Are there advantages of Metropolitan Combined Statistical Areas that are located in multiple states?

[Atlside]

Are there advantages of Metropolitan Combined Statistical Areas that are located in multiple states?

These are some of the ones

Total Population of the some of the Largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas/Metropolitan Combined Statistical Areas

July 1, 2005

Release date June 2006

-----------------------------------------------

Multi-state metro areas

New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA 21,903,623

Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI 9,661,840

Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV 8,083,128

Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD 5,976,485

Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-NH 5,804,816

* Detroit-Warren-Flint, MI 5,428,000 (doesn't share Windsor, Ontario's population but, should)

Minneapolis-St. Paul-St. Cloud, MN-WI 3,467,078

*San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA 2,933,462 (doesn't share Tijuana, Baja California's population but, should)

St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL 2,840,179

Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Truckee, CA-NV 2,187,747

Charlotte-Gastonia-Salisbury, NC-SC 2,120,745

Cincinnati-Middletown-Wilmington, OH-KY-IN 2,113,011

Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA 2,095,861

Kansas City-Overland Park-Kansas City, MO-KS 2,015,282

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 1,647,346

Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA 1,622,520

Louisville-Elizabethtown-Scottsburg, KY-IN 1,342,828

Memphis, TN-MS-AR 1,260,905

*Buffalo-Niagara-Cattaraugus, NY 1,230,213 (does not share St. Catharines, Ontario's population, but should)

Omaha-Council Bluffs-Fremont, NE-IA 830,666

Columbus-Auburn-Opelika, GA-AL 413,244

Metro areas that don't cross state lines

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA 17,602,607

San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA 7,168,176

Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 6,021,329

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL 5,422,200

Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX 5,380,661

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville, GA 5,249,121

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 3,865,077

Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia, WA 3,806,453

Cleveland-Akron-Elyria, OH 2,931,774

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 2,647,658

Denver-Aurora-Boulder, CO 2,640,434

Pittsburgh-New Castle, PA 2,478,883

Orlando-The Villages, FL 1,997,437

Columbus-Marion-Chillicothe, OH 1,936,351

Indianapolis-Anderson-Columbus, IN 1,930,026

San Antonio, TX 1,889,797

Las Vegas-Paradise-Pahrump, NV 1,751,028

Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI 1,708,563

Salt Lake City-Ogden-Clearfield, UT 1,567,766

Raleigh-Durham-Cary, NC 1,509,560

Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Columbia, TN 1,498,836

Greensboro--Winston-Salem--High Point, NC 1,490,886

Austin-Round Rock, TX 1,452,529

New Orleans-Metairie-Bogalusa, LA 1,363,990* (pre Hurricane Katrina and Rita, as of Jan. 1, 2006 pop. 914,745)

Grand Rapids-Wyoming-Holland, MI 1,315,319

Hartford-West Hartford-Willimantic, CT 1,304,067

Jacksonville, FL 1,248,371

Oklahoma City-Shawnee, OK 1,225,084

Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson 1,185,534

Richmond-Petersburg, VA 1,175,654

Birmingham-Hoover-Cullman, AL 1,170,012

Albany CSA 1,145,666

Rochester CSA 1,133,140

Dayton-Springfield-Greenville, OH 1,078,634

Fresno-Madera, CA 1,020,372

[dgreco]

^I may be wrong, but I think the providence newbedford one is now part of the boston, worcester CSA.

[krazeeboi]

One metro area that was missed is Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC. El Paso, TX also border Juarez, Mexico. But I think these were excluded because the list only includes CSAs, not MSAs. I think MSA make for a more interesting discussion, as counties included in the CSA but not the MSA tend to have much less interaction with the county holding the dominant city of the metro area and tend to be "piggyback" counties, as I've heard it termed--meaning that those counties usually are included due to residents commuting into neighboring counties instead of the primary county.

I'm not sure if there are advantages to metro areas that cross state boundaries, but it does make for some situations that typically don't occur in metro areas contained wholly within one state. I happen to live in such a metro area (Charlotte MSA). The city I live in was once included in the MSA designation (Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC), but now Concord, NC has replaced us. SC probably has the most restrictive annexation laws in the nation, whereas NC probably has the most liberal annexation laws in the nation. Our annexation laws were cited as a probable reason why we lost our place in the MSA designation; however, lately, we've been growing faster than Concord, so we just may regain our position once again.

Regional "competition" can also be an issue in these metro areas. Lately, there have been a lot of companies that have relocated from Charlotte to just across the border (York and Lancaster counties) to take advantage of the incentives that SC typically provides for relocating companies and lower taxes. This tends to result in a bit of a "reverse commute." Another example of this would be what I saw in northern Kentucky, within Cincinnati's metro area. That area pretty much blends in with the city, and I didn't even know I hadn't actually entered the city yet until I saw the Northern Kentucky Convention Center; yet, Cincinnati's convention center is obviously the premier meeting place for the region. Northern Kentucky's convention center looks as though it would compete with Cincinnati's, but it's possible that it operates as a subregional meeting facility (as it should).

There have been some gripes from those who live in the dominant city at times about those who work and play in the city but live in adjacent counties in neighboring states about not "paying their way" in terms of infrastructure, which I suppose has some validity.

Multi-state metro areas, as they grow larger, must also emphasize regional cooperation at increasing levels; this has the potential to be somewhat diffcult when dealing with two or more state legislatures. This is particularly true as it regards mass transit. Washington's METRO transit system is a positive example of regional cooperation, as it extends into both Maryland and Virginia.

[hudkina]

If Detroit were to include the Canadian portion both Essex County (Windsor) and Lambton County (Sarnia) would be included, bringing the total population to 5.93 million.

[Snowguy716]

In the case of the Twin Cities with Minnesota and Wisconsin, there isn't much competition on either side. Taxes are roughly the same on either side as are other services such as schools, etc. The thing that attracts people to Wisconsin is the lax laws on liquor and fireworks and other "sinful" products

At our western border, there is more fierce competition. Waiters in Minnesota make $6.15/hr plus tips while they only make about $3/hr in North Dakota. Cigarettes are much cheaper in North Dakota and taxes are lower. North Dakota also has good schools (K-12 and higher ed.) with North Dakota State and the University of North Dakota both attracting a lot of Minnesotans. (Of course I'm referring to Fargo/Moorhead and Grand Forks/East Grand Forks in the Red River Valley).

In the case of Duluth, MN/Superior, WI, Duluth wins, hands down. Superior is a dreary, flat industrial ghost town... and that's more positive than I should be, in my opinion.

[Spartan]

I think that in general, it is a disadvantage for a metro to be split by multiple states. Regional cooperation is difficult in single state metro's, but throwing in another state makes it that much more difficult.

For example, rivers tend to be the boundaries between states. So take some metro areas that are split by rivers, and you will see a pattern. One side of the river, where the primary city lies, is usually successful and has the most growth. The other side is usually a sketchy place and generally has a negative reputation (regarldess of whether or not that is the case). For example:

Philadelphia - Camden

New York - Jersey City/Hoboken/Newark (northern NJ?)

St Louis - East St Louis

Kansas City MO - Kansas City KS

Cincinnati - Covington

Louisville - Jefferson/New Albany

If you look at these places, the cities on the right tend to be smaller and/or have a negative connotation associated with them. This also holds true with mid sized metros that split states over rivers. The trend seems to be that the city center must be on the river itself.

The one exception seems to be Washington, DC where the sprawl is pretty equal in all directions. That may have to do with the fact that Alexandria and Georgetown were already established cities with DC was formed, and DC used to include Arlington County, VA.

All of this leads to a metro who's historic center is not truely the center, and a large portion of undeveloped and undesirable land on the other side of the river. Take St Louis/ E St Louis. East St Louis suffers from being on the other side of the river in another state. St Louis has more money and more resources to attract jobs and what not. E St Louis suffers form a lack of money and being in a state where Chicago is king.

The other end of the spectrum is where a city splits multiple states but has no river. Take Chicago and Charlotte for example. These places don't apprear to suffer from their arrangement, but they must work harder with multiple states to encourage regional cooperation. Charlotte, for example, must work with SCDOT and NCDOT to establish an effective rail system into its suburban areas.

[krazeeboi]

For example, rivers tend to be the boundaries between states. So take some metro areas that are split by rivers, and you will see a pattern. One side of the river, where the primary city lies, is usually successful and has the most growth. The other side is usually a sketchy place and generally has a negative reputation (regarldess of whether or not that is the case).

[hudkina]

I think the Detroit-Windsor relationship is one of the few exceptions to that rule. Most people view Windsor as having the good reputation and Detroit as having the negetive reputation.

[DaltonGA]

I think that in general, it is a disadvantage for a metro to be split by multiple states. Regional cooperation is difficult in single state metro's, but throwing in another state makes it that much more difficult.

For example, rivers tend to be the boundaries between states. So take some metro areas that are split by rivers, and you will see a pattern. One side of the river, where the primary city lies, is usually successful and has the most growth. The other side is usually a sketchy place and generally has a negative reputation (regardless of whether or not that is the case). For example:

Philadelphia - Camden

New York - Jersey City/Hoboken/Newark (northern NJ?)

St Louis - East St Louis

Kansas City MO - Kansas City KS

Cincinnati - Covington

Louisville - Jefferson/New Albany

If you look at these places, the cities on the right tend to be smaller and/or have a negative connotation associated with them. This also holds true with mid sized metros that split states over rivers. The trend seems to be that the city center must be on the river itself.

The one exception seems to be Washington, DC where the sprawl is pretty equal in all directions. That may have to do with the fact that Alexandria and Georgetown were already established cities with DC was formed, and DC used to include Arlington County, VA.

All of this leads to a metro who's historic center is not truely the center, and a large portion of undeveloped and undesirable land on the other side of the river. Take St Louis/ E St Louis. East St Louis suffers from being on the other side of the river in another state. St Louis has more money and more resources to attract jobs and what not. E St Louis suffers form a lack of money and being in a state where Chicago is king.

The other end of the spectrum is where a city splits multiple states but has no river. Take Chicago and Charlotte for example. These places don't apprear to suffer from their arrangement, but they must work harder with multiple states to encourage regional cooperation. Charlotte, for example, must work with SCDOT and NCDOT to establish an effective rail system into its suburban areas.

[lammius]

For example, rivers tend to be the boundaries between states. So take some metro areas that are split by rivers, and you will see a pattern. One side of the river, where the primary city lies, is usually successful and has the most growth. The other side is usually a sketchy place and generally has a negative reputation (regarldess of whether or not that is the case). For example:

Philadelphia - Camden

New York - Jersey City/Hoboken/Newark (northern NJ?)

St Louis - East St Louis

Kansas City MO - Kansas City KS

Cincinnati - Covington

Louisville - Jefferson/New Albany

If you look at these places, the cities on the right tend to be smaller and/or have a negative connotation associated with them. This also holds true with mid sized metros that split states over rivers. The trend seems to be that the city center must be on the river itself.

[rnc]

I can't see any advantages. Typically, the major portion of the metro is underestimated in size and influence by outsiders and the minor portion of the metro is largely ignored. Competition between communities on either side of the boundary hurts the overall growth of the city as well. I'm going off of the two instances I'm most familiar with: Louisville and Cincinnati.