Population Growth in the Largest Counties: Texas, Florida and the South

cox-county16.jpg

As last week's US Census Bureau population estimates indicated, the story of population growth between 2014 and 2015 was largely about Texas, as it has been for the decade starting 2010 (See: “Texas Keeps Getting Bigger” The New Metropolitan Area Estimates).  The same is largely true with respect to population trends in the nation's largest counties, with The Lone Star state dominating both in the population growth and domestic migration among 135 counties with more than 500,000 population. Florida also did very well, especially in view of the population and migration reversals that occurred around the Great Recession. Strong showings in other Southern states ensured that 80 percent of the fastest-growing large counties and those with the fastest domestic migration rates were in the South. The few remaining positions were taken up by metropolitan areas in the West (Table).

Large County Growth in Texas

Houston, which is the fastest growing major metropolitan area (over 1 million population) in the nation includes the two fastest growing large counties. Fort Bend County added 4.29 percent to its population between 2014 and 2015 and now has 716,000 residents. Montgomery County grew 3.57 percent to 538,000. In addition to these two suburban Houston counties, Harris County, the core County ranked 16th in growth, adding 2.03 percent to its population and exceeding 4.5 million population.

Dallas-Fort Worth, the second fastest-growing major metropolitan area has two counties among the top 20. The third fastest-growing county is Denton (located north of Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport), which added 3.42 percent to its population over the past year and now has 781,000 residents. Collin County, to the north of Dallas County, grew 3.17 percent and now stands at 914,000 residents. Its current growth rate would put Collin County over 1 million population by the 2020 census.

Travis County, with its county seat of Austin, grew 2.22 percent to 1,177,000 and ranked 12th. Bexar County, centered on San Antonio grew 2.01 percent and ranks 17th.

The I-4 & Middle Florida Corridor

But there is another impressive growth story in the "I-4 & Middle Florida" corridor (the term “Central Florida“ is not used, because that usually just denotes the Orlando area).  This includes counties along the Interstate 4 corridor, which runs from Tampa-St. Petersburg through Orlando to Daytona Beach as well as one county along Interstate 95 just south of Daytona Beach and adjacent to the Orlando metropolitan area.

Five of the fastest growing 20 counties with more than 500,000 population are located in this corridor. Orange County, the core of highly suburban Orlando grew at a rate of 2.49 percent between 2014 and 2015 and ranked seventh. Polk County (Lakeland metropolitan area), located midway between Orlando and Tampa-St. Petersburg grew 2.33 percent and ranked 10th. The south western terminus of Interstate 4 in   Hillsborough County, which includes Tampa, Hillsborough County, grew 2.33 percent, though slightly slower than adjacent Polk County and ranked 11th. The other, north eastern terminus of Interstate 4 is located in Daytona Beach, in Volusia County. Volusia County grew at a rate of 2.00 percent and ranks 19th in population growth. Just to the south of is Brevard County, straddling Interstate 95. Brevard County (Palm Bay-Melbourne metropolitan area) grew 2.01 percent and ranked 18th in growth.

But Florida's fastest-growing large county was Lee, centered on Cape Coral and Fort Myers. Lee County added 3.35 percent to its population and now has 702,000 residents.

Other Fast Growing Counties

Denver County continued its strong growth (2.80 percent) and ranked sixth. Wake County, core of the Raleigh metropolitan area, grew at 2.49 percent and ranked eighth. Utah County, in the Provo metropolitan area grew 2.43 percent and ranked ninth.

Other counties in the top 20 included Clark (Las Vegas) in Nevada, Mecklenburg (Charlotte) in North Carolina, Gwinnett, a suburban county of Atlanta and Washington, a suburban county of Portland.

Overall, sixteen of the 20 fastest growing large counties were in the South and four in the West (Figure 1).

Largest Domestic Migration

As with population growth, the top 20 in domestic migration was dominated by the South with 16 entries. Four of the migration magnets were located in  metropolitan areas from the West (Figure 2).

Not surprisingly, the counties with the largest net domestic migration were often near the top of the list in population growth. Lee County, Florida (Cape Coral and Fort Myers) had the greatest net domestic migration between 2014 and 2015, at 3.10 percent. This is a particularly important reversal for Lee County, which experienced some of the most catastrophic house price declines during the housing bust.

Houston’s Fort Bend and Montgomery counties (Texas), the fastest growing large counties had the second and third largest domestic migration respectively. Denton County and Collin County, in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area ranked 5th and 7th respectively. Bexar County (San Antonio) ranked 18th, while Travis County (Austin) ranked 20th.

The I-4 & Middle Florida corridor also did well. Volusia County (Daytona Beach) ranked 4th in domestic migration, followed by its neighbor to the south, Brevard County. Polk County (Lakeland) ranked 9th, Hillsborough County (Tampa) ranked 13th and Orange County (Orlando) ranked 16th. In addition, Pinellas County (St. Petersburg), just across the bridge from Tampa ranked 12th. Palm Beach County, which is outside the I-4 & Middle Florida corridor ranked 14th.

Denver County, at 8th, was the highest ranking in domestic migration outside Texas and Florida. Other high ranking counties included #10 Wake County (Raleigh), #11 Clark County (Las Vegas), #15 Maricopa County (Phoenix), Mecklenburg County (Charlotte) and #19 Washington County (suburban Portland).

Slowest Growing Counties

Seventeen of the 135 largest counties lost population. The 20 large counties with the least percentage population growth (or loss) were fairly evenly distributed outside the West. Eight were in the Northeast, seven in the Midwest and five in the South (Figure 3). The largest losses occurred in the counties containing core cities with some of the largest population losses in the last seven decades. These include Wayne County (Detroit), Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) Baltimore city, Cook County (Chicago) and Allegheny County (Pittsburgh), Hartford County, Monroe County (Rochester) and Erie County (Buffalo). The bottom 10 also included New Haven County, Connecticut and Summit County, Ohio (Akron).

Largest Domestic Migration Losses: A New York Story

Among the 20 largest domestic migration losses, 10 were in the Northeast, four in the Midwest, and six in the South (Figure 4)

The largest domestic migration losses are taking place  in the New York metropolitan area, which accounted for eight of the 13 largest counties in terms of domestic migration losses. This includes Hudson County New Jersey, which had the largest loss. It also included Kings County (Brooklyn), which had the fourth largest domestic migration loss. Bronx County had the seventh largest loss, Queens County the eighth largest loss and Manhattan County the 11th largest loss. In addition, other New Jersey suburban counties had substantial domestic migration losses, including Passaic County, Middlesex County and Essex County (Newark).

The South rated best in population growth and net domestic migration, but some large southern counties had among the largest domestic migration losses. These include Fairfax County (Washington suburb), El Paso County in Texas, Miami-Dade County in Florida and Baltimore city. Cook County (Chicago) was also among the top 10 domestic migration losers.

Moreover, the 13 large counties with the greatest losses excluded   Wayne County, with its core city (Detroit) that has lost more of its population (percentagewise) than any other large municipality in the world. Yet, all of the counties listed above, including the eight in the New York metropolitan area lost a greater share of their population by domestic migrants than Wayne County.

Dominance by the South and the West

Overall, the largest counties added approximately 1.53 million residents over the past year. More than one half of that net domestic migration was in 19 counties of the South, 11 in the West, none in the Midwest and none in the Northeast. Three quarters of the net domestic migration was in just 52 of the 135 counties, with the South accounting for 30 counties. There were also 20 counties in the West, two in the Midwest and none in the Northeast. The two Midwestern counties were Franklin, Ohio (Columbus) and Dane, Wisconsin (Madison).







US Counties Over 500,000 Population: Ranked By Population Growth 2014-2015 %
2014-2015 & 2010-2015
Population Change Dom. Migra.
Rank County, State 4/2010 7/2014 7/2015 Fr2010 Fr2014 Fr2010 Fr2014 Fr2010 Fr2014
1 Fort Bend, Texas      585        687        716      131        29 22.4% 4.29% 13.1% 2.69%
2 Montgomery, Texas      456        519        538        82        19 17.9% 3.57% 11.8% 2.48%
3 Denton, Texas      663        755        781      118        26 17.8% 3.42% 10.4% 2.14%
4 Lee, Florida      619        679        702        83        23 13.5% 3.35% 10.8% 3.10%
5 Collin, Texas      782        886        914      132        28 16.8% 3.17% 9.3% 1.86%
6 Denver, Colorado      600        664        683        83        19 13.8% 2.80% 7.2% 1.59%
7 Orange, Florida   1,146     1,256     1,288      142        32 12.4% 2.52% 3.6% 0.84%
8 Wake, North Carolina      901        999     1,024      123        25 13.7% 2.49% 6.6% 1.22%
9 Utah, Utah      517        562        575        59        14 11.3% 2.43% 0.3% 0.45%
10 Polk, Florida      602        635        650        48        15 8.0% 2.33% 4.2% 1.53%
11 Hillsborough, Florida   1,229     1,318     1,349      120        31 9.7% 2.33% 3.4% 1.11%
12 Travis, Texas   1,024     1,151     1,177      152        26 14.9% 2.22% 6.5% 0.77%
13 Clark, Nevada   1,951     2,069     2,115      164        46 8.4% 2.21% 3.1% 1.20%
14 Mecklenburg, North Carolina      920     1,012     1,034      114        22 12.4% 2.19% 4.9% 0.84%
15 Gwinnett, Georgia      805        878        896        90        18 11.2% 2.06% 3.6% 0.69%
16 Harris, Texas   4,093     4,448     4,538      445        90 10.9% 2.03% 2.0% 0.38%
17 Bexar, Texas   1,715     1,860     1,898      183        37 10.7% 2.01% 4.4% 0.82%
18 Brevard, Florida      543        557        568        25        11 4.5% 2.01% 4.5% 1.97%
19 Volusia, Florida      495        508        518        23        10 4.7% 2.00% 5.3% 2.14%
20 Washington, Oregon      530        563        574        44        11 8.4% 1.96% 2.3% 0.80%
21 Maricopa, Arizona   3,817     4,090     4,168      351        78 9.2% 1.91% 3.9% 0.92%
22 Washington, District of Columbia      602        660        672        70        12 11.7% 1.88% 4.3% 0.57%
23 Tarrant, Texas   1,810     1,946     1,982      173        36 9.6% 1.86% 3.0% 0.61%
24 Arapahoe, Colorado      572        620        631        59        11 10.3% 1.85% 4.0% 0.72%
25 El Paso, Colorado      622        663        674        52        12 8.4% 1.75% 2.2% 0.55%
26 Palm Beach, Florida   1,320     1,399     1,423      103        24 7.8% 1.74% 4.2% 1.00%
27 Snohomish, Washington      713        759        773        59        13 8.3% 1.72% 3.0% 0.67%
28 King, Washington   1,931     2,082     2,117      186        35 9.6% 1.67% 2.4% 0.29%
29 Multnomah, Oregon      735        778        790        55        12 7.5% 1.60% 2.8% 0.68%
30 Alameda, California   1,510     1,613     1,638      128        25 8.5% 1.57% 1.2% 0.22%
31 Pierce, Washington      795        831        844        49        13 6.1% 1.54% 1.1% 0.58%
32 San Joaquin, California      685        715        726        41        11 6.0% 1.54% 0.6% 0.52%
33 Duval, Florida      864        899        913        49        14 5.6% 1.52% 0.5% 0.47%
34 DeKalb, Georgia      692        724        735        43        11 6.2% 1.47% -2.5% -0.10%
35 Davidson, Tennessee      627        669        679        52        10 8.3% 1.46% 2.0% 0.30%
36 San Francisco, California      805        853        865        60        12 7.4% 1.44% 0.6% 0.20%
37 Broward, Florida   1,748     1,870     1,896      148        27 8.5% 1.43% 1.7% 0.11%
38 Franklin, Ohio   1,164     1,234     1,252        88        18 7.6% 1.43% 1.0% 0.17%
39 Fulton, Georgia      921        996     1,011        90        14 9.8% 1.41% 3.4% 0.28%
40 Cobb, Georgia      688        731        741        53        10 7.7% 1.41% 1.4% 0.24%
41 Riverside, California   2,190     2,328     2,361      171        33 7.8% 1.40% 3.0% 0.51%
42 Tulsa, Oklahoma      603        630        639        36          9 5.9% 1.40% 1.5% 0.53%
43 Contra Costa, California   1,049     1,112     1,127        78        15 7.4% 1.35% 2.8% 0.49%
44 Sacramento, California   1,419     1,481     1,501        83        20 5.8% 1.34% 0.4% 0.28%
45 Dallas, Texas   2,368     2,520     2,553      186        34 7.8% 1.34% 0.0% -0.10%
46 Salt Lake, Utah   1,030     1,093     1,107        78        14 7.5% 1.32% -0.1% -0.09%
47 Oklahoma, Oklahoma      719        767        777        58        10 8.1% 1.31% 2.5% 0.23%
48 Dane, Wisconsin      488        517        524        36          7 7.3% 1.30% 1.9% 0.25%
49 Hidalgo, Texas      775        832        842        68        11 8.7% 1.29% -1.1% -0.52%
50 Pinellas, Florida      917        938        950        33        12 3.6% 1.25% 3.7% 1.18%
51 Stanislaus, California      514        532        538        24          6 4.7% 1.21% -0.7% 0.12%
52 Santa Clara, California   1,782     1,896     1,918      136        22 7.7% 1.16% -1.5% -0.53%
53 Jefferson, Colorado      535        559        566        31          6 5.8% 1.16% 3.4% 0.69%
54 Douglas, Nebraska      517        544        550        33          6 6.4% 1.12% 0.2% -0.07%
55 Suffolk, Massachusetts      722        770        778        56          8 7.8% 1.08% -2.1% -0.75%
56 Johnson, Kansas      544        574        580        36          6 6.6% 1.08% 1.6% 0.12%
57 San Diego, California   3,095     3,266     3,300      204        34 6.6% 1.04% -0.2% -0.29%
58 Fresno, California      930        965        975        44        10 4.8% 1.02% -1.7% -0.21%
59 Kent, Michigan      603        630        636        34          6 5.6% 0.97% 0.6% 0.02%
60 Bronx, New York   1,385     1,442     1,455        70        14 5.1% 0.95% -6.0% -1.10%
61 Montgomery, Maryland      972     1,030     1,040        68        10 7.0% 0.94% -2.2% -0.80%
62 Kern, California      840        874        882        43          8 5.1% 0.91% -1.5% -0.31%
63 Hennepin, Minnesota   1,152     1,212     1,223        71        11 6.1% 0.91% -0.1% -0.29%
64 Miami-Dade, Florida   2,498     2,669     2,693      195        24 7.8% 0.91% -3.3% -1.23%
65 Guilford, North Carolina      488        513        518        29          5 6.0% 0.90% 1.9% 0.15%
66 San Mateo, California      718        758        765        47          7 6.5% 0.90% 0.2% -0.21%
67 Ramsey, Minnesota      509        534        538        29          4 5.8% 0.84% -1.5% -0.60%
68 San Bernardino, California   2,035     2,110     2,128        93        18 4.6% 0.84% -1.1% -0.23%
69 Middlesex, Massachusetts   1,503     1,573     1,585        82        13 5.5% 0.80% -0.8% -0.42%
70 Hudson, New Jersey      634        670        675        41          5 6.4% 0.80% -6.6% -1.65%
71 Orange, California   3,010     3,145     3,170      160        25 5.3% 0.79% -0.4% -0.32%
72 Essex, Massachusetts      743        770        776        33          6 4.4% 0.72% 0.1% -0.18%
73 Queens, New York   2,231     2,322     2,339      109        17 4.9% 0.72% -5.1% -1.09%
74 Anne Arundel, Maryland      538        560        564        27          4 4.9% 0.70% 1.0% -0.04%
75 Prince George's, Maryland      864        903        910        46          6 5.3% 0.68% -2.4% -0.72%
76 Honolulu, Hawaii      953        992        999        46          7 4.8% 0.67% -2.4% -0.75%
77 Plymouth, Massachusetts      495        507        510        15          3 3.1% 0.66% 0.7% 0.14%
78 Kane, Illinois      515        528        531        16          3 3.0% 0.63% -1.8% -0.23%
79 New Castle, Delaware      538        553        557        18          3 3.4% 0.62% -0.6% -0.18%
80 Kings, New York   2,505     2,621     2,637      132        16 5.3% 0.61% -5.0% -1.25%
81 Bergen, New Jersey      905        933        939        33          6 3.7% 0.61% -0.8% -0.28%
82 Los Angeles, California   9,819   10,109   10,170      352        61 3.6% 0.60% -2.7% -0.60%
83 Jackson, Missouri      674        684        688        13          4 2.0% 0.58% -1.4% -0.06%
84 Pima, Arizona      980     1,004     1,010        30          6 3.0% 0.58% 0.1% 0.02%
85 Lancaster, Pennsylvania      519        534        537        17          3 3.3% 0.56% -0.6% -0.28%
86 Ventura, California      823        846        851        27          4 3.3% 0.52% -1.3% -0.34%
87 Chester, Pennsylvania      499        513        516        17          3 3.4% 0.52% 0.1% -0.16%
88 Union, New Jersey      536        553        556        19          3 3.6% 0.49% -3.0% -0.70%
89 Worcester, Massachusetts      799        815        819        20          4 2.6% 0.49% -1.1% -0.27%
90 Norfolk, Massachusetts      671        693        696        25          3 3.8% 0.48% 0.0% -0.29%
91 Marion, Indiana      903        935        939        36          4 3.9% 0.48% -1.6% -0.55%
92 Ocean, New Jersey      577        586        589        12          3 2.1% 0.48% 0.6% 0.07%
93 New York, New York   1,586     1,637     1,645        59          8 3.7% 0.46% -4.4% -0.99%
94 Sedgwick, Kansas      498        509        512        13          2 2.7% 0.45% -2.3% -0.48%
95 Middlesex, New Jersey      810        837        841        31          4 3.8% 0.43% -3.8% -1.02%
96 Baltimore, Maryland      805        828        831        26          3 3.3% 0.40% -0.4% -0.31%
97 Westchester, New York      949        973        976        27          4 2.9% 0.40% -1.9% -0.46%
98 Jefferson, Kentucky      741        761        764        23          3 3.0% 0.39% -0.3% -0.27%
99 Bristol, Massachusetts      548        555        557          8          2 1.5% 0.39% 0.0% 0.04%
100 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania   1,526     1,562     1,567        41          6 2.7% 0.38% -3.1% -0.68%
101 Macomb, Michigan      841        862        865        24          3 2.8% 0.37% 0.6% -0.12%
102 Montgomery, Pennsylvania      800        817        819        19          3 2.4% 0.33% -0.2% -0.24%
103 Essex, New Jersey      784        795        797        13          2 1.7% 0.31% -4.9% -0.89%
104 Fairfax, Virginia   1,082     1,139     1,142        61          3 5.6% 0.28% -4.3% -1.47%
105 Will, Illinois      678        686        687        10          2 1.4% 0.24% -2.4% -0.47%
106 Fairfield, Connecticut      917        946        948        31          2 3.4% 0.24% -1.9% -0.74%
107 Providence, Rhode Island      627        632        633          7          1 1.1% 0.23% -3.4% -0.67%
108 Nassau, New York   1,340     1,359     1,361        22          3 1.6% 0.20% -1.2% -0.33%
109 Passaic, New Jersey      502        510        511          9          1 1.9% 0.20% -5.6% -1.20%
110 Oakland, Michigan   1,202     1,240     1,242        40          2 3.3% 0.19% -0.3% -0.53%
111 Delaware, Pennsylvania      559        563        564          5          1 0.9% 0.17% -1.8% -0.43%
112 Hamilton, Ohio      802        806        808          5          1 0.7% 0.16% -2.4% -0.40%
113 Bernalillo, New Mexico      663        676        677        14          1 2.1% 0.15% -1.2% -0.47%
114 Bucks, Pennsylvania      625        627        627          2          1 0.3% 0.12% -0.8% -0.14%
115 St. Louis, Missouri      999     1,002     1,003          4          1 0.4% 0.12% -1.8% -0.35%
116 El Paso, Texas      801        836        836        35          0 4.4% 0.01% -3.3% -1.44%
117 Jefferson, Alabama      658        660        660          2        (0) 0.3% 0.00% -1.6% -0.33%
118 DuPage, Illinois      917        934        934        17        (0) 1.8% 0.00% -2.5% -0.80%
119 Camden, New Jersey      514        511        511        (3)        (0) -0.5% -0.01% -4.0% -0.68%
120 Milwaukee, Wisconsin      948        958        958        10        (0) 1.1% -0.02% -3.4% -0.86%
121 Lake, Illinois      703        704        704          1        (0) 0.1% -0.03% -4.1% -0.80%
122 Shelby, Tennessee      928        938        938        10        (0) 1.1% -0.04% -3.2% -0.83%
123 Monmouth, New Jersey      630        629        629        (2)        (0) -0.3% -0.05% -2.0% -0.37%
124 Montgomery, Ohio      535        533        532        (3)        (0) -0.5% -0.05% -2.4% -0.45%
125 Suffolk, New York   1,493     1,502     1,502          8        (1) 0.6% -0.05% -2.5% -0.63%
126 Erie, New York      919        923        923          4        (1) 0.4% -0.07% -1.4% -0.47%
127 Monroe, New York      744        750        750          5        (1) 0.7% -0.10% -2.6% -0.80%
128 Hartford, Connecticut      894        897        896          2        (1) 0.2% -0.11% -3.4% -0.81%
129 Summit, Ohio      542        543        542          0        (1) 0.0% -0.12% -1.4% -0.41%
130 Allegheny, Pennsylvania   1,223     1,233     1,230          7        (2) 0.6% -0.20% -0.4% -0.46%
131 Cook, Illinois   5,195     5,249     5,238        43      (10) 0.8% -0.20% -4.0% -1.06%
132 New Haven, Connecticut      862        861        859        (3)        (2) -0.3% -0.21% -3.4% -0.84%
133 Baltimore city, Maryland      621        624        622          1        (2) 0.1% -0.30% -3.8% -0.92%
134 Cuyahoga, Ohio   1,280     1,261     1,256      (24)        (5) -1.9% -0.37% -3.7% -0.76%
135 Wayne, Michigan   1,821     1,766     1,759      (61)        (7) -3.4% -0.38% -6.2% -0.87%
In 000s
Data from Census Bureau

 

Wendell Cox is principal of Demographia, an international pubilc policy and demographics firm. He is a Senior Fellow of the Center for Opportunity Urbanism (US), Senior Fellow for Housing Affordability and Municipal Policy for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy (Canada), and a member of the Board of Advisors of the Center for Demographics and Policy at Chapman University (California). He is co-author of the "Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey" and author of "Demographia World Urban Areas" and "War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life." He was appointed to three terms on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, where he served with the leading city and county leadership as the only non-elected member. He served as a visiting professor at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, a national university in Paris.

Photograph: Lee County, Florida (Cape Coral-Fort Myers), Top domestic migration gainer (by author)