In 2023, the metropolitan area of New York-Newark-Jersey City had the biggest population in the United States. Based on annual estimates from the census, the metropolitan area had around 19.5 million inhabitants, which was a slight decrease from the previous year. The Los Angeles and Chicago metro areas rounded out the top three. What is a metropolitan statistical area? In general, a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) is a core urbanized area with a population of at least 50,000 inhabitants – the smallest MSA is Carson City, with an estimated population of nearly 56,000. The urban area is made bigger by adjacent communities that are socially and economically linked to the center. MSAs are particularly helpful in tracking demographic change over time in large communities and allow officials to see where the largest pockets of inhabitants are in the country. How many MSAs are in the United States? There were 421 metropolitan statistical areas across the U.S. as of July 2021. The largest city in each MSA is designated the principal city and will be the first name in the title. An additional two cities can be added to the title, and these will be listed in population order based on the most recent census. So, in the example of New York-Newark-Jersey City, New York has the highest population, while Jersey City has the lowest. The U.S. Census Bureau conducts an official population count every ten years, and the new count is expected to be announced by the end of 2030.

This data set describes metropolitan areas in the conterminous United States, developed from U.S. Bureau of the Census boundaries of Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas (CMSA) and Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA), that have been processed to extract the largest contiguous urban area within each MSA or CMSA.

This statistic provides projected figures for the Gross Metropolitan Product (GMP) of the United States in 2021, by metropolitan area. Only the 100 leading metropolitan areas are shown here. In 2022, the GMP of the New York-Newark-Jersey City metro area is projected to be around of about **** trillion U.S. dollars. Los Angeles metropolitan areaA metropolitan area in the U.S. is characterized by a relatively high population density and close economic ties through the area, albeit, without the legal incorporation that is found within cities. The Gross Metropolitan Product is measured by the Bureau of Economic Analysis under the U.S. Department of Commerce and includes only metropolitan areas. The GMP of the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim metropolitan area located in California is projected to be among the highest in the United States in 2021, amounting to *** trillion U.S. dollars. The Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, Texas metro area is estimated to be approximately *** billion U.S. dollars in the same year. The Los Angeles metro area had one of the largest populations in the country, totaling ****** million people in 2021. The Greater Los Angeles region has one of the largest economies in the world and is the U.S. headquarters of many international car manufacturers including Honda, Mazda, and Hyundai. Its entertainment industry has generated plenty of tourism and includes world famous beaches, shopping, motion picture studios, and amusement parks. The Hollywood district is known as the “movie capital of the U.S.” and has its historical roots in the country’s film industry. Its port, the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach are aggregately one of the world’s busiest ports. The Port of Los Angelesgenerated some ****** million U.S. dollars in revenue in 2019.

In 2025, approximately 23 million people lived in the São Paulo metropolitan area, making it the biggest in Latin America and the Caribbean and the sixth most populated in the world. The homonymous state of São Paulo was also the most populous federal entity in the country. The second place for the region was Mexico City with 22.75 million inhabitants. Brazil's cities Brazil is home to two large metropolises, only counting the population within the city limits, São Paulo had approximately 11.45 million inhabitants, and Rio de Janeiro around 6.21 million inhabitants. It also contains a number of smaller, but well known cities such as Brasília, Salvador, Belo Horizonte and many others, which report between 2 and 3 million inhabitants each. As a result, the country's population is primarily urban, with nearly 88 percent of inhabitants living in cities. Mexico City Mexico City's metropolitan area ranks sevenths in the ranking of most populated cities in the world. Founded over the Aztec city of Tenochtitlan in 1521 after the Spanish conquest as the capital of the Viceroyalty of New Spain, the city still stands as one of the most important in Latin America. Nevertheless, the preeminent economic, political, and cultural position of Mexico City has not prevented the metropolis from suffering the problems affecting the rest of the country, namely, inequality and violence. Only in 2023, the city registered a crime incidence of 52,723 reported cases for every 100,000 inhabitants and around 24 percent of the population lived under the poverty line.

The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. Metropolitan Divisions subdivide a Metropolitan Statistical Area containing a single core urban area that has a population of at least 2.5 million to form smaller groupings of counties or equivalent entities. Not all Metropolitan Statistical Areas with urban areas of this size will contain Metropolitan Divisions. Metropolitan Division are defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and consist of one or more main counties or equivalent entities that represent an employment center or centers, plus adjacent counties associated with the main county or counties through commuting ties. Because Metropolitan Divisions represent subdivisions of larger Metropolitan Statistical Areas, it is not appropriate to rank or compare Metropolitan Divisions with Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas. The Metropolitan Divisions boundaries are those defined by OMB based on the 2010 Census, published in 2013, and updated in 2017.

United States US: Population in Largest City: as % of Urban Population data was reported at 7.020 % in 2017. This records a decrease from the previous number of 7.065 % for 2016. United States US: Population in Largest City: as % of Urban Population data is updated yearly, averaging 8.675 % from Dec 1960 (Median) to 2017, with 58 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 11.200 % in 1960 and a record low of 7.020 % in 2017. United States US: Population in Largest City: as % of Urban Population data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s USA – Table US.World Bank.WDI: Population and Urbanization Statistics. Population in largest city is the percentage of a country's urban population living in that country's largest metropolitan area.; ; United Nations, World Urbanization Prospects.; Weighted average;

This statistics shows the top 20 fastest growing large-metropolitan areas in the United States between July 1st, 2022 and July 1st, 2023. The total population in the Wilmington, North Carolina, metropolitan area increased by 0.05 percent from 2022 to 2023.

This statistics shows a list of the top 20 largest-metropolitan areas in the United States in 2010, by land area. Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario in California was ranked first enclosing an area of 70,612 square kilometers.

FAF domestic region level datasets and products provide information for states, state portions of large metropolitan areas, and remainders of states. Metropolitan areas consist of Metropolitan Statistical Areas or Consolidated Statistical Areas as defined by the Office of Management and Budget. When a metropolitan area is entirely within a state or when a state's portion of a multi-state metropolitan area is large enough to support the sampling procedures in the Commodity Flow Survey, the area becomes a separate FAF region. Small single-state metropolitan areas and small portions of a multi-state metropolitan area are part of the State or Remainder of State. FAF has two metropolitan areas that are each divided into three FAF regions, four that are each divided into two FAF regions, and several that have small pieces combined with States or Remainders of States.

© United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. For more information, see the site http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/faf/faf3/userguide/index.htm This layer is sourced from maps.bts.dot.gov.

The spatial component of the FAF network is derived from National Highway System Version 2009.11 and contains state primary and secondary roads, National Highway System (NHS), National Network (NN) and several intermodal connectors as appropriate for the freight network modeling. The network consists of over 447,808 miles of equivalent road mileage. The data set covers the 48 contiguous States plus the District of Columbia, Alaska, and Hawaii. The nominal scale of the data set is 1:100,000 with a maximal positional error of ±80 meters.

© ederal Highway Administration Office of Freight Management and Operations and the Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, OH

Among the 81 largest metropolitan areas (by population) in the United States, Knoxville, Tennessee was ranked first with **** percent of residents reporting as white, non-Hispanic in 2023.

Important Note: This item is in mature support as of June 2023 and will retire in December 2025. A new version of this item is available for your use.The layers going from 1:1 to 1:1.5M present the 2010 Census Urbanized Areas (UA) and Urban Clusters (UC). A UA consists of contiguous, densely settled census block groups (BGs) and census blocks that meet minimum population density requirements (1000 people per square mile (ppsm) / 500 ppsm), along with adjacent densely settled census blocks that together encompass a population of at least 50,000 people. A UC consists of contiguous, densely settled census BGs and census blocks that meet minimum population density requirements, along with adjacent densely settled census blocks that together encompass a population of at least 2,500 people, but fewer than 50,000 people. The dataset covers the 50 States plus the District of Columbia within United States. The layer going over 1:1.5M presents the urban areas in the United States derived from the urban areas layer of the Digital Chart of the World (DCW). It provides information about the locations, names, and populations of urbanized areas for conducting geographic analysis on national and large regional scales. To download the data for this layer as a layer package for use in ArcGIS desktop applications, refer to USA Census Urban Areas.

Sustainable cities depend on urban forests. City trees -- a pillar of urban forests -- improve our health, clean the air, store CO2, and cool local temperatures. Comparatively less is known about urban forests as ecosystems, particularly their spatial composition, nativity statuses, biodiversity, and tree health. Here, we assembled and standardized a new dataset of N=5,660,237 trees from 63 of the largest US cities. The data comes from tree inventories conducted at the level of cities and/or neighborhoods. Each data sheet includes detailed information on tree location, species, nativity status (whether a tree species is naturally occurring or introduced), health, size, whether it is in a park or urban area, and more (comprising 28 standardized columns per datasheet). This dataset could be analyzed in combination with citizen-science datasets on bird, insect, or plant biodiversity; social and demographic data; or data on the physical environment. Urban forests offer a rare opportunity to intentionally design biodiverse, heterogenous, rich ecosystems. Methods See eLife manuscript for full details. Below, we provide a summary of how the dataset was collected and processed.

Data Acquisition We limited our search to the 150 largest cities in the USA (by census population). To acquire raw data on street tree communities, we used a search protocol on both Google and Google Datasets Search (https://datasetsearch.research.google.com/). We first searched the city name plus each of the following: street trees, city trees, tree inventory, urban forest, and urban canopy (all combinations totaled 20 searches per city, 10 each in Google and Google Datasets Search). We then read the first page of google results and the top 20 results from Google Datasets Search. If the same named city in the wrong state appeared in the results, we redid the 20 searches adding the state name. If no data were found, we contacted a relevant state official via email or phone with an inquiry about their street tree inventory. Datasheets were received and transformed to .csv format (if they were not already in that format). We received data on street trees from 64 cities. One city, El Paso, had data only in summary format and was therefore excluded from analyses.

Data Cleaning All code used is in the zipped folder Data S5 in the eLife publication. Before cleaning the data, we ensured that all reported trees for each city were located within the greater metropolitan area of the city (for certain inventories, many suburbs were reported - some within the greater metropolitan area, others not). First, we renamed all columns in the received .csv sheets, referring to the metadata and according to our standardized definitions (Table S4). To harmonize tree health and condition data across different cities, we inspected metadata from the tree inventories and converted all numeric scores to a descriptive scale including “excellent,” “good”, “fair”, “poor”, “dead”, and “dead/dying”. Some cities included only three points on this scale (e.g., “good”, “poor”, “dead/dying”) while others included five (e.g., “excellent,” “good”, “fair”, “poor”, “dead”). Second, we used pandas in Python (W. McKinney & Others, 2011) to correct typos, non-ASCII characters, variable spellings, date format, units used (we converted all units to metric), address issues, and common name format. In some cases, units were not specified for tree diameter at breast height (DBH) and tree height; we determined the units based on typical sizes for trees of a particular species. Wherever diameter was reported, we assumed it was DBH. We standardized health and condition data across cities, preserving the highest granularity available for each city. For our analysis, we converted this variable to a binary (see section Condition and Health). We created a column called “location_type” to label whether a given tree was growing in the built environment or in green space. All of the changes we made, and decision points, are preserved in Data S9. Third, we checked the scientific names reported using gnr_resolve in the R library taxize (Chamberlain & Szöcs, 2013), with the option Best_match_only set to TRUE (Data S9). Through an iterative process, we manually checked the results and corrected typos in the scientific names until all names were either a perfect match (n=1771 species) or partial match with threshold greater than 0.75 (n=453 species). BGS manually reviewed all partial matches to ensure that they were the correct species name, and then we programmatically corrected these partial matches (for example, Magnolia grandifolia-- which is not a species name of a known tree-- was corrected to Magnolia grandiflora, and Pheonix canariensus was corrected to its proper spelling of Phoenix canariensis). Because many of these tree inventories were crowd-sourced or generated in part through citizen science, such typos and misspellings are to be expected. Some tree inventories reported species by common names only. Therefore, our fourth step in data cleaning was to convert common names to scientific names. We generated a lookup table by summarizing all pairings of common and scientific names in the inventories for which both were reported. We manually reviewed the common to scientific name pairings, confirming that all were correct. Then we programmatically assigned scientific names to all common names (Data S9). Fifth, we assigned native status to each tree through reference to the Biota of North America Project (Kartesz, 2018), which has collected data on all native and non-native species occurrences throughout the US states. Specifically, we determined whether each tree species in a given city was native to that state, not native to that state, or that we did not have enough information to determine nativity (for cases where only the genus was known). Sixth, some cities reported only the street address but not latitude and longitude. For these cities, we used the OpenCageGeocoder (https://opencagedata.com/) to convert addresses to latitude and longitude coordinates (Data S9). OpenCageGeocoder leverages open data and is used by many academic institutions (see https://opencagedata.com/solutions/academia). Seventh, we trimmed each city dataset to include only the standardized columns we identified in Table S4. After each stage of data cleaning, we performed manual spot checking to identify any issues.

This web map shows annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by state and metro area in the USA for 2015. Clicking on the map reveals information about how the GDP has changed over time since 2001.The overlay of metro areas over states helps to put emphasis on where the country's GDP is coming from. The darkest green states produce the largest amount of GDP, and the largest circles show which major metropolitan areas contribute the most GDP within each state. Data is from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis and was downloaded from here. The state boundaries are generalized 2010 state boundaries from the Census Bureau's 2010 MAF/TIGER database. Note-- NAICS Industry detail is based on the 2007 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

In 2023, San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro area in California was ranked first with median household income of 153,202 U.S. dollars. The Washington-Arlington-Alexandria metro area had a median household income of 121,469 U.S. dollars.

North America Wall Beds Market size was valued at USD 2.95 Billion in 2024 and is projected to reach USD 4.97 Billion by 2032, growing at a CAGR of 6.6% from 2026 to 2032.Key Market DriversIncreasing Urban Population and Smaller Living Spaces: The growing urban population and trend toward compact living spaces in major North American metropolitan areas have significantly boosted the demand for space-saving furniture solutions such as wall beds. According to the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey (2022), the average apartment size in major U.S. metropolitan areas decreased by 9.7% between 2020 and 2022, from 941 square feet to 850 square feet..Rise in Remote Work and Home Office Requirements: The COVID-19 pandemic fundamentally transformed work arrangements across North America, with remote and hybrid work models becoming permanent fixtures for many companies. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that 27.6% of the American workforce operated in hybrid or fully remote arrangements by the end of 2022, compared to just 5.7% pre-pandemic (2019)..

This statistics shows the leading metropolitan areas in the United States in 2023 with the highest percentage of Asian population. Among the 81 largest metropolitan areas, Urban Honolulu, Hawaii was ranked first with **** percent of residents reporting as Asian in 2023.

Metro Ethernet Services Market Outlook

According to our latest research, the global Metro Ethernet Services market size in 2024 is valued at USD 68.5 billion, demonstrating robust expansion driven by escalating demand for high-speed, reliable, and scalable connectivity solutions across diverse sectors. The market is expected to grow at a CAGR of 10.2% during the forecast period, reaching approximately USD 164.6 billion by 2033. The accelerating adoption of cloud-based applications, digital transformation initiatives, and the proliferation of Internet of Things (IoT) devices are the primary growth factors fueling this market’s remarkable trajectory.

The growth of the Metro Ethernet Services market is predominantly propelled by the increasing need for high-bandwidth and low-latency connectivity among enterprises and service providers. As organizations embrace digital transformation, there is a mounting requirement for robust and agile network infrastructures that can support cloud computing, unified communications, and real-time data analytics. Metro Ethernet services, with their inherent scalability and flexibility, have emerged as the preferred choice for enterprises seeking to interconnect multiple locations within metropolitan areas. The rise of data-intensive applications, such as video conferencing, online collaboration tools, and big data analytics, further amplifies the demand for reliable and high-performance Metro Ethernet solutions.

Another critical growth driver for the Metro Ethernet Services market is the ongoing evolution of smart cities and the rapid expansion of IoT ecosystems. Governments and municipalities across the globe are investing heavily in smart infrastructure to enhance urban living, optimize resource management, and improve public safety. Metro Ethernet networks serve as the backbone for these smart city initiatives, enabling seamless connectivity for surveillance systems, traffic management, public Wi-Fi, and other IoT-enabled services. The increasing deployment of 5G networks also augments the need for robust Ethernet backhaul solutions, further strengthening the market outlook for Metro Ethernet services.

Moreover, the growing trend of remote and hybrid work environments has accelerated the adoption of Metro Ethernet services among businesses of all sizes. The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the importance of resilient and secure connectivity for maintaining business continuity and supporting distributed workforces. Enterprises are increasingly leveraging Metro Ethernet to establish secure connections between branch offices, data centers, and cloud platforms, ensuring uninterrupted access to critical applications and data. The flexibility to scale bandwidth on demand and the ability to support diverse applications make Metro Ethernet an indispensable component of modern enterprise networking strategies.

From a regional perspective, North America and Asia Pacific currently dominate the Metro Ethernet Services market, accounting for a substantial share of global revenue. North America’s leadership is attributed to the presence of advanced IT infrastructure, widespread adoption of cloud services, and a large concentration of technology-driven enterprises. Meanwhile, Asia Pacific is witnessing the fastest growth, driven by rapid urbanization, increasing investments in digital infrastructure, and the proliferation of connected devices. Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East & Africa are also experiencing steady growth, fueled by digitalization initiatives and rising demand for high-speed connectivity in both urban and rural areas.

Service Type Analysis

The Service Type segment of the Metro Ethernet Services market is categorized into E-Line, E-LAN, E-Tree, E-Access, and Others. Among these, the E-Line service type holds the largest market share, owing to its simplicity, cost-effectiveness, and widespread adoption among enterprises seeking point-to-point connectivity. E-Line services are particularly favored by organizations req

This table is part of a series of tables that present a portrait of Canada based on the various census topics. The tables range in complexity and levels of geography. Content varies from a simple overview of the country to complex cross-tabulations; the tables may also cover several censuses.

Using data on all scientific publications from the Scopus database, we find a superlinear scaling effect for U.S. metropolitan areas as indicated by the increase of per capita publication output with city size. We also find that the variance of residuals is much higher for mid-sized cities (100,000 to 500,000 inhabitants) compared to larger cities. The latter result is indicative of the critical mass required to establish a scientific center in a particular discipline. Finally, we observe that the largest cities publish much less than the scaling law would predict, indicating that the largest cities are relatively unattractive locations for scientific research.

Provides information highlights by topic via key indicators for various levels of geography.