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 data collection provides statistics gathered from a variety of federal agencies and national associations. Demographic, economic, and governmental data from both the federal government and private agencies are presented to enable multiarea comparisons as well as single-area profiles. Current estimates and benchmark census results are included. Data are available for five types of geographic coverage: (1) Metro Areas data cover 249 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), 17 consolidated metropolitan statistical areas (CMSAs), 54 primary metropolitan statistical areas (PSMAs), and 16 New England county metropolitan areas (NECMAs). Metro Areas data include the following general subjects: area and population, households, vital statistics, health, education, crime, housing, money income, personal income, civilian labor force, employment, construction, commercial office space, manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade, service industries, banking, federal funds and grants, and government employment. There are 14 parts for Metro Areas. (2) State Metro/Nonmetro data cover the United States, the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the metropolitan and nonmetropolitan portions of these areas. State Metro/Nonmetro data include most of the subjects listed for Metro Areas. There are six parts for State Metro/Nonmetro. (3) Metro Counties data cover 336 metropolitan areas and their component counties and include topics identical to those presented in the State Metro/Nonmetro data. Six parts are supplied for Metro Counties. (4) Metro Central Cities data cover 336 metropolitan areas and their 522 central cities and 336 outside central cities portions. Metro Central Cities variables are limited to 13 items, which include area and population, money income, civilian labor force, and retail trade. There is one part for Metro Central Cities. (5) States data cover the United States, the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and census regions and divisions. States data include the same items as the Metro Areas data, plus information on social welfare programs, geography and environment, domestic travel and parks, gross state product, poverty, wealth holders, business, research and development, agriculture, forestry and fisheries, minerals and mining, transportation, communications, energy, state government, federal government, and elections. There are 101 parts for States.

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.

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;

Population in largest city in United States was reported at 19034018 in 2024, according to the World Bank collection of development indicators, compiled from officially recognized sources. United States - Population in largest city - actual values, historical data, forecasts and projections were sourced from the World Bank on September of 2025.

United States US: Population in Largest City data was reported at 18,761,941.000 Person in 2017. This records an increase from the previous number of 18,704,696.000 Person for 2016. United States US: Population in Largest City data is updated yearly, averaging 16,107,057.000 Person from Dec 1960 (Median) to 2017, with 58 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 18,761,941.000 Person in 2017 and a record low of 14,163,521.000 Person in 1960. United States US: Population in Largest City data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.World Bank.WDI: Population and Urbanization Statistics. Population in largest city is the urban population living in the country's largest metropolitan area.; ; United Nations, World Urbanization Prospects.; ;

Population in the largest city (% of urban population) in United States was reported at 6.7011 % in 2024, according to the World Bank collection of development indicators, compiled from officially recognized sources. United States - Population in the largest city - actual values, historical data, forecasts and projections were sourced from the World Bank on September of 2025.

VITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Commute Time (T4)

FULL MEASURE NAME Commute time by employment location

LAST UPDATED April 2020

DESCRIPTION Commute time refers to the average number of minutes a commuter spends traveling to work on a typical day. The dataset includes metropolitan area, county, city, and census tract tables by place of residence.

DATA SOURCE U.S. Census Bureau: Decennial Census (1980-2000) - via MTC/ABAG Bay Area Census http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/transportation.htm

U.S. Census Bureau: American Community Survey Table B08536 (2018 only; by place of employment) Table B08601 (2018 only; by place of employment) www.api.census.gov

CONTACT INFORMATION vitalsigns.info@bayareametro.gov

METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) For the decennial Census datasets, breakdown of commute times was unavailable by mode; only overall data could be provided on a historical basis.

For the American Community Survey datasets, 1-year rolling average data was used for all metros, region, and county geographic levels, while 5-year rolling average data was used for cities and tracts. This is due to the fact that more localized data is not included in the 1-year dataset across all Bay Area cities. Similarly, modal data is not available for every Bay Area city or census tract, even when the 5-year data is used for those localized geographies.

Regional commute times were calculated by summing aggregate county travel times and dividing by the relevant population; similarly, modal commute time were calculated using aggregate times and dividing by the number of communities choosing that mode for the given geography. Census tract data is not available for tracts with insufficient numbers of residents.

The metropolitan area comparison was performed for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area in addition to the primary MSAs for the nine other major metropolitan areas.

VITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Daily Miles Traveled (T15)

FULL MEASURE NAME Per-capita vehicle miles traveled

LAST UPDATED July 2017

DESCRIPTION Daily miles traveled, commonly referred to as vehicle miles traveled (VMT), reflects the total and per-person number of miles traveled in personal vehicles on a typical weekday. The dataset includes metropolitan area, regional and county tables for per-capita vehicle miles traveled.

DATA SOURCE Federal Highway Administration: Highway Statistics Series 2015 Table HM-71; limited to urbanized areas https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics.cfm

U.S. Census Bureau: Summary File 1 2010 http://factfinder2.census.gov

CONTACT INFORMATION vitalsigns.info@mtc.ca.gov

METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) "Vehicle miles traveled reflects the mileage accrued within the county and not necessarily the residents of that county; even though most trips are due to local residents, additional VMT can be accrued by through-trips. City data was thus discarded due to this limitation and the analysis only examine county and regional data, where through-trips are generally less common.

The metropolitan area comparison was performed by summing all of the urbanized areas within each metropolitan area (9-nine region for the San Francisco Bay Area and the primary MSA for all others). For the metro analysis, no VMT data is available outside of other urbanized areas; it is only available for intraregional analysis purposes.

VMT per capita is calculated by dividing VMT by an estimate of the traveling population. The traveling population does not include people living in institutionalized facilities, which are defined by the Census. Because institutionalized population is not estimated each year, the proportion of people living in institutionalized facilities from the 2010 Census was applied to the total population estimates for all years."

This dataset illustrates the largest difference between high and low temperatures and the smallest difference between high and low temperatures in cities with 50,000 people or more. A value of -1 means that the data was not applicable. Also included are the rankings, the inverse ranking to be used for mapping purposes, the popualtion, the name of city and state, and the temperature degree difference. Source City-Data URL http//www.city-data.com/top2/c489.html http//www.city-data.com/top2/c490.html Date Accessed November 13,2007

The United States MSA Boundaries data set contains the boundaries for metropolitan statistical areas in the United States. The data set contains information on location, identification, and size. The database includes metropolitan boundaries within all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The general concept of a metropolitan area (MA) is one of a large population nucleus, together with adjacent communities that have a high degree of economic and social integration with that nucleus. Some MAs are defined around two or more nuclei. Each MA must contain either a place with a minimum population of 50,000 or a U.S. Census Bureau-defined urbanized area and a total MA population of at least 100,000 (75,000 in New England). An MA contains one or more central counties. An MA also may include one or more outlying counties that have close economic and social relationships with the central county. An outlying county must have a specified level of commuting to the central counties and also must meet certain standards regarding metropolitan character, such as population density, urban population, and population growth. In New England, MAs consist of groupings of cities and towns rather than whole counties. The territory, population, and housing units in MAs are referred to as "metropolitan." The metropolitan category is subdivided into "inside central city" and "outside central city." The territory, population, and housing units located outside territory designated "metropolitan" are referred to as "non-metropolitan." The metropolitan and non-metropolitan classification cuts across the other hierarchies; for example, generally there are both urban and rural territory within both metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas.

All cities with a population > 1000 or seats of adm div (ca 80.000)Sources and ContributionsSources : GeoNames is aggregating over hundred different data sources. Ambassadors : GeoNames Ambassadors help in many countries. Wiki : A wiki allows to view the data and quickly fix error and add missing places. Donations and Sponsoring : Costs for running GeoNames are covered by donations and sponsoring.Enrichment:add country name

Data for the number of: (a) Consulate Generals, (b) International city organizations/networks, and (c) active Sister City relationships in each of the 100 largest metro areas in the United States (in 2019) from 1783-2024. The Main tab has the total for each of the measures of city diplomacy by year. The other tabs have each of the city diplomacy measures by metro area by year. The Graphs tab contains two line graphs depicting the data on the Main tab. The Sources tab contains information about the source data

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 data was created as part of a study that examined the accessibility to jobs by transit in 46 of the 50 largest (by population) metropolitan areas in the United States. It is the most detailed evaluation to date of access to jobs by transit, and it allows for a direct comparison of the transit accessibility performance of America's largest metropolitan areas. This data was created as part of a study that examined the accessibility to jobs by transit in 46 of the 50 largest (by population) metropolitan areas in the United States. It is the most detailed evaluation to date of access to jobs by transit, and it allows for a direct comparison of the transit accessibility performance of America's largest metropolitan areas. Downloads are available for individual metropolitan regions in CSV or Shapefile format. Combined ZIP files containing the data for all metropolitan regions are also available in CSV and Shapefile format, and are labeled as 'All Metropolitan Regions.'

This tool provides data on exports of goods from major U.S. metropolitan areas, as defined by the Bureau of the Census. These data are based on an Origin of Movement (OM) Zip-code-based series, and are therefore not comparable with an OM state-based series, like that available from TradeStats Express.

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 1 cities in the Chesapeake city, VA by Black or African American population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each cities over the past five years.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, including:

• 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Variables / Data Columns

• Rank by Black Population: This column displays the rank of cities in the Chesapeake city, VA by their Black or African American population, using the most recent ACS data available.
• cities: The cities for which the rank is shown in the previous column.
• Black Population: The Black population of the cities is shown in this column.
• % of Total cities Population: This shows what percentage of the total cities population identifies as Black. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• % of Total Chesapeake city Black Population: This tells us how much of the entire Chesapeake city, VA Black population lives in that cities. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• 5 Year Rank Trend: TThis column displays the rank trend across the last 5 years.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

VITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Population (LU1)

FULL MEASURE NAME Population estimates

LAST UPDATED October 2019

DESCRIPTION Population is a measurement of the number of residents that live in a given geographical area, be it a neighborhood, city, county or region.

DATA SOURCES U.S Census Bureau: Decennial Census No link available (1960-1990) http://factfinder.census.gov (2000-2010)

California Department of Finance: Population and Housing Estimates Table E-6: County Population Estimates (1961-1969) Table E-4: Population Estimates for Counties and State (1971-1989) Table E-8: Historical Population and Housing Estimates (2001-2018) Table E-5: Population and Housing Estimates (2011-2019) http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/

U.S. Census Bureau: Decennial Census - via Longitudinal Tract Database Spatial Structures in the Social Sciences, Brown University Population Estimates (1970 - 2010) http://www.s4.brown.edu/us2010/index.htm

U.S. Census Bureau: American Community Survey 5-Year Population Estimates (2011-2017) http://factfinder.census.gov

U.S. Census Bureau: Intercensal Estimates Estimates of the Intercensal Population of Counties (1970-1979) Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population (1980-1989) Population Estimates (1990-1999) Annual Estimates of the Population (2000-2009) Annual Estimates of the Population (2010-2017) No link available (1970-1989) http://www.census.gov/popest/data/metro/totals/1990s/tables/MA-99-03b.txt http://www.census.gov/popest/data/historical/2000s/vintage_2009/metro.html https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-total-metro-and-micro-statistical-areas.html

CONTACT INFORMATION vitalsigns.info@bayareametro.gov

METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) All legal boundaries and names for Census geography (metropolitan statistical area, county, city, and tract) are as of January 1, 2010, released beginning November 30, 2010, by the U.S. Census Bureau. A Priority Development Area (PDA) is a locally-designated area with frequent transit service, where a jurisdiction has decided to concentrate most of its housing and jobs growth for development in the foreseeable future. PDA boundaries are current as of August 2019. For more information on PDA designation see http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/PDAShowcase/.

Population estimates for Bay Area counties and cities are from the California Department of Finance, which are as of January 1st of each year. Population estimates for non-Bay Area regions are from the U.S. Census Bureau. Decennial Census years reflect population as of April 1st of each year whereas population estimates for intercensal estimates are as of July 1st of each year. Population estimates for Bay Area tracts are from the decennial Census (1970 -2010) and the American Community Survey (2008-2012 5-year rolling average; 2010-2014 5-year rolling average; 2013-2017 5-year rolling average). Estimates of population density for tracts use gross acres as the denominator.

Population estimates for Bay Area PDAs are from the decennial Census (1970 - 2010) and the American Community Survey (2006-2010 5 year rolling average; 2010-2014 5-year rolling average; 2013-2017 5-year rolling average). Population estimates for PDAs are derived from Census population counts at the tract level for 1970-1990 and at the block group level for 2000-2017. Population from either tracts or block groups are allocated to a PDA using an area ratio. For example, if a quarter of a Census block group lies with in a PDA, a quarter of its population will be allocated to that PDA. Tract-to-PDA and block group-to-PDA area ratios are calculated using gross acres. Estimates of population density for PDAs use gross acres as the denominator.

Annual population estimates for metropolitan areas outside the Bay Area are from the Census and are benchmarked to each decennial Census. The annual estimates in the 1990s were not updated to match the 2000 benchmark.

The following is a list of cities and towns by geographical area: Big Three: San Jose, San Francisco, Oakland Bayside: Alameda, Albany, Atherton, Belmont, Belvedere, Berkeley, Brisbane, Burlingame, Campbell, Colma, Corte Madera, Cupertino, Daly City, East Palo Alto, El Cerrito, Emeryville, Fairfax, Foster City, Fremont, Hayward, Hercules, Hillsborough, Larkspur, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Menlo Park, Mill Valley, Millbrae, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Newark, Pacifica, Palo Alto, Piedmont, Pinole, Portola Valley, Redwood City, Richmond, Ross, San Anselmo, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Leandro, San Mateo, San Pablo, San Rafael, Santa Clara, Saratoga, Sausalito, South San Francisco, Sunnyvale, Tiburon, Union City, Vallejo, Woodside Inland, Delta and Coastal: American Canyon, Antioch, Benicia, Brentwood, Calistoga, Clayton, Cloverdale, Concord, Cotati, Danville, Dixon, Dublin, Fairfield, Gilroy, Half Moon Bay, Healdsburg, Lafayette, Livermore, Martinez, Moraga, Morgan Hill, Napa, Novato, Oakley, Orinda, Petaluma, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, Pleasanton, Rio Vista, Rohnert Park, San Ramon, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Sonoma, St. Helena, Suisun City, Vacaville, Walnut Creek, Windsor, Yountville Unincorporated: all unincorporated towns

About this dataset

Context

This list ranks the 1208 city in the Texas by Multi-Racial Some Other Race (SOR) population, as estimated by the United States Census Bureau. It also highlights population changes in each city over the past five years.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, including:

• 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2018-2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2017-2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
• 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Variables / Data Columns

• Rank by Multi-Racial Other Race Population: This column displays the rank of city in the Texas by their Multi-Racial Some Other Race (SOR) population, using the most recent ACS data available.
• city: The city for which the rank is shown in the previous column.
• Multi-Racial Other Race Population: The Multi-Racial Other Race population of the city is shown in this column.
• % of Total city Population: This shows what percentage of the total city population identifies as Multi-Racial Other Race. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• % of Total Texas Multi-Racial Other Race Population: This tells us how much of the entire Texas Multi-Racial Other Race population lives in that city. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.
• 5 Year Rank Trend: TThis column displays the rank trend across the last 5 years.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

The 2013 Urban Influence Codes form a classification scheme that distinguishes metropolitan counties by population size of their metro area, and nonmetropolitan counties by size of the largest city or town and proximity to metro and micropolitan areas. The standard Office of Management and Budget (OMB) metro and nonmetro categories have been subdivided into two metro and 10 nonmetro categories, resulting in a 12-part county classification. This scheme was originally developed in 1993. This scheme allows researchers to break county data into finer residential groups, beyond metro and nonmetro, particularly for the analysis of trends in nonmetro areas that are related to population density and metro influence.

An update of the Urban Influence Codes is planned for mid-2023.