US Census Bureau data for Austin and other cities
 

Just released today. Official census estimates for 2013.

Travis 1,120,954
Williamson 471,014
Hays 176,026
Bastrop 75,825
Caldwell 39.032

Total Austin MSA 1,883,051

Dfw 6,749,350

SA 2,215,000 approx.

That is crazy. 2.5% for Austin. Houston is growing like crazy too.

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk

For those interested

Actually per http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/chs/popdat/ST2014.shtm -
DFW is 6985579, about 400,000 more than your data.

FYI, here's the top 10 Texas metros.
*1)DFW (both sides) 6,985,579
1)Houston 6,484,279
2)Dallas (its side) 4,627,393
3)Fort Worth (its side) 2,358,186
4)San Antonio 2,334,263
5)Austin 1,938,858
6)McAllen 862,768
7)El Paso 862,638
8)Killeen-Temple 445,356
9)Corpus Christi 443,351
10)Brownsville-Harligen 439,437

I listed them this way because Fort Worth never gets the respect it deserves.

These numbers are all bigger than the census release because they are 2014 projections and the census numbers are for 2013.

Thats true. The official numbers are from july 2012 to July 2013. We are well in the middle of the 2014 cycle and from what we know currently, I would expect to see an increase in the growth come the end of next March.

Pretty much, I can say that they are pretty close has to how many people are in each of those cities currently.

One thing I just don't understand is why the Rio Grande Valley is listed as separate MSAs for Brownsville and McAllen. Anyone who has been down there knows it is one metro area. There are lots of smaller cities, but it's really just one area, with a pop of about 1.25 million.

Houston 2013 estimate 6,284,311

140,000 increase over 2012. That's 383 new residents every single day.

What isn't noted in most of the articles about the new census data:

Austin is the fastest growing "large" metro (>1m) in the country.

If you look at the top 10, everything growing at a faster rate than Austin are smaller metros. So despite the bigger rates (in smaller cities), and larger raw numbers (in much bigger metros), Austin is technically the fastest growing major city in the country. Which is certainly what it feels like.

The above SA Metro population estimates are incorrect. SA Metro has an estimated July 1, 2013 population of 2,277,550. I was surprised at the rates for both Austin and San Antonio. I would have expected them to be slightly higher.

I also believe that Austin's growth will be greater than it's 2012-2013 rate of 2.6% for the current year (2013-2014).

At the current estimated annual rates of growth for both Austin and San Antonio (calculated from July 1, 2010 through July 1, 2013), Austin would surpass San Antonio in total metropolitan area population by 2030 or 2031 (assuming no additional counties are added to either metropolitan area between now and then and annual growth rates remain constant at 3.00% and 1.92%, respectively). Interesting...considering nothing (i.e., economy) remains the same. Especially over this amount of time.

Did you know:

If Austin/San Antonio region was actually recognized as a Consolidated Statistical Area, based on current estimates, it would rank as the 14th largest CSA in the country? About 300,000 fewer than Seattle-Tacoma and almost 400,000 more than Minneapolis-St. Paul.

As I love running numbers...In a very simple run: A-SA would surpass the 5 million mark in late 2020; the 6 million mark by 2028; the 7 million mark in 2035; and almost have 8 million in 2040. By then (2040), the A-SA CSA would move up the ranking charts to become the 11th largest CSA in America; a hair above Philadelphia-Reading-Camden and just under 900,000 below Atlanta-Athens-Clarke County-Sandy Springs. Again, using current annual estimated rates of growth (from 7/1/2010 through 7/1/2013), assuming no new areas were added to said CSA, and the economic variable remains the same (which is unlikely). I'll do more of a true statistical analysis when I get more time.

The Austin- San Antonio area packs a big punch. Also what's really impressive is that a line is starting to form from the Waco area down to San Antonio. While I know it will be along time before it will truly connect, but it's still amazing to see. :cool:

Because hardly anyone commutes from Cameron County into Hidalgo County for work every day. 25% of the workforce of a county must commute into the core county every day.

I understand the census people's reasoning, I just disagree with using that as the way to consider whether an area is one metro area or not. People in Fort Worth don't have to commute into Dallas to be part of the DFW MSA. And in fact, using commuting to work as the primary way of figuring whether counties are part of the same metro area is pretty outdated, given the prevalance of secondary business centers and people working at home.

I'm going to disagree because you forgot why the OMB invented these statistical areas- enforcing America's equal opportunity laws. That's equal opportunities for jobs, and commuting patterns is amongst the most important factors to consider.

It's obvious San Antonio's military based economy doesn't mix in well with Austin's state government and state supported university based economy. The longer distance between the cities means there are far less commuting between them.

I don't think OMB thinks the economies are joined enough to make a CSA either.

Don't know why DFW is used so often in these discussion with SA/Austin. People in DFW work all over the metro and its just not some big deal. I technically worked in the FW-Arlington MSA for a few years and it was like 15 minutes from my house in Dallas. When I worked in Farmers Branch, lots of people lived in places like Grapevine, Euless, Flower Mound. When I worked in McKinney, there were lots of people from Greenville, Sherman, Denton, Dallas. We share an airport, we have shared television and radio since the technologies began. The only way DFW could be closer is if Dallas and Fort Worth proper shared a border. Instead they are 10 minutes apart along 183. A lot of huge employers(larger employers than say downtown San Antonio and Austin combined) like DFW Airport, Las Colinas and Centreport along with Hays and Comal growing to about a million or 2 needs to happen. Those two metros are just not economically intertwined like DFW.

Amen to that, but local boosters are somehow determined to make SA/Austin CSA become a reality. As things currently stand, it is an absurd concept for the reasons you state above. The economy of the DFW area, the commute patterns, the integrated freeway system, the multiple major employment nodes, the combined media market, the shared airport, sports teams, etc. I personally don't know why some folks are not happy to have the Austin metro the way it is now-simply put the fastest growing major metro in the US.

I agree that DFW is integrated to an extent that Austin and San Antonio will probably never be. However, that's probably too high a bar. DFW is possibly the _most_ integrated of CSAs, and as you mentioned the two cities are a lot closer. But there are other CSAs that are significantly more geographically separated (example Detroit and Flint, 68 miles apart).

Austin MSA's year to year growth rate plummeted over the last three years according to the census bureau. The last year was 2.61%. The year before that was 2.99%, and the year before that was 3.13%. That's not a good trend line for us.

San Antonio's increased from 1.83, to 1.91, to 1.93 over those three years. Not the best trend should Austin still want to outgrow S.A. MSA.

I'm not really sure these estimates are accurate to two decimal places. Anytime the census displays the numbers (http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/pdf/cb14-51_top_metro.pdf, factfinder, etc.) they only go out to a single decimal.

True enough.

I actually wasn't talking Austin/SA as a potential CMSA. I was referring to the Rio Grande Valley.

As a person who travels extensively, it's hard t explain but there is just a "feel" to a metro area. Example...Dallas and Fort Worth clearly "feel" like one big metroplex. But Washington and Baltimore do not, even though they are the same distance apart.

Part is media market type. dFW is one media market. DC and Baltimore are separate, with separate tv and radio stations.

The Valley "feels" like a single metro area. People think they are from the Valley, not one city or the other. TV and radio cover the whole area as their base market as well.

By this measure Austin and SA are really not one contiguous metro area.

People may "feel" like they are part of one big metro in the Valley, but their actions speak louder than their feelings.

What are their "actions"? The MSA concept of using work patterns has its limits. If you have an area with a bunch of smaller cities and no "central" city, it doesn't really fly. In the Valley, there is no "central" city, but it is a community, a metro area just like Austin is.

By the way, I missed a few things, including leaving out a few smaller counties. The official list from the census...

DFW 6,810,913
Houston 6,313,158
SA 2,277,550
Austin 1,883,051

Growth since 2010

DFW +384,699
Houston +392,742
SA +135,042
Austin +166,762

However, if you break it down to 2012-2013, SA added 43,056 residents while Austin added 47,941.

Look for Austin to have a rapid increase in growth once the 2014 numbers come in next year. We need to remember that what we are experiencing right now is not included with the latest statistics.

Another interesting indicator is number of jobs. Take a look at this graphic from the census.

http://i1332.photobucket.com/albums/w613/jeremysweredoski/1-tale-of-2-cit-blog%201_zpsdnzw5p1f.jpg

Despite the difference in population Austin and San Antonio are pretty equal when it comes to jobs. Not only that but Austin is clearly adding more jobs and by the rate of growth, we may pass San Antonio by the end of the year.

If San Antonio were in another state it would be a media darling as a boom town and a great city. But since it's in Texas it doesn't get its fair share of credit or mentioned as much as the other three members of the Big Four.

2014 City population estimates are planned to be released on 5/20. I estimate Austin will be 912,000; what's yours?
BTW, I just heard on Public Radio that LA didn't quite reach 4,000,000 for the 1914 estimates. Have they already been released, and I couldn't find them?

The 1914 estimate?

Yes, That's what they said. They also said that LA was 3,880,000, or something like, that in 2013, which they were! I checked!

They literally accidentally said 1914 rather than 2014 on NPR?

LOL. I'm sorry. The 2014 estimates. My age is finally showing!

lol! nah, don't be sorry. I got a good chuckle out of it.

One metric I use says ~907,000. The other says ~911,000. So, anywhere in the neighborhood of ~910,000 would be a solid guess.

San Antonio, in case anyone cares, should be in the neighborhood of ~1.435 million (as of July 1, 2014).

My estimated population guess is 905,500, but I have a question.

Austin (city) Texas Quick Facts

It shows the 2010 population as 790,390. That's obviously based on the official census taken that year. It shows the Population, 2010 (April 1) estimates base as 810,759. Why are these numbers so different? I clicked on those little "i" icons over on the left hand side and read what it said and I didn't understand any of it.

It also states "Population percent change, 2010 to 2013, is derived by dividing the difference between the 2013 population estimate and the April 1, 2010 estimates base by the April 1, 2010 estimates base."

If you do that, the Population percent change 2010-to 2013 is 9.2%.

In Goldenboot's signature, he shows a population increase 2010-2013 as 12.02% most likely because he's comparing the actual 2010 census to the estimated 2013 population. To get a more accurate idea of our growth rate shouldn't we be comparing 2010 estimate to 2013 estimate?

Having said all that . . . . K-e-v-i-n! Can you please move all these off-topic population posts (including mine) to a more appropriate thread - either the off topic thread or else the 2013 Census data for Austin and other cities thread? (You could just drop "2013" from the thread title.) Thanks! :)

Hey - someone's got to keep us focused. Right Goldenboot? ;)

Because one of them is an estimate and the other is a count that suffers from significant problems re: undercounting in areas with higher transient populations. Austin has a high transient immigrant population, thus suffers more greatly from undercounting than other areas.

Re: new thread. I'm pretty sure there's an austin sub-forum thread on the census estimates already there, but if not I support a new one as well since that is a hot topic occasionally.

Well thank you - that answers part of my question, but not the other part. If the 2010 "estimate" is more accurate than the problematic 2010 "official" count, shouldn't we be comparing the 2010 "estimate" to the 2013 "estimate" to get a truer sense of the city's growth rate? Another way to put it is: In your opinion, which figure more accurately represents our rate of growth between 2010 and 2013? 12.02% or 9.2%?

I'm pretty sure you're right considering I provided a direct link to it in the response above yours. ;)

9.2%. That's the way the census bureau does it.


I didn't even notice that... That's what I get for skimming.

I'm pretty sure it's not that (or the majority isn't that).

The difference is annexation.

The census number includes everyone who was in the city limits at the time (2010). But in addition to growing, the city has also annexed additional areas in the past 4/5 years. If you compare the current city population to the census number, you're not only seeing growth you're also seeing that.

I believe the baseline goes back and (tries) to figure out what the total population was in the area of the current city limits, to get a better idea on what the actual growth was.

No, you're wrong. The census bureau themselves says that the difference is largely due to count v. estimate procedures.

They say that in general (for all cities) or for Austin in particular? They certainly call out annexation as one of the correction factors. And Austin has had significant annexation post-census (for instance, the Springwoods MUD annexation probably accounts for close to 10K of that difference).

"The April 1, 2010 Population Estimates base reflects changes to the 2010 Census population from the Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS) and other geographic program revisions."

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_PST040210.htm

Generally, geographic revisions are not the major component for most cities.

I'm not sure the Springwoods MUD annexation occurred during the proper time of year for it to count as part of the revision here.

I remember reading somewhere a few years back that the city had annexed around 30K just after the official census was taken so the city was actually around 820K rather than 790k.

If that's the case, then yes annexations would account for the vast majority of the difference between the estimate and the count.

However, I'll note that in almost all other cases, estimation procedures account for the difference.

Census: San Marcos fastest-growing U.S. city — again
Austin American Statesman
May 20, 2015

Story highlights:

If I've got this calculated right, our density shot up from 2,758.43 people/mi² to 3,358.32 people/mi² between 2013 and 2014.

That would be almost 25%. How did you get those figures? Either Austin would have had to have un-annexed a lot of land or grown 200,000 in one year.

I took the population figures for 2013 and 2014 and divided them by the total land area numbers I could find respectively. One of the land numbers might be outdated.