Metro Details

The following section details the migration trends of the Kansas City region and its peer metros. The details for each metro include:

  • Peer Metros

    1994-2005 Migration Trend Chart. This time-series chart uses adjusted IRS data to show the trend in each metro over time. With the exception of Dallas/Ft. Worth, the same scale is used in here as in the earlier charts so the relative strength of the migration trend can be seen. For the Dallas/Ft. Worth chart, the scale goes from zero to 100,000 rather than from zero to 40,000.
  • Net Inflow by Metro Table. This table ranks the top 20 areas where migrants into the metro came from, or “inflow” origins.
  • Net Outflow by Metro Table. This table ranks the top 20 areas where people who left the metro moved to, or “outflow” destinations.
  • Total Flows by Metro Table. This table ranks the top 20 areas with which the metro has a high degree of interaction, based on total flows (in-migration plus out-migration). This interaction may not be evident in the net inflow or outflow tables, especially if the interchange between the metros is relatively equal. For example if Metro A sent 10,000 migrants to Metro B, and 10,100 residents of metro B moved to metro A, the net of 100 (+100 for Metro B and -100 for Metro A) would not capture the high level of interaction (20,100 migrants) between the metros.
  • Total Flows 1994-2005 by MSA Map. This map provides an illustration of the data in the Total Flows by Metro Table described above. This provides a quick look at the level of interaction between a given metro area and other regions around the country. Metropolitan Statistical Areas are used instead of counties in order to more accurately show the level of interaction among the metros. Population “bubbles” are used to illustrate interaction between metro areas. Each metro area from the table is marked by a single bubble, with the size of the bubble indicating the level of interaction. Using county data would have replaced these metro area bubbles with smaller bubbles for each county in the metro, which would often overlap and mask the true level of interaction.
  • Net Migration 1994-2005 Map. This map illustrates combined data from the Net Inflow by Metro and Net Outflow by Metro tables. Here, we used county data because the net migration figures are much smaller than the total flow figures in the first maps. Using county data provides a more detailed analysis and allows us to map migration trends to and from counties that are not in an MSA. To simplify the map we also placed a 50-mile buffer around each map’s metro area. This eliminates the large bubbles that would often occur in neighboring counties, and allows us to focus on migration trends that involved a move of at least 50 miles. This means that not all migrations across a county line will show on the map. For example, Douglas County, Kan., is within the 50-mile buffer around the Kansas City area, so migration trends between the two are not shown on the map. Those migration figures are, however, captured in the tables.

<<Population Change | Austin>>