Ill just use Ohio for now.

 

Cleveland-Akron-Canton-Lorain-Elyria 2,722,194

 

Cincinnati-Dayton-Middletown 2,426,070

 

Im not sure about Columbus.

 

http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2010/08/24/2010-20808/proposed-urban-area-criteria-for-the-2010-census#p-52

^Is the government back to including Akron as part of the CLE metro area like it should be? Because of politics or whatever, Metro Cleveland dropped from 3 million to 2 million because part of the Cleveland CMSA was removed, even though commuting patterns remained. In 2010 and going forward is Akron now being returned? (I hope so.)

New York-Philly-Hartford! 29.8 mil! Wow! I bet Philly folks wont like being NY's Oakland or Akron.

 

The total population figures seem low for almost all the metros. Are they getting rid of rural areas of counties as part of the MSA and reassigning the standard to just urban/suburban areas? I didn't have time to read the text.

I dont understand why they would combine major cities like that. Its one thing giving Cleveland Akron, but giving NYC Philadelphia makes no sense. I guess in that case, Clevelands should include Pittsburg

 

How does Cincinnati get Dayton added and only get to 2.4 million?  Wasn't Cincy at 2.1 by itself?

Urbanized area is different from commuting-based MSA and CSA.  Urbanized area generally follows the 1,000 people per square mile rule.  That's why Philadelphia and Hartford can be included within NYC's.  Last I checked, Dayton's urbanized area was hovering around 800,000 and Cincinnati's was around 1.6 million so that makes sense.

^Ah.  Thanks. 

Let's see: the 2000 data had 2.2 million for Cleveland primary metro, 700,000 for Akron primary metro and just under 400,000 for Canton-Massillon. So how did we go from 3.3 million to 2.7 million? You can't tell me this region lost 600,000 people. No way.

Let's see: the 2000 data had 2.2 million for Cleveland primary metro, 700,000 for Akron primary metro and just under 400,000 for Canton-Massillon. So how did we go from 3.3 million to 2.7 million? You can't tell me this region lost 600,000 people. No way.

The way I read CDM explanation, it's 1,000 people/sq mile rule.  Therefore, on the map, the entire area is included, but municipalities under that population density threshhold are probably removed.  This would most likely include places like Brecksville, Richfield, Bath, Hinckley, North Royalton etc.

Where's Toledo listed? I did not see that one.

Does this classification have any practical implications?  Who actually uses these stats for more than discussion board discussions, and what do they use them for?  MSAs, I understand.  But what use would someone have for a stat that includes Akron and Cleveland but eliminates half or more of the smaller communities (incorporated or otherwise) in between?

 

Should those of us in Akron really give a rat's rear whether we're included with Cleveland's (or Canton's) "urbanized area" or not?

Where's Toledo listed? I did not see that one.

 

These are new potential urban agglomerations.  That's why Columbus doesn't show up on the list either.

Toledo is still independent from Detroit, and of course Columbus is independent (though in the future there could be a Cincinnati-Dayton-Springfield-Columbus suburban disaster zone).

^Never that due to the Big Darby Creek watershed.

Does this classification have any practical implications?  Who actually uses these stats for more than discussion board discussions, and what do they use them for?  MSAs, I understand.  But what use would someone have for a stat that includes Akron and Cleveland but eliminates half or more of the smaller communities (incorporated or otherwise) in between?

 

Should those of us in Akron really give a rat's rear whether we're included with Cleveland's (or Canton's) "urbanized area" or not?

 

It can affect the distribution of federal funds, especially for transportation projects. If you have more population, more vehicle-miles traveled, more poverty or other "triggers" that can release more federal funds to you, then the boundaries of a metro area can have an impact, maybe even a substantial one.

Does this classification have any practical implications?  Who actually uses these stats for more than discussion board discussions, and what do they use them for?  MSAs, I understand.  But what use would someone have for a stat that includes Akron and Cleveland but eliminates half or more of the smaller communities (incorporated or otherwise) in between?

 

Should those of us in Akron really give a rat's rear whether we're included with Cleveland's (or Canton's) "urbanized area" or not?

 

It can affect the distribution of federal funds, especially for transportation projects. If you have more population, more vehicle-miles traveled, more poverty or other "triggers" that can release more federal funds to you, then the boundaries of a metro area can have an impact, maybe even a substantial one.

 

Of a metro area, yes.  I was under the impression that there was a distinction being made here between "urbanized area" and MSA.  I was asking specifically about the former.  Of course, if my premise is wrong, I'd invite correction on that front, too.

It would interesting to see a map of this. 

If they changed the definition of this wouldn't they have to change the definition of MSA? Since one MSA can be named if it one urbanized area.

Is there any kind of benefit a city might get from changing their urbanized area? Will Cincinnati-Middletown-Dayton have any kind of advantage over Cincinnati-Middletown and Dayton?

Will Cincinnati-Middletown-Dayton have any kind of advantage over Cincinnati-Middletown and Dayton?

 

Huh? Do you mean Cin-Mid-Ham for one of those?

 

The question I have is does this just include urbanized area in Ohio, or are the Kentucky and Indiana communities included in the Cincinnati number as well?

Kentucky and Indiana are included.  I mean, there isn't going to be a Covington-Rising Sun-Florence Ya'll! urbanized area anytime soon ;).