SA and Austin look to cash in on megaregion game plan

[N90]

Originally Posted by L41A

In general, from a state perspective, Florida population growth is more impressive to me. The raw number growth is in the same ball park but with Florida being 1/4 the size of Texas. Even if relate it to the half of Texas where 90% of Texans live, Florida's growth is in the size of 1/2 of Texas. And Central Florida - Orlando, Tampa, Daytona, Ocala, Cocoa, Melbourne, etc) is probably the fastest growing part of Florida.

Even another perspective, if you divide Texas in half, the Eastern half (where most of Texas population) is roughly the size of Georgia and the Carolinas - with both Eastern Texas and GA/NC/SC having similar population.

Your premise is very wrong and way off.

I don’t see how you could argue your point when you wrongly handicap Texas the way you did with flawed logic.

It is 280 miles down from I-35 from DFW to San Antonio, with Austin, Waco, and Killeen in between them. In those 280 miles, Texas added 265k people last year. If you go 165 miles east of Austin and include Houston, the other end of the Texas Triangle then the Triangle added 405k people. The Triangle is smaller than Georgia or Florida in area BTW.

All of Florida added 365k people last year, Texas as a whole added 473k people last year. Both states grew by the same 1.6% growth rate last year.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by N90

Your premise is very wrong and way off.

I don’t see how you could argue your point when you wrongly handicap Texas the way you did with flawed logic.

It is 280 miles down from I-35 from DFW to San Antonio, with Austin, Waco, and Killeen in between them. In those 280 miles, Texas added 265k people last year. If you go 165 miles east of Austin and include Houston, the other end of the Texas Triangle then the Triangle added 405k people. The Triangle is smaller than Georgia or Florida in area BTW.

All of Florida added 365k people last year, Texas as a whole added 473k people last year. Both states grew by the same 1.6% growth rate last year.

You took the time to post what I didn't feel like taking the time to do.

[Altoic]

Originally Posted by N90

Your premise is very wrong and way off.

I don’t see how you could argue your point when you wrongly handicap Texas the way you did with flawed logic.

It is 280 miles down from I-35 from DFW to San Antonio, with Austin, Waco, and Killeen in between them. In those 280 miles, Texas added 265k people last year. If you go 165 miles east of Austin and include Houston, the other end of the Texas Triangle then the Triangle added 405k people. The Triangle is smaller than Georgia or Florida in area BTW.

All of Florida added 365k people last year, Texas as a whole added 473k people last year. Both states grew by the same 1.6% growth rate last year.

Both states are impressively growing but I believe they're talking about the land mass of both states. Florida is much smaller than Texas and landlocked on multiple sides yet still having the same growth rate. When you look at regions like Miami-Dade, they cannot expand or sprawl like Texas cities do. Even Orlando is reigned in from conserved land, albeit still sprawly.

[N90]

Originally Posted by Altoic

Both states are impressively growing but I believe they're talking about the land mass of both states. Florida is much smaller than Texas and landlocked on multiple sides yet still having the same growth rate. When you look at regions like Miami-Dade, they cannot expand or sprawl like Texas cities do. Even Orlando is reigned in from conserved land.

I mean that was the point of me retorting back to him in the first place that he’s wrong even for the land area comparison.

Texas added 473k people last year, that’s 1.6% growth.

Florida added 365k people last year, that’s also 1.6% growth.

Now here’s the difference I was pointing out to him and where he was wrong. The raw growth in Texas is concentrated heavily in the Texas Triangle megaregion, which is physically smaller than Georgia and slightly smaller than Florida by land area. In the Texas Triangle, DFW added 152k people, Houston added 139k people, Austin added 50k people, and San Antonio added 48k people. Between just those 4 metro areas that’s 390k people, that’s already more than what the entire state of Florida added by 26k and in a slightly smaller land area than the state of Florida. Then when you add the other areas in the Texas Triangle, smaller metros like College Station, Waco, and Killeen then the Triangle added 405k people last year. Again in a slightly smaller area than Florida and a bit smaller than Georgia.

Florida is 53,000 square miles of land area, Texas Triangle is 46,000 square miles of land area. Georgia is 57,000 square miles.

Even if you don’t want to include the Texas Triangle and exclude Houston then just use the I-35 Corridor from DFW to San Antonio. Thats 280 miles from downtown to downtown with Austin, Waco, and Killeen in between.

This 280 mile stretch added 265k people and is significantly smaller in area than Florida and certainly Georgia, less than a third of Georgia’s size.

If the guy just wanted to say he found Florida’s growth impressive then he should’ve just said that. Idk why he name dropped Texas and proceeded to make it a comparison and then use wrong land area arguments.

[Lobotomizer]

Originally Posted by Altoic

Both states are impressively growing but I believe they're talking about the land mass of both states. Florida is much smaller than Texas and landlocked on multiple sides yet still having the same growth rate.

Growth rate is similar, but Texas added 100K more people. And, virtually all the growth is in it's four major metros which are in relative close proximity to one another.

Austin distance to:
Dallas - 196 miles
Fort Worth - 188 miles
Houston - 165 miles
San Antonio - 79 miles

Almost everyone in Texas lives in the area in and between these cities which is not a huge area.

No one here has said Florida's growth isn't impressive. It just doesn't make sense to say Florida's lesser growth is somehow more impressive. It screams of "homerism", or possibly trolling.

[L41A]

Originally Posted by N90

Your premise is very wrong and way off.

I don’t see how you could argue your point when you wrongly handicap Texas the way you did with flawed logic.

It is 280 miles down from I-35 from DFW to San Antonio, with Austin, Waco, and Killeen in between them. In those 280 miles, Texas added 265k people last year. If you go 165 miles east of Austin and include Houston, the other end of the Texas Triangle then the Triangle added 405k people. The Triangle is smaller than Georgia or Florida in area BTW.

All of Florida added 365k people last year, Texas as a whole added 473k people last year. Both states grew by the same 1.6% growth rate last year.

Please take the emotion out. I was just giving another perspective. I didn't handicapped Texas if anything I gave it benefit. All of Texas is 269k square miles. All of Florida is 54k square miles. If all of added population of 473k in Texas occurred in the Eastern half of Texas (134.5k sqmi) that's still just 100k more population added in more than twice the size of the whole of Florida.

I also stated 'to me'. And not to say Texas growth is not impressive. It's ok if you think otherwise. I don't have an adverse reaction to Texas (or any place really) like many on here.

[Lobotomizer]

Originally Posted by L41A

Please take the emotion out. I was just giving another perspective. I didn't handicapped Texas if anything I gave it benefit. All of Texas is 269k square miles. All of Florida is 54k square miles. If all of added population of 473k in Texas occurred in the Eastern half of Texas (134.5k sqmi) that's still just 100k more population added in more than twice the size of the whole of Florida.

I also stated 'to me'. And not to say Texas growth is not impressive. It's ok if you think otherwise. I don't have an adverse reaction to Texas (or any place really) like many on here.

Cool. But your premise is still very flawed regarding land area. Texas' growth is not happening in 134,000 square miles. It's happening primarily in four metropolitan areas, much like it is in Florida. About 400,000 in the Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and Austin metros.

[N90]

Originally Posted by L41A

Please take the emotion out. I was just giving another perspective. I didn't handicapped Texas if anything I gave it benefit. All of Texas is 269k square miles. All of Florida is 54k square miles. If all of added population of 473k in Texas occurred in the Eastern half of Texas (134.5k sqmi) that's still just 100k more population added in more than twice the size of the whole of Florida.

I also stated 'to me'. And not to say Texas growth is not impressive. It's ok if you think otherwise. I don't have an adverse reaction to Texas (or any place really) like many on here.

There’s zero emotion to it. I’m just pointing out the facts. You keep harping on this East Texas nonsense, all I’m doing is redirecting you to the Texas Triangle specifically since that’s where 70% of the state lives and the 4 largest metro areas are.

Let me restate that point again: The Texas Triangle land area is 46,000 square miles. Florida is 53,000 square miles. Georgia is 57,000 square miles. Texas Triangle added 405k people. Florida added 365k people. Georgia added 116k people. The Triangle added more people than the state of Florida in a land area that’s 7,000 square miles smaller than the entire state of Florida. Thus disproving your initial claims.

There’s no emotion to it. We were just correcting you. You don’t need to be including all of East Texas to make this comparison, there’s no point in including areas beyond the Triangle in the first place is all we’re telling you and the Trisngle is 46,000 square miles total.

[JoninATX]

Well said, while Florida growth is impressive to say the least, Texas feels more impressive once you think just how many cities it has outside the Texas triangle that are experiencing decent growth.

West Texas cities:

Amarillo: 272,395 | + 1,806
Lubbock: 360,104 | + 3,315
Midland / Odessa: 365,482 | + 8,514
El Paso: 873,331 | + 2,676
Abilene: 181,594 | + 1,926
San Angelo: 120,606 | + 159

South Texas cities:

Laredo: 269,148 | + 1,529
McAllen: 898,471 | + 10,185
Brownsville: 426,710 | + 1,799
Corpus Christi: 448,323 | + 1,683

East Texas cities:

Beaumont: 395,479 | + 990
Tyler: 245,209 | + 3,214
Longview: 293,498 | + 2,923
Texarkana: 145,907 | - 278

The 2022 - 2023 census population growth. I put Texarkana on here is that the Texas side is growing while the Arkansas side continues to decline.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by Altoic

Orlando and Tampa probably won't be together despite their growth.

Florida is one of the only states in the US that is still heavily conserving land through buyouts or buying developments rights. The ecosystem in Florida cannot afford a Tampa and Orlando mega region.

(Tampa & Orlando are labeled with a red pin)


The area in blue is an extension of the Green Swamp conserved area. Although it isn't fully bought out yet, progress has been done over the years hence scattered green plots. Once conservation is done, these regions physically cannot merge.

https://www.fnai.org/webmaps/ConLandsMap/index.html

To get between Orland and Tampa you have to go through Lakeland, a metro with about 750K that is also growing. Lakeland is part of Orlando CSA, and is only 35 miles from Tampa, so at some point they make actually combine into a Tampa-Lakeland-Orlando CSA. Tampa is closer to Lakeland than Orlando but the growth of Lakeland must be in the direction of Orland if they put it in that CSA. There is no CSA for Tampa.

[JoninATX]

Originally Posted by L41A

Please take the emotion out. I was just giving another perspective. I didn't handicapped Texas if anything I gave it benefit. All of Texas is 269k square miles. All of Florida is 54k square miles. If all of added population of 473k in Texas occurred in the Eastern half of Texas (134.5k sqmi) that's still just 100k more population added in more than twice the size of the whole of Florida.

I also stated 'to me'. And not to say Texas growth is not impressive. It's ok if you think otherwise. I don't have an adverse reaction to Texas (or any place really) like many on here.

Have to take into consideration about both states geography. Florida has no water shortage as in Texas, half the state faces water restrictions. Hence why there's only one major city out in west Texas.

[L41A]

Originally Posted by N90

There’s zero emotion to it. I’m just pointing out the facts. You keep harping on this East Texas nonsense, all I’m doing is redirecting you to the Texas Triangle specifically since that’s where 70% of the state lives and the 4 largest metro areas are.

Let me restate that point again: The Texas Triangle land area is 46,000 square miles. Florida is 53,000 square miles. Georgia is 57,000 square miles. Texas Triangle added 405k people. Florida added 365k people. Georgia added 116k people. The Triangle added more people than the state of Florida in a land area that’s 7,000 square miles smaller than the entire state of Florida. Thus disproving your initial claims.

There’s no emotion to it. We were just correcting you. You don’t need to be including all of East Texas to make this comparison, there’s no point in including areas beyond the Triangle in the first place is all we’re telling you and the Trisngle is 46,000 square miles total.

Originally Posted by L41A

In general, from a state perspective, Florida population growth is more impressive to me.

I try to be careful with wording so maybe I should have stated 'more amazing' instead 'more impressive' nevertheless the operative words are "to me" & "state perspective" and even "in general".

And you are not correcting me. The Triangle is 46k square miles?? - well, OK - with population added 405k - OK
But if I dissected an area of Florida (in order not to handicapped it) with a line from Jax to Tampa to Ft. Myers to Miami back to Jax - that's area around 30k sqmi and it added 328k population. That area would include many lakes, multiple wildlife management areas, the Everglades, etc.)

And what I meant by 'state perspective' is that Florida growth is broader throughout its borders with constrained areas - with consideration not so much bigger on MSAs but also the 0.5mil to 1.5 mil ones too. Where there isn't a swamp or lake in Florida (which they are many) there are growing population centers. And while population growth rates in both states are similar/even bit greater (which I never disputed), I subjectively uplifted one 'impressive' 'amazing' based on the general landscape/area. Granted, it was to contextualize, even to temper but it was honest.

I understand it is exciting for some Texans - and it should be. 'It's a mighty po' frog that won't praise its own pond'

[JManc]

Having driven many times between Austin and San Antonio, no. They are too far apart and there's San Marcos and then a lot of nothing along the I35 corridor.

[Lobotomizer]

Originally Posted by JManc

Having driven many times between Austin and San Antonio, no. They are too far apart and there's San Marcos and then a lot of nothing along the I35 corridor.

I agree it will never be a single metro, but your statement is false. The city propers stretch for many miles towards one another, and you then have Buda, Kyle, San Marcos, New Braunfels, Selma, Schertz...

I'm not sure how long it's been since you have been in the area, but all of those towns have exploded in population. New Braunfels is over 100K, San Marcos is over 70K, Kyle is almost 60K.

The two counties between Austin and San Antonio, Hays and Comal, have been amongst the fastest growing in the nation.

[The ATX]

The last gap is relatively small and closing, and it's between San Marcos (Austin Metro) and New Braunfels (San Antonio Metro).

[bilbao58]

Crap lining the freeway between the two cities does not even remotely make it a "metroplex."

[C.]

Originally Posted by Lobotomizer

I agree it will never be a single metro, but your statement is false. The city propers stretch for many miles towards one another, and you then have Buda, Kyle, San Marcos, New Braunfels, Selma, Schertz...

I'm not sure how long it's been since you have been in the area, but all of those towns have exploded in population. New Braunfels is over 100K, San Marcos is over 70K, Kyle is almost 60K.

The two counties between Austin and San Antonio, Hays and Comal, have been amongst the fastest growing in the nation.

Never?

[Lobotomizer]

Originally Posted by C.

Never?

Yes, I highly doubt there would ever be enough commuting between the two cities to meet the threshold.

[Lobotomizer]

Originally Posted by bilbao58

Crap lining the freeway between the two cities does not even remotely make it a "metroplex."

Thanks for your contribution! I'm not seeing anyone comparing the current, or future Austin to San Antonio corridor to DFW, though.

And what you're referring to crap lining the freeway is about half a dozen cities (Cibolo, Schertz, Selma, New Braunfels, San Marcos, Kyle, Buda) containing hundreds of thousands of people. There's an airport which is the FAA designated reliever airport for both AUS and SAT (San Marcos Regional) and a major university (Texas State University) with tens of thousands of students.

The three counties you drive through (Guadalupe, Comal, and Hays) on I-35 between Travis and Bexar are home to 662,868 people, up from 264,633 in the 2000 census.

The Austin and San Antonio regions are also connected by the US 281 and TX 130 corridors bringing counties such as Caldwell and Blanco into the mix.

In the coming decades these areas are expected to continue to grow rapidly. Planning and coordinating between them for infrastructure and economic development is the responsible thing to do.

In conclusion I will reiterate no one informed on the region believes it will ever resemble DFW. However, it can not be disputed that this is an area experiencing explosive growth, and will continue to emerge as a major urban conurbation in this country.

Dismissing it as "crap along the highway" is a ridiculous take. But again, thanks for providing some satellite imagery!

[bilbao58]

Originally Posted by Lobotomizer

I'm not seeing anyone comparing the current, or future Austin to San Antonio corridor to DFW, though.

First page. Second post. And @ Cibolo, Schertz, and Selma.