NewGeography.com blogs

Census results released today show again show losses, though small, in historical core municipalities. The city of Minneapolis lost 40 people, between 2000 and 2010, falling from 382,618 to 382,578. The city of St. Paul, also a historical core city of the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area fell from 287,000 to 285,000.

The historical core municipality of Memphis dropped from 650,000 to 647,000, despite the fact that much of the city is of a post-World War II suburban form.

The US Department of Transportation has announced a competitive grant program to reallocate funding that was refused by Florida for a proposed high speed rail line from Tampa to Orlando. The line was cancelled by Governor Rick Scott because of the prospect for billions of dollars of unplanned obligations that could have become the responsibility of the state's taxpayers.

Eligibility: Eligible applicants are states, groups of states, Amtrak or other government agencies that authorized to "provide intercity or high-speed rail service on behalf of states or a group of states. The grant program requires recipients of grants (read "taxpayers") to provide financial support to intercity and high speed rail passenger rail programs in the event that cost and ridership projections are optimistic (a routine occurrence).

Obligation to Pay for Cost Overruns: As in the program announced in 2009. the state, group of states, government agency will be required to demonstrate its financial capacity (that is, the capacity of their taxpayers) to pay for cost overruns (page 9). This open-ended liability led Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey to cancel a new transit-Hudson River rail tunnel, which had costs that were escalating out of control that would be the obligation of the state's taxpayers. Governor Christie and Governor Scott were both aware of the disastrous record of major infrastructure cost overruns, such as in the Boston Big Dig project, the Korean high-speed rail program and the overwhelming majority of passenger rail projects in North America and Europe, according to a team led by Oxford University Professor Bent Flyvbjerg.

Obligation to Pay Operating Costs: Moreover, inaccurate passenger and revenue forecasts have been pervasive in high-speed rail systems, as has been documented by Flybjerg, who found that cost overruns occurred in nine out of ten projects:

... we conclude that the traffic estimates used in decision making for rail infrastructure development are highly, systematically and significantly misleading.

This is illustrated by the fact that even a decade and one-half after the Eurostar London to Paris and London service was opened, ridership remains 60 percent below projection. Ridership on the Taiwan and Korea high speed rail systems has been one-half or more below projections. Our analysis of the Tampa to Orlando line revealed exceedingly high ridership projections, which were inexplicably raised even higher in a new report just released. Failure to achieve ridership projections increases the likelihood that a line will need operating subsidies, which would be the ultimate responsibility of taxpayers under the USDOT program.

Federal Grant Repayment Obligation: Moreover, taxpayers of any grant recipient would be required to repay part or all of the federal grant if a sufficient level of service is not maintained for a period of 20 years (page 41). The operation of this provision is illustrated by recent Florida experience. Tri-Rail, the Miami area's commuter rail service only narrowly escaped having to repay $250 million when its service level was deemed to not meet requirements of a federal grant by early in the Obama presidency. Tri-Rail was rescued by a state subsidy of nearly $15 million annually, which restored an artificially high level of service.

Intercity and High Speed Rail Program: The federal intercity and high-speed rail program is largely limited to upgrades of Amtrak-type service. Before Governor Scott's decision, only two of the programs (Florida and California) would have achieved international standard high speed rail speeds.  

Census Bureau estimates in 2008 indicated that the Tucson metropolitan area had become the nation's 52nd with more than 1,000,000 population. A Bureau of the Census estimate released earlier this week placed the population in 2010 at 1,027,000.

However, the 2010 census count showed the Tucson metropolitan area to have only 980,000 residents, a 16.1 percent increase from the 844,000 population in 2010. The historical core municipality of Tucson gained 6.9 percent from 487,000 to 520,000. This is the slowest growth rate since the 1850-1860 census period. The city accounted for 24 percent of the metropolitan area growth.

The suburbs grew at a rate of 29.1 percent and accounted for 76 percent of the population growth over the period.

This is the second time in history and the second time in five years that the nation has "lost" a metropolitan area with more than 1,000,000 population. The first instance was New Orleans, which was ravaged by Hurricane Katrina and dropped below 1,000,000 in 2006 and then recovered to above that figure in 2007. At the current growth rate, it appears likely that Tucson will be restored to major metropolitan area status by 2012.

The new 2010 census figures for Milwaukee reveal one of the nation's slowest growing metropolitan areas. From 2000 to 2010, Milwaukee grew 3.7 percent, from 1,501,000 to 1,556,000. Milwaukee's growth rate places it in a third place tie with Los Angeles (Cleveland and Pittsburgh lost population).

The historical core municipality of Milwaukee fell 0.4 percent, from 597,000 to 595,000. This is the lowest population count since the 1940 census and it is possible that the population living in the 1940 boundaries could be substantially lower. Since that time the land area of the city has more than doubled (from 43 square miles to 97 square miles), which is likely to have masked severe losses in the older urban core of the city (such losses have occurred in nearly all historical core municipalities in the nation).  The city reached its population peak in 1960, with 741,000 residents in the expanded boundaries.

The suburbs gained 6.4 percent and attracted more than 100 percent of the population growth in the 2000s. The largest growth, at 12.1 percent, was in Washington County, which is further from the urban core than the other two suburban counties. Waukesha added 29,000 residents, growing 8.1 percent, from 361,000 to 390,000, while Ozuakee County grew from 82,000 to 87,000, for a growth rate of 5.6 percent. The core county of Milwaukee, which includes the city of Milwaukee, grew 0.8 percent, from 940,000 to 948,000.

The 2009 Census Bureau estimates indicated that Phoenix had become the nation's 12th largest metropolitan area, passing San Francisco and Riverside-San Bernardino since 2000. The census count for 2010 indicates that Phoenix remains the 14th largest metropolitan area and failed to pass either San Francisco or Riverside-San Bernardino during the decade.

Nonetheless, Phoenix grew rapidly, adding 28.9 percent to its population. The metropolitan area had 4,193,000 residents in 2010, up from 3,252,000 in 2000.

The historical core municipality of Phoenix also grew less than expected. The 2009 Census Bureau estimates placed the population at 1,570,000, having passed Philadelphia to become the nation's fifth largest municipality. The city of Phoenix has a near universal suburban form, with a land area 520 square miles, four times that of Philadelphia. The 2010 census count was far smaller than expected, at 1,446,000, up from 1,332,000 in 2000, but still well below Philadelphia's 1,526,000. The 124,000 gain was the smallest of any census period since 1940-1950, at the end of which the city had 107,000 residents. The population growth rate was 9.3 percent, the lowest percentage increase rate since the 1880-1890 census period. The city of Phoenix captured 13 percent of the metropolitan growth, down from 33 percent in the 1990-2000 census period.

Suburban population growth was much stronger, at 42.4 percent. Suburban Pima County doubled in size and its exurban municipalities experienced strong growth. The city of Maricopa grew by 4,000 percent, from 1,000 to 43,000. Casa Grande nearly doubled in size. Suburbs within the core county of Maricopa also grew quickly. Buckeye, the last urbanization for 100 miles west on Interstate 10 grew from 7,000 to 51,000. Other urban fringe or near-urban fringe municipalities also grew quickly, such as Gilbert (109,000 to 209,000), Surprise (31,000 to 117,000) and Goodyear (19,000 to 65,000). The suburbs captured 87 percent of the metropolitan area growth, up from 67 percent in the 1990s.

The Department of Commerce released trade balance numbers for January this morning, reporting that the monthly deficit jumped to $46.3 billion, up from $40.3 billion in December. Economists had been projecting a deficit of $41.5 billion. The larger than expected number may lead some economists to “lower their estimates for economic growth in the January-March quarter based on the wider deficit.”

However, buried within the dark clouds is a silver lining. U.S. exports actually hit an all time high of $167.7 billion during the month, potentially showing signs of a strengthening economic recovery. This is up from $125.4 billion in January, 2009 and $144.7 billion in January, 2010. American exporters appear to be on a roll, and gaining momentum.

Exports of services also continues to be a point of trade strength for the nation. While year over year increases were smaller than those in overall exports (47.2 billion, up from 44.2 billion in January, 2010) the nation actually had one month trade surplus of $13.4 billion in services. This is up from past years, and is not an anomaly- the nation has marked a trade surplus in the services sector throughout the past two years.

The increase in the size of the deficit can largely be attributed to issues in two areas; petroleum and consumer goods. As oil prices continue to rise, the cost of oil imports have surged as well. In January alone, the nation imported 34.9 billion in petroleum products, leading to a deficit of $26.7 billion. This represents an increase of 21.5% over last January, and up 4.7% over the previous month.

The rise in the consumer goods deficit may actually be good news, of a sort. While the deficit itself is disconcerting, the detailed numbers show that imports of apparel, textiles, appliances, and other household related products are up notably. While increased imports in these sectors serve to worsen our trade balance with China (up to $23.3 billion in January, from $20.7 billion in December), increased demand for such retail goods could be a sign that the American economy, largely centered around consumer spending, is starting to catch some momentum again. According to economist Joseph LaVorgna, interviewed by CNN, while the deficit is wider, “the numbers actually imply a very healthy economy… The gain in imports was in every category. Domestic demand is still very firm and producers are rebuilding their inventories.”

The Hartford metropolitan area grew 5.5 percent between 2000 and 2010, according to new census data that has just been released. In 2000, the metropolitan area had 1,149,000 residents, a figure that rose to 1,221,000 in 2010.

The city of Hartford, the historical core municipality, grew from 124,100 (the 2000 base) to 124,800 over the period, for a growth rate of 0.5 percent. This small growth was a turnaround for Hartford, which had a peak population of 177,000 in 1950. Then, Hartford was the largest municipality in Connecticut, but has since been passed by both Bridgeport and New Haven. The city accounted for one percent of the metropolitan area's growth.

The suburbs grew at a rate of 6.2 percent and captured 99 percent of the metropolitan area's growth. Tolland County grew 12.0 percent, nearly double or more the population growth rates in the other two counties. Middlesex County grew 6.8 percent. The core county, Hartford (which includes the city of Hartford), grew the slowest, at 4.3 percent.

Just released census data indicates that the Pittsburgh metropolitan area declined in population from 2,431,000 in 2000 to 2,356,000 in 2010, a loss of 3.1 percent. The loss reflects a continuing trend of regional declines. The present geographical area of the Pittsburgh metropolitan area has a population below that of 1930 and has lost 400,000 residents (at percent) since 1960. No other major metropolitan area has experienced a loss since 1960 (including Katrina ravaged New Orleans).

Both the historical core municipality, the city of Pittsburgh and the suburbs declined. The suburbs experienced a loss of 2.2 percent, but accounted for 61 percent of the metropolitan area loss. All six suburban counties except Butler (5.6 percent) and more distant Washington (2.4 percent) experienced losses. The core county of Allegheny (which includes the city of Pittsburgh) lost 4.6 percent of its population and nearly 80 percent of the metropolitan area's numeric population loss.

The city of Pittsburgh continued its long decline, falling to 306,000 in 2010 from 335,000 in 2000, a loss of 8.6 percent. The city accounted for 39 percent of the metropolitan area population loss. Pittsburgh's population peaked in 1950 at 677,000 and has fallen 55 percent since that time. Its 2010 population is lower than in any previous census since 1880 (based upon the combined population of Pittsburgh and Allegheny, which subsequently consolidated).

The Columbus (Ohio) metropolitan area increased in population from 1,613,000 in 2000 to 1,837,000 in 2010 (13.9 percent). This growth rate is likely to have been among the strongest in the Midwest and is greater than the growth rate of Seattle, which had grown more quickly in recent decades.

The historical core municipality, the city of Columbus, which is largely suburban in form, grew from 713,000 to 787,000, an increase of 10.4 percent. The city of Columbus captured 33 percent of the metropolitan area's growth.

The suburbs experienced a growth rate of 16.7 percent and captured 67 percent of the metropolitan area growth. Suburban Delaware County had a population increase of 58 percent, while more distant counties, Union (28 percent) and Fairfield (19 percent) also experienced strong growth. The core county of Franklin, which includes the city of Columbus, grew nine percent.

The Cleveland metropolitan area population fell from 2,148,000 in 2000 to 2.077,000 in 2010, according to the just released 2010 census figures. All of the loss was attributable to the city of Cleveland. However, population growth in the suburbs was small.

The 2010 census data indicates that the city of Cleveland lost 16.9 percent of its population between 2000 and 2010, the largest loss yet reported by a historical core municipality (excluding Hurricane Katrina ravaged New Orleans). Cleveland dropped from 477,000 in 2000 to 397,000 in 2010. The city of Cleveland reached its population peak of 914,000 in 1950 and has since fallen 57 percent.

The suburbs added 10,000 residents, for a growth rate of 0.6 percent. This small gain was insufficient to offset the loss of 80,000 residents in the city of Cleveland and the metropolitan area suffered a population loss of 3.3 percent.

The core county of Cuyahoga (which includes the city of Cleveland) declined 114,000 residents, for a loss of 8.2 percent. All of the four suburban counties gained, with by far the largest gain (14 percent) in Medina County.