HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #261  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2017, 11:14 PM
drummer drummer is offline
德克萨斯人 y'all
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Asia by way of Texas
Posts: 1,760
So with 19.2% for Burnet County going into the Austin metro in 2013....any estimates out regarding the current patterns? Surely it hasn't jumped to 25% in only 3-4 years, but it is probably growing closer every year.
__________________
人无完人
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #262  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2017, 7:45 AM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
A nice door
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: In a low-rise
Posts: 4,812
I wish I could find more updated info about commuting into Travis County, but 2013 seems to be the last year for data. According to this map, Burnet and Blanco Counties are in the same 20-30% range as Caldwell County which is part of the Metro. I would think that both counties should be close to being added to the Metro by now. Together they would add about 58K to the Metro population which is about the same as the population growth in an average year for the Austin Metro.


https://www.texastribune.org/2015/08...-commute-work/
__________________
Austin on Urban Planet:
http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/forum/215-austin/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #263  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2017, 7:53 AM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia
Posts: 3,193
I really wish they'd shown Austin and San Antonio together.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #264  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2017, 11:44 PM
drummer drummer is offline
德克萨斯人 y'all
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Asia by way of Texas
Posts: 1,760
I was curious so I looked these up:


Burnet County
Population Estimate, July 1, 2016: 46,243 (+8.3% since 2010)
Source

Blanco County
Population Estimate, July 1, 2016: 11,392 (+8.5% since 2010)
Source

Crazy how similar their growth percentages are. It seems that if they continue to grow at these rates, 290 or 71 (or both) will need to be upgraded to an expressway in the near future to accommodate local growth as well as commuter traffic. This is especially true for 71 all the way to 281. I think 290 needs to be an expressway at least to/through Dripping Springs.

As for adding them to the metro, it only makes sense, especially considering that Caldwell County has similar commuter patterns. For what it's worth, here's the info on Caldwell County (nearly identical to Burnet County):

Caldwell County
Population Estimate, July 1, 2016: 41,161 (+8.2% since 2010)
Source
__________________
人无完人
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #265  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2017, 6:38 AM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia
Posts: 3,193
I haven't yet figured out how to work with the .R (a computer stats programming language) package(choropleth) well with the package(ggplot2), so excuse the horrible color breaks in these:

I'm gonna keep working on these over the next few days, but hopefully I'll be able to do the following:

A. use opacity, rather than color, to represent the commuter rate -- and have the opacity on a fixed break pattern (e.g. opacity cutpoints at commuter rates of every 5 points), rather than done via optimization to the natural distribution (e.g. something like a jenks natural break), that way comparisons between maps and within maps between counties are made easier.

B. use a color gradient to represent different "categories" of county:
1. purple: the "city" county
2. red: other "core" counties of the core-based statistical area
3. orange: other counties of the core-based statistical area
4. yellow: other counties in the combined statistical area
5. green: counties not in the core-based or combined statistical area

If anyone has any tips on how to accomplish this by passing thru a ggplot2 command into choropleth in .R, let me know.


Currently, though, here's a series simple color gradient choropleth maps that take the share of commuters from each county into a core county of an MSA (not necessarily limited to JUST the "city" counties, like the Tribune map). Also, I used divisions in the case of DFW, rather than the MSA as a whole. I thought people here might enjoy the wider selection of maps than the Tribune's:

http://imgur.com/a/amBci











Reply With Quote
     
     
  #266  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2017, 1:25 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by drummer View Post

As for adding them to the metro, it only makes sense, especially considering that Caldwell County has similar commuter patterns.
It doesn't really, at least not yet.

as wwmiv alluded to, the texas tribune map isn't measuring what actually matters, which is the commuting into all 3 core counties.

For Caldwell, as much commuting as it has into travis, it has an additional 2/3 into Hays. That's what makes the difference.

Caldwell to Travis: 4470
Caldwell to Williamson: 141
Caldwell to Hays: 2851
7462 / 15272 = 49%

http://www.census.gov/hhes/commuting/




My post from the last time we talked about this, which I think are still the same old numbers.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...ys#post7180693
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #267  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2017, 2:04 AM
drummer drummer is offline
德克萨斯人 y'all
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Asia by way of Texas
Posts: 1,760
Fair enough, I hadn't thought about that. Even so, I still think Burnet should be included. If anything else, it's going to see an increase in commuters to both Travis and Williamson Counties, respectively.
__________________
人无完人
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #268  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2017, 10:04 AM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia
Posts: 3,193

Last edited by wwmiv; Apr 30, 2017 at 1:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #269  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2017, 10:43 AM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia
Posts: 3,193
A legend:

county fill color: more color, less white = a higher share of the county's residents commute into the core

county border color: more white, less color = a higher share of the county's residents commute into the core EXCEPT those residents commuting into the county itself. Obviously this will only make a difference for those counties that are a core county themselves. Thus, core counties with more color borders comparatively LOSE more of their residents during the workday than those core counties with comparatively less color borders (though keep in mind layered county borders will obscure things slightly, but this is deliberate). Apart from core counties, this visual choice was made to contrast with the fill color so that it can be more easily visually read.

county fill opacity: more opaque = the county's commuters in the core contribute more to that core's daily workforce. This is selected on the estimate of the number of commuters into the core being statistically distinguishable from zero at a 95% confidence level. Thus, counties without a fill color likely have no commuters to that core. An adjustment is made so that MSAs with a higher daily workforce appear relatively more opaque than those with smaller workforces.

county border opacity: more opaque = a higher ratio of working residents who commute to the core versus those who commute within-county for work. This is selected on having an estimate that is above zero. Thus, counties that have no workers that commute to the core won't have borders or fill. conversely. However, counties that have a non-zero estimate of the number of commuters to the core that is statistically indistinguishable from zero will have opaque borders, but without any opaque fill.

county border width: wider = a higher number of working residents into the core.

The fill opacity and color choices were made so that you can layer them and make some useful APPROXIMATE visual comparisons.

The border opacity, color, and width choices were made to visually approximate the highway network, which seems to me to be a common modern heuristic of economic connections.

Furthermore, the counties are clickable and have popups with their info.

A 390-MSA map would require me getting server space to run the processing of the VERY data intensive map, and I don't have that $ right now.

What specific color scale a city is placed in currently conveys no information (and is currently done randomly). That being said, I'm going to be changing to be a rainbow gradient where redder equals more populated and bluer is less so.

Last edited by wwmiv; Apr 30, 2017 at 1:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #270  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 4:19 AM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
A nice door
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: In a low-rise
Posts: 4,812
The 2016 city estimates are out. Austin is at 947,890. I would have expected lower numbers due to the high cost of living and limited annexations.

http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral...37456753078363
__________________
Austin on Urban Planet:
http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/forum/215-austin/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #271  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 6:47 AM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 2,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by The ATX View Post
The 2016 city estimates are out. Austin is at 947,890. I would have expected lower numbers due to the high cost of living and limited annexations.

http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral...37456753078363
Since 2010, Austin is growing at 2x the rate of San Jose. Austin has gained 157,500 in that timeframe, while SJ has gained 79,408.

But from 2015 to 2016:

Austin +16,060
San Jose -1,558
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #272  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 7:08 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 2,779
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by lzppjb View Post
Since 2010, Austin is growing at 2x the rate of San Jose. Austin has gained 157,500 in that timeframe, while SJ has gained 79,408.

But from 2015 to 2016:

Austin +16,060
San Jose -1,558
Playing with numbers again?
Are you looking at CSA or MSA population data?
Remember, you wrote Austin gained around 16,000 from '15 to '16.
Here's some other Texas cities:

Dallas (city) grew > 1,317,929 - 1,300,092 = 17,837
Dallas (county) grew > 2,574,984 - 2,485,003 = 89,981
Houston grew > 2,303,482 - 2,296,224 = 7,258
Harris County grew > 4,589,928 - 4,538,028 = 51,900
FYI, Travis County grew > 1,199,323 - 1,176,558 = 22,765
Note: all data US Census Bureau.
So much of the Austin growth occurred outside Travis County boundaries.
So is much of the population growth in the DFW and Houston metros.

When the cities have outgrown the counties they reside within, comparing city and county data is getting false information.

Last edited by electricron; May 25, 2017 at 2:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #273  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 7:34 AM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia
Posts: 3,193
Central Texas cities (inc. Austin) slightly cool down, but our metro area was still tops. Ergo, our growth is concentrated outside of city limits of both core and suburban cities, thus adding more urban area.

Quote:
With an estimated population of 68,918, Cedar Park was the fifth fastest-growing city in Texas behind Conroe (No. 1), Frisco (No. 2), McKinney (No. 3) and Georgetown (No. 5). Round Rock (No. 18) and Pflugerville (No. 23) also made the top 25.

This is the first year in the past half-decade that a Central Texas city has not topped the list of fastest-growing U.S. cities. Prior to Georgetown’s top ranking in 2016, San Marcos was the country’s fastest-growing city for three years in a row.
https://communityimpact.com/austin/l...tionally-2016/

Although keep in mind that that analysis is using the single datapoint of 2015-2016 and takes the perspective that percentage increase is the only relevant factor. Well, that's not true. Numeric increase taken in the context of annexation policy (and the ability and political will to exercise this policy area) is also important, because that more accurately illustrates whether the core city itself is trying to densify itself in the process of population growth irrespective of whether the broader region might be growing faster.

Taking the broader view, the Austin MSA has grown by 19.82% since 2010, Austin city proper by 19.92%. What I'd say counts as the list of large Austin "boomburbs" (Georgetown, Round Rock, Pflugerville, Kyle, San Marcos, Leander, and Cedar Park) grew from a sum of 342,591 to 459,996, a growth of 117,405 people at a rate of 34.27%. Austin proper grew from 790,390 to 947,890, adding 157,500. That's a smaller rate, yes, but we still added more people than the boomburbs put together, and in the context (as stated by the ATX above) of limited annexation by the city and a great deal by the boomburbs.

The metro area as a whole grew by 19.82%, an even slower than the cities and major suburbs, from 1,716,289 to 2,056,405 (a numeric increase of 340,116).

The balance of the metro area excepting the city of Austin and the large boomburbs grew to 648,519 from 583,308, a numeric increase of 65,211 and a growth rate of 11.17%. However, much of the population growth that would have been included in this category was likely annexed by one of the boomburbs who all have had fairly active annexation policies since 2010.

And... San Antonio city proper is growing faster than ours, but with significant annexation. Even still San Antonio's core has some of most rapid densification in development in Central Texas, even though it isn't appreciated by some on the Austin forum because it isn't as dominated by skyscrapers.

Quote:
Austin’s population increased by 17,738 people from July 2015 to July 2016, the ninth-largest numeric increase of any U.S. city. The 11th most-populated U.S. city now has 947,890 residents, according to the U.S. Census estimates.

Central Texas no longer home to nation’s fastest-growing city

San Antonio grew the most of any Texas city to make the list, growing 1.7 percent to 1,492,510 people. Dallas (9) grew by 1.6 percent, to 1,317,929 residents, and Houston (4) now has 2,303,482 people, growing by less than a half-percent.

Austin’s growth rate dipped to its lowest level in the past five years.
https://communityimpact.com/austin/c...e-than-austin/

Here's some more good coverage:

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/05...rowing-cities/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #274  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 7:35 AM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia
Posts: 3,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
Playing with numbers again?
Are you looking at CSA or MSA population data?
City limits.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #275  
Old Posted May 25, 2017, 8:03 AM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
A nice door
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: In a low-rise
Posts: 4,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
Playing with numbers again?
Are you looking at CSA or MSA population data?
The Census Bureau released city numbers at midnight, and that prompted a discussion about city population - not MSA or CSA.
__________________
Austin on Urban Planet:
http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/forum/215-austin/
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:56 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.