Call it double trouble. Not only is Rochester's population shrinking, but the number of city residents living below the poverty line is growing. It's happening across Monroe County, too.

Rochester lost 14,800 residents - about 2,468 a year - between the 2000 Census and a 2006 update. In 2000, the city had 219,773 residents. But that dwindled to an estimated 204,963 by 2006, according the Census Bureau. If that trend continues, by the 2010 Census the city's population could be less than 200,000: a 12 percent drop in a decade.

Monroe County's population was about 735,300 residents in 2000. The Census estimates for 2006 show a drop of about 4,500, down to 730,800. If that trend continues, county residents could number only about 727,700 residents by 2010.

(Where might the county's residents be going? Maybe just across the county line: Ontario County saw about a 4 percent increase: from about 100,000 in 2000 to an estimated 104,000 in 2006.)

Rochester's not the only Upstate city losing population. In 2000, Buffalo had 292,648 residents, but 2006 estimates put the population at 257,758. Barring a reversal, by 2010 Buffalo could have lost 20 percent of its 2000 population.

In 2000, Albany had 95,658 residents. The 2006 estimate: 88,855. If the trend continues, Albany could match Rochester's population loss of 12 percent in the decade.

While Rochester and Monroe County are losing population, estimates show more residents living below the poverty line.

In 2000, 54,713 city residents - about 26 percent of the population - lived below the poverty line. The Census Bureau estimates that by 2006, that had grown to 30 percent: about 61,700 people.

In the county as a whole, 79,311 residents were living in poverty in 2000 - about 11.2 percent of the population. The Census Bureau estimates that in 2006, 13.3 percent of county residents were living in poverty: 97,200 people.

The trend spells trouble: a higher demand for many kinds of services and fewer resources for generating tax revenue. And for the city and county both, that would mean more difficulty balancing budgets.