 45.7 percent, or nearly 22 percent higher than that for the nation as a whole. The 1 2.5 million metro area size category added fifteen new areas between 1990 and 2010: Las Vegas; Austin; Nashville; Raleigh; Louisville; Jacksonville, Florida; Oklahoma City; Harrisburg; Richmond; Grand Rapids; Greenville; Birmingham; Fresno; Albuquerque; and El Paso. In addition to the seven areas lost to the 2.5 5 million category, Providence became part of the Boston combined metropolitan area. The net population increase for the 32 metro areas in this category (adding fifteen but losing seven to the 2.5 5 million and one to the over 5 million categories) was 12.5 million, for a rate of growth of 32.4 percent. Brief 4. Population and Worker Dynamics 21

Table 4-8. Metropolitan Population Trends by Size Metro Area Size Over 5 Million 2.5 5 Million 1 2.5 Million Number of Metro Areas Metro Area Population Share of Population Growth Rate 1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2000 2010 8 10 12 72,154,358 88,293,653 111,811,753 29.0% 31.4% 36.2% 22.4% 26.6% 7 8 10 22,289,751 27,329,564 32,472,467 9.0% 10.5% 10.5% 33.0% 18.8% 25 32 32 38,629,024 48,026,722 51,131,690 15.5% 14.5% 16.6% 5.5% 6.5% 0.5 1 Million 33 31 40 24,351,646 21,272,896 28,595,291 9.8% 8.0% 9.3% -7.7% 34.4% 250 500K 64 71 58 22,397,418 25,597,240 20,778,622 9.0% 8.9% 6.7% 11.8% -18.8% 100 250K 112 131 99 16,809,165 19,917,234 15,733,357 6.8% 8.5% 5.1% 42.7% -21.0% 50 100K 19 25 22 1,606,482 2,142,631 1,928,952 0.6% 0.8% 0.6% 46.6% -10.0% All Metro Areas 268 308 273 198,237,844 232,579,940 262,452,132 79.7% 82.6% 85.0% 17.3% 12.8% Non-Metro Areas 50,472,029 48,841,966 46,293,406 20.3% 17.4% 15.0% -3.2% -5.2% Total U.S. 248,709,873 281,421,906 308,745,538 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 13.2% 9.7% Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Note: The count of metro areas reflects consolidated metro areas. 22 Commuting in America 2013: The National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends

The 20-year population growth for all 54 metro areas now over 1 million population is just over 62 million, representing an average growth rate of 46.8 percent, almost twice the rate of growth as the nation as a whole. By contrast, the population growth for metro areas under 1 million population is 12.7 million, representing an average growth rate of 21.8 percent, which is about 2.3 percent less than that for the nation. An additional 13.5 million was added to the metro area population due to the designation of 58 new metro areas between 2003 and 2013; all of these new metro areas were added to one of the under 1 million metro area size categories. Figure 4-12 shows the metropolitan area size trends. Population 350,000,000 300,000,000 250,000,000 200,000,000 150,000,000 Non-Metro Areas 50 100K 100 250K 250 500K 0.5 1 Million 100,000,000 1 2.5 Million 50,000,000 0 1990 2000 2010 2.5 5 Milliion Over 5 Million Figure 4-12. Metropolitan Size Trends Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Table 4-9 extends the discussion of metro size to include the concept of principal cities. The most important point revealed in the table is that it is the over 5 million population group that accounts for over 40 percent of the principal cities population. This is understandable given the nature of the principal cities concept. The over 5 million group also accounts for about 43 percent of suburban population and about 37 percent of central city population. Even with the advent of the principal cities concept, the pattern of central city shares of metro area populations continues the patterns observed in past decades. The smallest metros are the most It is clear that the criteria that define metropolitan areas indicate that the reach of commuter sheds is expanding; and that the terms city and suburb are increasingly less meaningful to the way most people live. Brief 4. Population and Worker Dynamics 23

centered on the central city. They have the highest shares of central city population to total metro size, 47 percent in the 50 100 thousand range, declining with increasing area size down to 23 percent in the 2.5 to 5 million range, until the largest metro size class. The uptick in share, at 25 percent, for the 5 million and above group may be an artifact, as in the past, of the distorting effect of the New York area. While New York does not have the overwhelming effect on national statistics it once had, it still has the power to distort national patterns. Table 4-9. Metropolitan Area Population Distribution 2010 Metro Area Population Central City Share of Population Total Metro Area Suburbs Other Principal Cities Central City All Principal Cities Number of Metro Areas Metro Area Size Over 5 Million 12 41,127,646 27,854,471 13,273,175 70,684,107 111,811,753 24.9% 2.5 5 Million 10 11,286,130 7,295,036 3,991,094 21,186,337 32,472,467 22.5% 1 2.5 Million 32 20,382,678 16,718,081 3,664,597 30,749,012 51,131,690 32.7% 0.5 1 Million 40 10,004,005 8,438,198 1,565,807 18,591,286 28,595,291 29.5% 250 500K 58 9,194,358 8,157,452 1,036,906 11,584,264 20,778,622 39.3% 100 250K 99 6,409,579 5,910,108 499,471 9,323,778 15,733,357 37.6% 50 100K 22 944,470 909,850 34,620 984,482 1,928,952 47.2% 273 99,348,866 75,283,196 24,065,670 163,103,266 262,452,132 28.7% All Metro Areas Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 24 Commuting in America 2013: The National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends

Table 4-10 identifies the 54 metro areas in the nation of over one million population as of 2010, in detail showing their growth patterns over the past 20 years. Referring back to Table 4-8, there were 40 such metro areas in 1990 and 50 in 2000, suggesting a continuing trend of population growth in the largest metro areas. Ten new metro areas reached the over 1 million population category in 2000: Las Vegas, Austin, Nashville, Raleigh, Louisville, Jacksonville, Oklahoma City, Richmond, Grand Rapids, and Birmingham. All but one of these (Grand Rapids) are located in the South or West. In 2010, five new metro areas were added: Harrisburg, Greenville, Fresno, Albuquerque, and El Paso. Again, all but one of these new metro areas are located in the South or West. The only metro area that dropped from the over 1 million population category was Providence, which was merged into the Boston combined metropolitan area in 2010 and was the primary reason for Boston s apparent growth between 2000 and 2010. Brief 4. Population and Worker Dynamics 25

Table 4-10. Population for Metros over 1 Million (Millions) Rank 2010 Rank 2000 Metro Area Name Metro Area Population 1990 2000 2010 Change 1990 2000 % Change Change 2000 2010 % Change 1 1 New York CMSA 19.64 21.18 22.89 1.54 7.9% 1.71 8.1% 2 2 Los Angeles CMSA 14.53 16.37 17.88 1.84 12.7% 1.50 9.2% 3 3 Chicago CMSA 8.24 9.31 9.69 1.07 13.0% 0.37 4.0% 4 4 Washington CMSA 6.73 7.45 8.98 0.73 10.8% 1.53 20.5% 5 5 San Francisco CMSA 6.25 7.09 8.15 0.84 13.4% 1.06 15.0% 6 7 Boston CMSA 5.69 5.52 7.69-0.16-2.9% 2.16 39.2% 7 6 Philadelphia CMSA 5.89 5.83 7.07-0.06-1.0% 1.23 21.2% 8 9 Dallas CMSA 4.04 5.16 6.55 1.12 27.8% 1.39 26.8% 9 10 Miami CMSA 3.19 5.01 6.13 1.81 56.8% 1.12 22.4% 10 11 Houston 3.73 4.72 5.92 0.98 26.4% 1.21 25.6% 11 12 Atlanta CMSA 2.96 4.39 5.66 1.43 48.2% 1.27 29.0% 12 8 Detroit CMSA 5.19 5.36 5.22 0.17 3.3% -0.14-2.6% 13 14 Phoenix 2.24 3.25 4.19 1.01 45.3% 0.94 28.9% 14 13 Seattle CMSA 2.97 3.48 4.06 0.51 17.3% 0.58 16.6% 15 15 Minneapolis-St. Paul 2.54 3.14 3.54 0.60 23.5% 0.40 12.8% 16 16 Cleveland CMSA 2.86 2.84 3.18-0.02-0.6% 0.34 12.0% 17 17 San Diego 2.50 2.81 3.10 0.32 12.6% 0.28 10.0% 18 19 Denver CMSA 1.98 2.45 3.09 0.47 23.7% 0.64 26.2% 19 23 Portland, OR CMSA 1.79 1.93 2.92 0.13 7.5% 0.99 51.5% 20 29 Orlando CMSA 1.22 1.64 2.82 0.42 34.3% 1.17 71.4% Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 26 Commuting in America 2013: The National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends

Table 4-10. Population for Metros over 1 Million (Millions) Continued Rank 2010 Rank 2000 Metro Area Name Metro Area Population 1990 2000 2010 Change 1990 2000 % Change Change 2000 2010 % Change 21 18 St. Louis 2.49 2.70 2.79 0.21 8.3% 0.09 3.3% 22 21 Tampa-St. Petersburg 2.07 2.40 2.78 0.33 15.9% 0.39 16.2% 23 20 Pittsburgh CMSA 2.39 2.43 2.48 0.04 1.5% 0.05 2.0% 24 25 Sacramento CMSA 1.48 1.80 2.32 0.32 21.3% 0.52 28.9% 25 24 Kansas City CMSA 1.58 1.84 2.25 0.25 16.0% 0.41 22.4% 26 35 Charlotte 1.16 1.33 2.22 0.17 14.5% 0.89 66.6% 27 33 Salt Lake City CMSA 1.07 1.41 2.21 0.34 31.6% 0.80 56.7% 28 34 Las Vegas CMSA 0.85 1.38 2.15 0.52 61.3% 0.78 56.4% 29 27 San Antonio 1.32 1.71 2.14 0.39 29.2% 0.43 25.2% 30 22 Cincinnati 1.82 2.01 2.11 0.19 10.6% 0.10 5.2% 31 26 Indianapolis CMSA 1.38 1.73 2.08 0.35 25.3% 0.35 20.4% 32 30 Columbus, OH 1.35 1.61 1.90 0.27 19.9% 0.29 17.9% 33 28 Milwaukee CMSA 1.61 1.69 1.75 0.08 5.1% 0.06 3.7% 34 39 Austin 0.85 1.25 1.72 0.40 47.7% 0.47 37.3% 35 32 Virginia Beach 1.44 1.58 1.68 0.13 9.2% 0.10 6.4% 36 37 Nashville 0.99 1.31 1.67 0.33 33.2% 0.36 27.4% 37 40 Raleigh CMSA 0.86 1.22 1.63 0.37 43.0% 0.41 33.6% 39 48 Greensboro CMSA 1.05 1.07 1.52 0.02 1.4% 0.45 42.3% 39 44 Hartford CMSA 1.12 1.15 1.49 0.02 2.2% 0.34 29.4% 40 38 Louisville CMSA 0.95 1.27 1.38 0.32 33.8% 0.11 9.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Brief 4. Population and Worker Dynamics 27

Table 4-10. Population for Metros over 1 Million (Millions) Continued Rank 2010 Rank 2000 Metro Area Name Metro Area Population 1990 2000 2010 Change 1990 2000 % Change Change 2000 2010 % Change 41 45 Jacksonville 0.91 1.12 1.35 0.22 23.8% 0.22 19.8% 42 41 Memphis 1.01 1.21 1.32 0.20 19.6% 0.12 9.9% 43 36 New Orleans CMSA 1.29 1.32 1.31 0.03 2.4% -0.01-0.4% 44 47 Oklahoma City 0.96 1.10 1.25 0.14 14.2% 0.16 14.4% 45 54 Harrisburg CMSA 0.59 0.63 1.22 0.04 7.0% 0.59 93.7% 46 46 Richmond 0.87 1.10 1.21 0.23 26.7% 0.11 10.1% 47 43 Grand Rapids CMSA 0.94 1.15 1.16 0.21 22.5% 0.01 1.1% 48 51 Greenville CMSA 0.83 0.73 1.14-0.10-12.6% 0.41 56.7% 49 42 Buffalo 1.19 1.17 1.14-0.02-1.6% -0.03-3.0% 50 49 Birmingham 0.84 1.05 1.13 0.21 25.2% 0.08 7.2% 51 53 Fresno CMSA 0.76 0.92 1.08 0.17 22.1% 0.16 17.2% 52 50 Rochester, NY 1.06 1.04 1.08-0.02-2.3% 0.04 4.0% 53 59 Albuquerque CMSA 0.59 0.71 1.03 0.12 21.0% 0.32 44.7% 54 64 El Paso CMSA 0.59 0.68 1.01 0.09 14.9% 0.33 49.1% Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 28 Commuting in America 2013: The National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends

The Contribution of Migration/Immigration to Metropolitan Population Patterns Table 4-11 shows that there were approximately 20 million workers in the entire nation who moved from July 2011 to July 2012. Of the workers who moved, 13 million moved within the same metro area, 3.1 million moved between metro areas, and the remainder flowed in both directions between metros and non-metros, or from abroad. The 16 24 year old work force group, which typically shows a greater tendency to move than other age groups, also indicated a slightly greater tendency to leave metros for non-metros and also a substantially larger share of the reverse flow from non-metros to metros. They constitute a quarter of all movers, but obtain slightly lower shares of moving within metros, appreciably lower shares of movers to other metros, but constitute a third of those leaving non-metros for metros, and are more active than others in moving among non-metro areas. The net effect, as expected, is that metros gain 16 24 year old labor force from non-metro areas on the order of 100,000 per year. The 65 and over worker group displays amazing stability; while they are 5 percent of workers they constitute only 1 percent of movers, and therefore their distribution is of limited significance. The main work force, those 25 64 years of age, comprising almost three quarters of movers, accounts for a similar share of movers within the same metro, but a smaller share of those leaving metros for non-metros. This age group comprises almost 80 percent of workers from outside the United States. Table 4-11. Detailed Flows Matrix of Labor Force Changing Residences by Age Group, 2011 2012 (Thousands) Living in Living in Metro Non-Metro Total From\To Movers Within Same Metro To Other Metro To Non- Metro Non- Metro to Metro Within Non- Metro From Abroad All 16+ 19,739 13,013 3,099 564 719 1,810 534 16 to 24 years 4,918 3,228 675 144 240 528 102 25 to 64 years 14,561 9,626 2,395 399 462 1,253 426 65+ years 260 158 29 21 17 30 7 Source: Census, Current Population Survey, 2012 Annual Supplement. Brief 4. Population and Worker Dynamics 29

Suburbs gained Table 4-12 summarizes the net change in labor force about a million from flows for the period, with a gain of 1.2 million to suburbs domestic migration, and losses of about three quarters of a million from principal cities 4 and about 100,000 from non-metro areas. These about 850,000 from principal cities and numbers do not balance because of the net additions of 140,000 from nonmetro areas. those from abroad, without including losses of residents to other countries. If these international flows are removed, the values change to almost exactly a gain of 1 million for suburbs, and corresponding losses of 850,000 by principal cities, and 140,000 for non-metro areas. Note also that suburbs now receive more immigrants from abroad than do central cities, a pattern evolving over the last few decades but far different than historical patterns. Table 4-12. Detailed Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Labor Force Gains and Losses Summary, 2011 2012 (Thousands) Net Flow All Movers To Suburbs To Central City and Other Principal City To Non- Metro From Suburbs 6,642 5,044 1,356 242 From Central City and Other Principal City 7,812 2,291 5,315 206 From Non-Metro 2,111 301 286 1,524 From Abroad 417 200 183 34 Totals 16,982 7,836 7,140 2,006 Net Gain/Loss 1,194-672 -105 Source: Current Population Survey. Figure 4-13 shows the data in Table 4-12 more schematically to help visualize the workforce migration pattern. 4 Principal city is a relatively new Census term replacing the term central city. The previously designated central cities are now dramatically expanded and include far more principal cities, including some important suburban centers that are also given the designation. Thus, the previous treatments of center vs. suburbs are less accurate when applied to the new definitions with potentially significant parts of principal cities located in suburban areas. Efforts are made elsewhere in the briefs to separate the principal cities into the previously recognized central cities and those that are more suburban centers. 30 Commuting in America 2013: The National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends

Central City and Other Principal Cities 7,812 2,291 206 1,356 5,315 6,957 Central City and Other Principal Cities Suburbs 6,642 5,044 7,836 Suburbs 242 Non-Metro 2,111 286 301 1,524 2,006 Non-Metro 183 200 Abroad 417 34 Figure 4-13. Depiction of Workforce Migration from 2011to 2012 Source: Current Population Survey. The detailed flows of 16 24 year old work force members (not shown in the table) indicate net losses in principal cities to the suburbs. Overall, 250,000 left the suburbs for principal cities and 450,000 left principal cities for suburbs, for a net loss of approximately 200,000. In fact, the survey shows net migration losses in principal cities in every age group from 1 to 75+, and every racial, income, educational, marital status, labor force status, citizenship status, and occupational category with concomitant gains in the suburbs. The ACS shows 1.8 million arrivals from abroad in 2011. The pattern in 2011 and 2010, as shown in Figure 4-14, is close to the pattern shown in the ACS in the past half dozen years, but there have been erratic periods during the recession, particularly between 2008 and 2009, where sharp changes were observed. Brief 4. Population and Worker Dynamics 31

1.95 Millions of Persons Over 1 Year of Age 1.9 1.85 1.8 1.75 1.7 1.65 1.6 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Figure 4-14. Arrivals from Abroad, 2005 2011 Source: Census ACS. Table 4-13 provides a more detailed picture of immigration for the most recent period available. It shows that the majority of arrivals are of working age, and are at work, with a considerable preponderance of them men. 5 Table 4-13. Movers from Abroad 16+ Years of Age (Millions) All Non Labor Force In Labor Force Percent in Labor Force Total 941 407 534 56.8% Male 516 175 341 66.1% Female 426 232 194 45.5% 16 24 282 180 102 36.2% 25 64 633 207 426 67.3% 65+ 26 19 7 26.9% Source: Current Population Survey. The American Community Survey indicates that 14.4 million immigrants arrived in the United States in the period from 2000 to 2011. Assuming reasonable comparability between the surveys and the Census, approximately half of the population increase in the period was a product of immigration. This would further indicate that the arrival of so many members of economically active age groups from abroad constituted a very substantial part of labor force growth. 5 The data presented are from two different sources: the Current Population Survey and the American Community Survey. Their observation periods do not coincide nor do their designs or procedures; typically, therefore, results will not coincide. 32 Commuting in America 2013: The National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends

Table 4-14 shows that more than 40 percent of immigrant arrivals from 2000 to 2011 were located in the top ten metro areas. These areas, with approximately one-third of the U.S. population, saw the addition of over 6 million immigrants. Table 4-14. Immigrant Arrivals to Top Metros Since 2000 CMSA/MSA ACS 2011 Population in Millions Central City Domestic Migrants Central City Immigrants Suburban Immigrants Total Immigrants from Abroad New York Northern New Jersey Long Island, NY NJ PA 21.8 New York 642,981 738,232 731,032 1,469,264 Los Angeles Long Beach Santa Ana, CA 18.1 Los Angeles 1,707,924 356,409 783,969 1,140,378 Chicago Joliet Naperville, IL IN WI 9.6 Chicago 460,182 149,978 260,347 410,325 Washington Arlington Alexandria, DC VA MD WV 8.7 Washington 1,095,931 30,174 442,522 472,696 San Francisco Oakland Fremont, CA 7.6 San Francisco 524,098 60,512 480,284 540,796 Dallas Fort Worth Arlington, TX 6.5 Dallas 1,304,765 108,170 251,567 359,737 Philadelphia Camden Wilmington, PA NJ DE MD 6.5 Philadelphia 331,985 57,647 130,125 187,772 Houston Sugar Land Baytown, TX 6.1 Houston 1,417,324 213,157 191,102 404,259 Boston Cambridge Quincy, MA NH 5.8 Boston -25,065 53,725 210,048 263,773 Miami Fort Lauderdale Pompano Beach, FL 5.7 Miami 1,793,745 71,154 502,181 573,335 Source: ACS 2011. Brief 4. Population and Worker Dynamics 33