KC MSA

KC0KEK · Post by **KC0KEK** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 3:34 pm

From the on-line news section of today's Kansas City Business Journal:

Agency enlarges KC Metro Statistical Area

The Office of Management and Budget has enlarged the Kansas City Metropolitan Statistical Area by adding four counties, County Economic Research Institute Inc. said.

Franklin and Linn counties in Kansas and Bates and Caldwell counties in Missouri are now part of the Kansas City area for the OMB's statistical purposes, Overland Park-based CERI said in a written release Wednesday.

CERI President Dennis McKee said Thursday that he suspects a county's business connections with an existing, adjacent statistical area play a role in the OMB's decision to add the county to that MSA.

An official with the OMB couldn't be reached for comment.

The top three counties in the 15-county Kansas City MSA based on 2002 population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau were:

Jackson -- 660,773, or 35 percent of the MSA.
Johnson County, Kan. -- 476,536, or 25.2 percent of the MSA.
Clay -- 191,381, or 10.1 percent of the MSA.

So what are the benefits of this change? Or are there any benefits?

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 3:46 pm

I haven't looked up the counties and see what they would add but is this the official census doing this or just some other agency? I know the census is changing the way MSA's are configured but I got too bored to follow through on it.

KC0KEK · Post by **KC0KEK** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 4:50 pm

That's an obvious question, but alas, the article doesn't answer it. Anybody know?

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 5:28 pm

well it only raises our metro up to 1,836,038 people, but it raises the land area up 2450.33 square miles and the total surface area up 2464.03 square miles.
what was the metro and land area in 2000, not counting the new counties?
btw, the land area and population is all based on the 2000 census.
apparently it raises the land area up to 8,723 square miles.

phxcat · Post by **phxcat** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 9:02 pm

So, if Douglas County refuses to become part ofthe MSA, will the MSA eventually take in Topeka and wrap around Lawrence?

KC0KEK · Post by **KC0KEK** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 10:05 pm

Douglas County will have no choice. They will be assimilated by the Kansas City Borg.

KCPowercat · Post by **KCPowercat** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 10:31 pm

nothing to stop us except Omaha, Denver, St. Louis and Oklahoma City....we WILL be a four state metro if we keep building highways like we do.

GRID · Post by **GRID** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 10:49 pm

This does not make sense. We are adding rural counties that are further away from KC than counties that contain cities with strong ties to KC like Warrensburg, Lawrence and even St.Joe.

These three counties are closer and have over 250,000 people while the counties they added are further away and take up twice the space and only have about 50,000 in them.

Stupid.

Screw them.

KC metro is this:

MO: Jackson, Cass, Platte, Clay, Johnson
KS: Wyandotte, Johnson, Leavenworth, Douglas

Those counties alone are close to 2 million people and is the main "Kansas City" area.

Typical political BS...

KCforumer · Post by **KCforumer** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 1:31 am

phxcat wrote:So, if Douglas County refuses to become part ofthe MSA, will the MSA eventually take in Topeka and wrap around Lawrence?

Lawrence and Topeka will probably always remain metropolitan statistical areas. Their MSAs may combine with KC's MSA, though, and form a CMSA (consolodated). Kansas City-Lawrence CMSA, or Kansas City-Topeka-Lawrence CMSA, or Kansas City-Topeka-St. Joseph-Lawrence CMSA.

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 7:04 am

whats STL's metro area land size?

I can see Lawrence being added next and very quickly too.

KCN · Post by **KCN** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 11:55 am

All that matters is urbanized area anyway. They can add Dickinson, North Dakota to our MSA if they want. We're still a city of 1.5 million people when you cut through all the MSA fluff.

GRID · Post by **GRID** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 12:32 pm

KCNorthlander wrote:All that matters is urbanized area anyway. They can add Dickinson, North Dakota to our MSA if they want. We're still a city of 1.5 million people when you cut through all the MSA fluff.

Where the blob stops, metro kc stops...but its all about marketing and comparing kc to other cities fairly.

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 2:37 pm

we now have a larger metro than STL
they have 6,375 square miles of area, and we now have 8,723 square miles of land...
All we need now is more people...

Post by **dangerboy** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 3:05 pm

KCDevin wrote:we now have a larger metro than STL
they have 6,375 square miles of area, and we now have 8,723 square miles of land...
All we need now is more people...

But we have 1 million fewer people, which is an indicator of sprawl when we take more land for fewer people.

When it comes down to it, five core counties make up the main metro area (Jackson, Clay, Platte, Wyandoote, Johnson). Adding in surrounding counties is good for statisitical and marketing purposes, but most people in those areas don't actually identify themselves as living the metro area, just near it.

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 4:14 pm

but they are in the metro. also, in 2000 our MSA populations differed only by 227,700 people. also, Kansas City metro grew in population by 9.2% between 1990 and 2000.
The STL Metro grew only by 5.1% between that time, nearly half the rate we are growing.
As projected, by 2010, we will have passed them in population if the growth rate doesnt change or raises.

KCN · Post by **KCN** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 5:45 pm

Devin you might want to check your math. I calculated it several months ago that the current trend brings the KC metro past STL sometime around 2060.

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 6:18 pm

???
it wasnt my math, it was Jive STL math...
EDIT:
oops, i read it wrong:
1990-2000 Census growth rates

1. Minn-St Paul 16.9% 2,968,805
2. Indianapolis MSA 16.4% 1,607,486
3. Columbus MSA 16.4% 1,540,157
4. Kansas City MSA 12.2% 1,776,062
5. Chicago-Gary-Kenosha 11.1% 9,157,540
6. Cincinnati-Hamilton CMSA 8.9% 1,979,202
7. Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint CMSA 5.2% 5,456,428
8. Milwaukee-Racine CMSA 5.1% 1,689,572
9. St Louis MSA 4.5% 2,603,607
10. Cleveland-Akron CMSA 3.0% 2,945,831

1990-2000 Census metro pop. rank

1. Chicago-Gary-Kenosha 11.1% 9,157,540
2. Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint CMSA 5.2% 5,456,428
3. Minn-St Paul 16.9% 2,968,805 (above 3 mil)
4. Cleveland-Akron CMSA 3.0% 2,945,831
5. St Louis MSA 4.5% 2,603,607 (2.7 mil - benefit of the doubt)
6. Cincinnati-Hamilton CMSA 8.9% 1,979,202 (it's above the 2 mil mark but is still behind St Louis)
7. Kansas City MSA 12.2% 1,776,062
8. Milwaukee-Racine CMSA 5.1% 1,689,572
9. Indianapolis MSA 16.4% 1,607,486
10. Columbus MSA 16.4% 1,540,157

The current rate of population change between 1990-00, if continued, would result the following below.

2000-2025 Census metro pop. projections

1. Chicago-Gary-Kenosha CMSA 30.2% 9,157,540
2. Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint CMSA 13.5% 5,456,428
3. Minn-St Paul MSA 49.3% 4,432,000
4. Cleveland-Akron CMSA 7.7% 3,172,000
5. St Louis MSA 11.5% 2,902,000
6. Cincinnati-Hamilton CMSA 23.7% 2,448,000
7. Kansas City MSA 33.3% 2,368,000
8. Indianapolis MSA 46.3% 2,351,000
9. Columbus MSA 40.1% 2,158,000
10. Milwaukee-Racine CMSA 13.2% 1,913,000

2025-2050 Census metro pop. projections

1. Chicago-Gary-Kenosha 14,684,460
2. Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint CMSA 6,925,572
3. Minn-St Paul MSA 5,895,195
4. Cleveland-Akron CMSA 3,398,169
5. St Louis MSA 3,200,393
6. Kansas City MSA 2,959,938
7. Cincinnati-Hamilton CMSA 2,916,798 (Cinci-Dayton??)
8. Indianapolis MSA 2,791,362 (Indianapolis-Bloomington??)
9. Columbus MSA 2,775,843 (Columbus-Springfield??)
10. Milwaukee-Racine CMSA (Chicago-Gary-Milwaukee??)

2050-2075 Census metro pop. projections

1. Chicago-Gary-Milwaukee CMSA 19,825,776
2. Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint CMSA 7,660,144 (Toledo added unknown)
3. Minn-St Paul MSA 7,358,390
4. Cincinnati-Hamilton-Dayton CMSA (well over 4 mil.)
5. Cleveland-Akron CMSA 4,076,676
6. Kansas City MSA 3,551,876 (KC passes St Louis)
7. St Louis MSA 3,498,783
8. Columbus MSA 3,393,686
9. Indianapolis MSA 3,383,028 (Indianapolis-Bloomington pop. unknown would be more if added)

2075-2100 Census metro pop. projections

1. Chicago-Gary-Milwaukee CMSA 22,794,664
2. Minn-St Paul MSA 8,821,585
3. Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint CMSA 8,394,716 (Toledo not included)
4. Cincinnati-Dayton CMSA (near or at 5 million)
5. Indianapolis MSA 4,581,542 (Bloomington not included)
6. Kansas City MSA 4,143,814
7. Columbus MSA 4,011,529
8. Cleveland-Akron CMSA 3,850,507
9. St Louis MSA 3,797,179

GuyInLenexa · Post by **GuyInLenexa** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 6:54 pm

From what I understand, if one of the core cities reach a population of over 250,000 the MSA must include the name of that city (up to three cities) for the name of the MSA.
Although it will not happen until around 2030, Overland Park will reach that point. It could become: Kansas City MO - Overland Park KS MSA.
Interesting projections Devin, but you should get an average of the last three census gains to estimate the population trends.
I hope KC never gets as big as you show, it would lose a lot of what it has.
We might as well wait for the New Madrid fault to move to reduce STL's population (just joking)

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 7:32 pm

i multiplied the 2001 estimate by 1.122 (increase of 12.2%) and these are the results:
2001: 1,863,751
2011: 2,091,128
2021: 2,346,246
2031: 2,632,488
2041: 2,953,651
2051: 3,313,997
2061: 3,718,305
If KC grows by 8% each decade it will do this:
2001: 1,863,751
2011: 2,012,851
2021: 2,173,879
2031: 2,347,789
2041: 2,535,612
2051: 2,738,461
2061: 2,957,538

Post by **mean** » Mon Oct 13, 2003 3:21 pm

I hope KC never gets as big as you show, it would lose a lot of what it has.

My curiosity compels me to ask: like what? Depending on where the growth occurs, we could greatly densify the population in certain areas and bring great things to the city -- more money is an obvious example -- while leaving other existing areas as they are. I doubt anyone would appreciate apartment highrises in Hyde Park, but that doesn't mean we can't build them elsewhere.

The only major problem that will be made far worse is transportation. A continually growing population will mean a continually worse traffic problem, more wear and tear on the roads, more accidents, higher gas prices, and higher insurance rates. It's tempting to see this as a bad thing, but if it compels the city to invest in transportation (and I don't mean building more roads) then it will actually be a "blessing in disguise".