Density and transit in metro Milwaukee

Greater Milwaukee has had a long and contentious debate about public transit, with one common argument against investing in rapid transit being that the region doesn't have the population density to support it. A recent study from the U.S. Census Bureau, however, may be cause for reexamining that contention. It finds Milwaukee among the densest metropolitan areas in the U.S., with greater population density than many of the nation’s most populous metros, including Atlanta, Houston, and Seattle.

In 2010, the Milwaukee metropolitan area – comprised of Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Washington, and Waukesha counties – ranked 15^th in population density among the 102 metro areas in the U.S. with populations over 500,000, with a density of 5,258 persons per square mile. Milwaukee was second only to Chicago among Midwest metros. Notably, the Milwaukee area’s density declined slightly between 2000 and 2010, by 3.6%. This downtick followed a national trend, however, as 33 of the nation’s 50 largest metro areas saw their densities decline during that period. The complete data set can be found here.

Rather than using the traditional method of determining population density, which involves simply dividing total land area by total population, the Census Bureau study used “weighted density,” which averages the densities of each census tract in a metro area while giving each tract a relative weight based on its share of the metro’s total population. Using this methodology, for example, if 75% of a given metro area’s population lives in low-density suburbs, that metro will have a lower weighted density than another metro area of the same size and with the same population where 75% of residents live in medium- or high-density urban neighborhoods.

A frequently-cited example illustrating why researchers are converting to this new method of determining population density is the fact that under the traditional definition, the Los Angeles metro area has a higher density than the New York metro area, which is counterintuitive to anyone who has visited both places. Using weighted density, the New York metro is more than twice as dense as L.A., because the typical New Yorker lives in a denser neighborhood than the typical Angeleno.

While metro Milwaukee is not as dense as New York or Chicago, it is denser than many metro areas considered to have admirable public transit systems, including Seattle and Portland. Milwaukee also is denser than many others that have made recent investments in rapid transit, such as Minneapolis and Phoenix with their relatively new light rail systems, and Cleveland and Kansas City, where bus rapid transit (BRT) systems recently have been developed. 

Rapid transit may come back into Greater Milwaukee’s infrastructure planning at some point in the future. While many factors impact the success of a rapid transit system, we now have a clearer understanding of our population density and how it compares with other metro areas around the country.

Wisconsin's sticky brains

I have a secret algorithm for filling out my NCAA basketball bracket, since I know nothing about basketball, that entails complex calculations filling numerous spreadsheets. In collecting the data I needed to make my picks last week, I came across two interesting slices of Census data, which when juxtaposed got me thinking beyond basketball. Which is worse, when brains drain, or when brains don't attain?

Wisconsin, it seems, ranks 5th "stickiest" in terms of the adult population residing in the state that was born in the state, with 68.6% of those born here still living here as adults. The top ten, in order, are:

1. Texas


2. North Carolina


3. Georgia


4. California


5. Wisconsin


6. Michigan


7. Tennessee


8. Minnesota


9. Utah


10. South Carolina

Of the top ten sticky states, two are very big states, Texas and California, which afford their population the opportunity to move around to quite varied environments without leaving the state, and one is Utah, which has a family-centered culture among young people unlike any other state, with a very low median age for first marriages and the nation's highest birth rate.

Of the remaining 7 states, 4 are Southern states (North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and South Carolina). The others are upper Midwestern (Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota). I guess you could reason something about the hardiness of our genes allowing us to brave the winter year after year, after year.

But the striking chart above shows a difference between us and the Southerners more dramatic than our climates: Of the ten most sticky states, only Utah and the three upper Midwest states have rates of secondary and post-secondary education surpassing the national average. Could the other states' stickiness result less from a choice to stay put and more from their native population lacking opportunities anywhere else?

Maybe a slight brain drain is the price of having a good educational system. It would be easy to stem all out-migration if we hobbled young people by not educating them sufficiently. Trickier is to enable them to be able to compete with anyone, anywhere in the world, for a job--and then ensuring that they have jobs worth competing for right here in Badgerland. Trickier, even, than a Hardaway crossover move.