Metro Comparison- 2nd Annual Edition

Last summer, I compared the Columbus metro with its national peers, a collection of metros ranging from 1.5 to 2.5 million in population. You can see that comparison here: http://allcolumbusdata.com/?p=661 and here: http://allcolumbusdata.com/?p=678

The recent release of updated population numbers prompted the need for an updated look. I focused on population density previously. This time, I wanted to expand that focus to include migration trends.

Metro Area Population on July 1, 2012 and July 1, 2013 By Rank
2012——————-2013
1. Pittsburgh: 2,360,989— 1. Pittsburgh: 2,360,867
2. Charlotte: 2,294,990—2. Charlotte: 2,335,358
3. Portland, OR: 2,289,038—3. Portland, OR: 2,314,554
4. San Antonio, TX: 2,234,494—4. San Antonio, TX: 2,277,550
5. Orlando: 2,223,456—5. Orlando: 2,267,846
6. Sacramento, CA: 2,193,927—6. Sacramento, CA: 2,215,770
7. Cincinnati: 2,129,309—7. Cincinnati: 2,137,406
8. Cleveland: 2,064,739—8. Cleveland: 2,064,725
9. Kansas City: 2,038,690—9. Kansas City: 2,054,473
10. Las Vegas: 1,997,659—10. Las Vegas: 2,027,868
11. Columbus: 1,944,937—11. Columbus: 1,967,066
12. Indianapolis: 1,929,207—12. Indianapolis: 1,953,961
13. San Jose, CA: 1,892,894—13. San Jose, CA: 1,919,641
14. Austin, TX: 1,835,110— 14. Austin, TX: 1,883,051
15. Nashville: 1,726,759—15. Nashville: 1,757,912
16. Virginia Beach, VA: 1,698,410—16. Virginia Beach, VA: 1,707,369
17. Providence, RI: 1,601,160—17. Providence, RI: 1,604,291
18. Milwaukee: 1,566,182—18. Milwaukee: 1,569,659

Total Metro Population Change, 2012-2013, By Rank
1. Austin: +47,941
2. Orlando: +44,390
3. San Antonio: +43,056
4. Charlotte: +40,368
5. Nashville: +31,153
6. Las Vegas: +30,209
7. San Jose: +26,747
8. Portland: +25,516
9. Indianapolis: +24,754
10. Columbus: +22,129
11. Sacramento: +21,843
12. Kansas City: +15,783
13. Virginia Beach: +8,959
14. Cincinnati: +8,097
15. Milwaukee: +3,477
16. Providence: +3,131
17. Cleveland: -14
18. Pittsburgh: -122

Average Annual Population Change from 2000-2010 vs. 2010-2013
2000-2010—————-2010-2013
1. Charlotte: +88,657— 1. Austin: +55,587
2. Las Vegas: +57,550— 2. San Antonio: +45,014
3. Orlando: +48,985— 3. Orlando: +44,478
4. Austin: +46,653— 4. Charlotte: +39,447
5. San Antonio: +43,081— 5. Portland: +29,515
6. Indianapolis: +36,277— 6. Nashville: +29,007
7. Nashville: +35,910— 7. San Jose: +27,577
8. Sacramento: +35,227— 8. Las Vegas: +25,553
9. Portland: +29,819— 9. Sacramento: +22,214
10. Columbus: +28,928— 10. Indianapolis: +22,028
11. Kansas City: +17,330— 11. Columbus: +21,697
12. Cincinnati: +10,495— 12. Kansas City: +15,134
13. San Jose: +10,109— 13. Virginia Beach: +10.182
14. Virginia Beach: +10,045— 14. Cincinnati: +7,609
15. Milwaukee: +5,517— 15. Milwaukee: +4,584
16. Providence: +1,846— 16. Pittsburgh: +1,527
17. Cleveland: -7,090— 17. Providence: +1,146
18. Pittsburgh: -7,480— 18. Cleveland: -4,172

Annual Growth Rate % Change 2000-2010 vs. 2010-2013**
1. San Jose: +172.8%
2. Pittsburgh: +120.4%
3. Cleveland: +69.9%
4. Austin: +19.1%
5. San Antonio: +4.5%
6. Virginia Beach: +1.4%
7. Portland: -1.0%
8. Orlando: -9.2%
9. Kansas City: -12.7%
10. Milwaukee: -16.9%
11. Nashville: -19.2%
12. Columbus: -25.0%
13. Cincinnati: -27.5%
14. Sacramento: -36.9%
15. Providence: -37.9%
16. Indianapolis: -39.3%
17. Charlotte: -55.5%
18. Las Vegas: -55.6%

**Some of the changes in rates are due to boundary changes.  For example, part of the growth rate for Columbus 2000-2010 was a retroactive population addition when boundaries were changed in 2013.  The actual growth rate changed very little. 

Metro Area Density 2012 vs. 2013
2012——2013
1. Cleveland: 1,033.3—Cleveland: 1,033.9
2. Providence: 978.8— 2. Providence: 980.6
3. Milwaukee: 859.6— 3. Milwaukee: 861.0
4. San Jose: 702.9— 4. San Jose: 712.3
5. Virginia Beach: 642.2— 5. Orlando: 649.6
6. Orlando: 637.0—  6. Virginia Beach: 645.0
7. Cincinnati: 484.4— 7. Cincinnati: 486.4
8. Indianapolis: 444.4— 8. Charlotte: 450.8
9. Charlotte: 443.4— 9. Indianapolis: 450.1
10. Austin: 428.6—-  10. Austin: 440.0
11. Pittsburgh: 413.7—  11. Pittsburgh: 413.8
12. Columbus: 400.8— 12. Columbus: 405.6
13. Portland: 335.9— 13. Portland: 339.5
14. Sacramento: 316.7— 14. Sacramento: 319.5
15. San Antonio: 302.4— 15. San Antonio: 308.3
16. Kansas City: 276.5— 16. Kansas City: 278.6
17. Nashville: 270.7— 17. Nashville: 275.6
18. Las Vegas: 247.3— 18. Las Vegas: 250.6

Total Births 2012 vs. 2013
2012————2013
1. San Antonio: +31,045— 1. San Antonio: +31,527
2. Kansas City: +28,087— 2. Kansas City: +27,937
3. Cincinnati: +27,803— 3. Sacramento: +27,865
4. Portland: +27,683— 4. Portland: +27,762
5. Sacramento: +27,649— 5. Cincinnati: +27,545
6. Orlando: +27,165— 6. Orlando: +27,484
7. Las Vegas: +26,385— 7. Las Vegas: +26,616
8. Columbus: +25,904— 8. Columbus: +25,740
9. Indianapolis: +25,472— 9. Austin: +25,519
10. Austin: +25,015 — 10. Indianapolis: +25,507
11. Charlotte: +24,415— 11. Charlotte: +24,437
12. San Jose: +24,240— 12. San Jose: +24,386
13. Pittsburgh: +24,006— 13. Pittsburgh: +23,938
14. Cleveland: +23,227— 14. Cleveland: +23,204
15. Virginia Beach: +22,799— 15. Virginia Beach: +22,773
16. Nashville: +21,641— 16. Nashville: +21,714
17. Milwaukee: +20,125— 17. Milwaukee: +19,963
18. Providence: +16,761— 18. Providence: +16,668

Total Deaths 2012 vs. 2013
2012————-2013
1. Austin: -8,732— 1. Austin: -8,859
2. San Jose: -9,965— 2. San Jose: -10,319
3. Nashville: -12,187— 3. Nashville: -12,327
4. Charlotte: -12,241— 4. Charlotte: -12,396
5. Virginia Beach: -12,801— 5. Milwaukee: -12,856
6. Milwaukee: -12,836— 6. Virginia Beach: -13,094
7. Indianapolis: -13,520— 7. Indianapolis: -13,414
8. Columbus: -13,938— 8. Columbus: -14,118
9. Las Vegas: -14,311— 9. Providence: -14,387
10. Providence: -14,568— 10. Las Vegas: -14,462
11. San Antonio: -15,367— 11. San Antonio: -15,593
12. Orlando: -15,419— 12. Orlando: -15,882
13. Sacramento: -15,973— 13. Sacramento: -16,133
14. Portland: -16,013— 14. Portland: -16,155
15. Kansas City: -16,255— 15. Kansas City: -16,254
16. Cincinnati: -18,477— 16. Cincinnati: -18,490
17. Cleveland: -20,708— 17. Cleveland: -20,326
18. Pittsburgh: -27,310— 18. Pittsburgh: -27,070

Net Natural Growth (Births vs. Deaths) 2012 vs. 2013
2012—————–2013
1. Austin: +16,283— 1. Austin: +16,660
2. San Antonio: +15,678— 2. San Antonio: +15,934
3. San Jose: +14,275— 3. San Jose: +14,067
4. Charlotte: +12,174—  4. Las Vegas: +11,622
5. Las Vegas: +12,074— 5. Indianapolis: +12,093
6. Columbus: +11,966— 6. Charlotte: +12,041
7. Indianapolis: +11,952— 7. Sacramento: +11,732
8. Kansas City: +11,862— 8. Kansas City: +11,683
9. Orlando: +11,746— 9. Columbus: +11,622
10. Sacramento: +11,676— 10. Portland: +11,607
11. Portland: +11,670— 11. Orlando: +11,602
12. Virginia Beach: +9,998— 12. Virginia Beach: +9,679
13. Nashville: +9,454— 13. Nashville: +9,387
14. Cincinnati: +9,326— 14. Cincinnati: +9,055
15. Milwaukee: +7,289— 15. Milwaukee: +7,107
16. Cleveland: +2,519— 16. Cleveland: +2,878
17. Providence: +2,193— 17. Providence; +2,281
18. Pittsburgh: -3,310— 18. Pittsburgh: -3,132

Domestic In-Migration 2012 vs. 2013
2012—————2013
1. Austin: +31,041— 1. Austin: +25,908
2. Orlando: +22,667— 2. San Antonio: +22,392
3. San Antonio: +21,908— 3. Charlotte: +21,382
4. Charlotte: +18,000— 4. Nashville: +17,975
5. Nashville: +14,946— 5. Orlando: +17,316
6. Las Vegas: +12,315— 6. Las Vegas: +10,524
7. Portland: +11,767— 7. Indianapolis: +8,934
8. Indianapolis: +4,146— 8. Portland: +7,901
9. Columbus: +3,275— 9. Columbus: +5,749
10. Pittsburgh: +1,963— 10. Sacramento: +3,329
11. Sacramento: +1,302— 11. Kansas City: +771
12. Kansas City: -1,061— 12. Pittsburgh: +590
13. San Jose: -2,304— 13. San Jose: -1,397
14. Milwaukee: -4,291— 14. Providence: -3,721
15. Providence: -5,210— 15. Cincinnati: -3,894
16. Virginia Beach: -5,950— 16. Cleveland: -5,581
17. Cincinnati: -6,024— 17. Milwaukee: -5,663
18. Cleveland: -9,990— 18. Virginia Beach: -5,920

International In-Migration 2012 vs. 2013
2012————–2013
1. Orlando: +14,506— 1. Orlando: +14,725
2. San Jose: +13,728— 2. San Jose: +14,124
3. Virginia Beach: +7,562— 3. Las Vegas: +6,506
4. Las Vegas: +6,606— 4. Sacramento: +6,071
5. Sacramento: +5,921— 5. Austin: +5,322
6. Austin: +5,199— 6. Portland: +5,280
7. Portland: +5,109— 7. Virginia Beach: +5,037
8. Columbus: +4,654— 8. Charlotte: +4,996
9. Providence: +4,637— 9. Columbus: +4,689
10. Charlotte: +4,573— 10. Providence: +4,563
11. San Antonio: +4,441— 11. Indianapolis: +4,064
12. Indianapolis: +3,958— 12. Cleveland: +3,698
13. Cleveland: +3,647— 13. San Antonio: +3,469
14. Nashville: +3,305— 14. Nashville: +3,463
15. Cincinnati: +3,268— 15. Cincinnati: +3,326
16. Kansas City: +3,164— 16. Kansas City: +3,119
17. Pittsburgh: +2,767— 17. Pittsburgh: +2,778
18. Milwaukee: +2,179— 18. Milwaukee: +2,233

Net In-Migration Total 2012 vs. 2013
2012—————-2013
1. Orlando: +37,173— 1. Orlando: +32,041
2. Austin: +36,240— 2. Austin: +31,230
3. San Antonio: +25,949— 3. Charlotte: +26,378
4. Charlotte: +22,573— 4. San Antonio: +25,861
5. Las Vegas: +18,921— 5. Nashville: +21,428
6. Nashville: +18,251— 6. Las Vegas: +17,030
7. Portland: +16,876— 7. Portland: +13,181
8. San Jose: +11,424— 8. Indianapolis: +12,998
9. Indianapolis: +8,104— 9. San Jose: +12,727
10. Columbus: +7,929— 10. Columbus: +10,438
11. Sacramento: +7,223— 11. Sacramento: +9,400
12. Pittsburgh: +4,730— 12. Kansas City: +3,890
13. Kansas City: +2,103— 13. Pittsburgh: +3,368
14. Virginia Beach: +1,612— 14. Providence: +842
15. Providence: -573— 15. Cincinnati: -568
16. Milwaukee: -2,112— 16. Virginia Beach: -883
17. Cincinnati: -2,756— 17. Cleveland: -1,883
18. Cleveland: -6,343— 18. Milwaukee: -3,430

Ohio’s Improving Growth Outlook

Back in November, I wrote about Ohio’s improving domestic growth picture. In that post, I examined domestic out-migration and domestic in-migration 2005-2012, and discovered that the net change had been improving. The state was losing fewer people over time domestically, and the difference had declined to under 2,000 people by 2012, a HUGE improvement from the start of the period.

Recently, the US Census released 2013 state population estimates, along with components of population change for the July 1st, 2012-July 1st, 2013 period. More positive news was to be found in those estimates.

First, Ohio’s population increased to 11,570,808, representing an annual increase of 17,777. While the increase is not particularly great, especially in comparison to states nationally, there are some positive nuggets with that number. The state held on to its position as the 7th most populous state, and the increase was the highest since pre-recession. The state moved up 18 spots in the total annual growth rankings 2012-2013 vs. 2011-2012. This was the best increase of all 50 states. It was also the best growth for the state since 2007.

Online Graphing
Create a graph

Did the state bottom out in 2012? Perhaps, but way too early to tell. Still, a very good improvement that halted a general decline.

The components of change are also interesting.

Online Graphing
chart

The migration patterns show a few things. First, 2013 had the 2nd highest rate since 2000 of in-international migration. It was also one of the best years (since 1996) for domestic in-migration.

The question is, can Ohio keep improving or is this just a temporary blip? Time will tell.

Ohio Domestic Migration 2005-2012

Ohio has been growing fairly slowly for several decades now. In fact, if it was not for Columbus’ population growth and international migration, the state would’ve been losing population in recent years. But is the picture really that bad? Are things changing? I decided to find out.

Online Graphing
Make a graph

The first chart above shows the total population that moved to Ohio from all other 49 states plus Puerto Rico and DC by year. The drop during the recession is pretty obvious, as mobility greatly decreased during that time. 2012 had the 2nd highest total of the period, only slightly behind 2006.

Online Graphing
graph and chart

What the out-migration chart shows is that the total is gradually going down, meaning fewer people, on average, are leaving Ohio each year. So what is the overall difference of in vs. out migration to Ohio?

Online Graphing
Graphing

As the chart shows, the trend has been improving over time, and 2012 barely registered a loss at all. Will the state begin seeing positive domestic in-migration in the very near future? Based on this chart, the answer seems to be yes. A lot can still happen, but it does appear that Ohio is finally shaking off its long-term population issues.

State Charts
Online Graphing
Graphing
Online Graphing
graph and charts
Online Graphing
graph
Online Graphing
Make a graph
Online Graphing
graph and charts
Online Graphing
graph
Online Graphing
Make a graph
Online Graphing
chart