SA and Austin look to cash in on megaregion game plan

[DCReid]

[Paywalled and I don't have access]

I-35 CORRIDOR LOOKS TO MAKE A LEAP -

Do San Antonio and Austin have the time, money and patience to work in tandem to lure companies and jobs to an emerging megaregion? As the cities take a tag team approach, some leaders point to a different road to riches to the south...


https://www.bizjournals.com/sananton...egaregion.html

[C.]

30 years, I bet it becomes like DFW metroplex.

[Steely Dan]

Downtown to downtown, as the crow flies.


Dallas to Fort Worth: 31 miles

Similar to DC to Baltimore



Austin to San Antonio: 74 miles

Similar to NYC to philly

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by C.

30 years, I bet it becomes like DFW metroplex.

Dallas and Fort Worth are 32 miles away; San Antonio and Austin are 79 miles. They're more like New York and Philadelphia, with 92 miles.

And of course, growth rates, even in Texas, will be lower and lower every passing decade. On the most optimistic estimates, San Antonio+Austin will be just above 8 million within 30 years. New York+ Philadelphia are 30 million today.

[C.]

But doesn’t the Census base CMA on commuting patterns? I’m sure there are plenty of trips between these two cities?

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by C.

But doesn’t the Census base CMA on commuting patterns? I’m sure there are plenty of trips between these two cities?

I know people who commute between Milwaukee and Chicago (92 miles), but that doesn't make them the same metro area.

[The ATX]

That is a rather long article for the Business Journal. It's from the S.A. Business Journal and looks at ways of improving economic strategies for S.A. It's not really hyping an Austin & S.A. mega region. It also suggests that S.A. may better off collaborating with South Texas cities like Corpus Christi and border cities like Laredo.

[N90]

Originally Posted by The ATX

That is a rather long article for the Business Journal. It's from the S.A. Business Journal and looks at ways of improving economic strategies for S.A. It's not really hyping an Austin & S.A. mega region. It also suggests that S.A. may better off collaborating with South Texas cities like Corpus Christi and border cities like Laredo.

To me it’s not the article but the people that make threads on forums like this. These cities are close and the metros are adjacent to each other but their cultures and for the most part their intermixing is still separate and limited.

Originally Posted by dave8721

The area between Orlando and Tampa is more built up as well and is pretty much constant suburbia between the 2. Plus it seems Austin expands to the north more than it is expanding to the south.

It used to be that Austin expanded more aggressively north but the last 14 years it’s been about even between its expansion north and south. There are years where Hays County, just south of Austin is the fastest growing county in America, for example.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by C.

But doesn’t the Census base CMA on commuting patterns? I’m sure there are plenty of trips between these two cities?

Yes, but why should we assume commute between those two cities are higher than any other pair of cities at same distance range.

[C.]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Yes, but why should we assume commute between those two cities are higher than any other pair of cities at same distance range.

All I’m saying is that the Office of Management and Budget and the Census have a formula for determining MSAs. It’s not based on emotions or distinctness of the two cities. I’m thinking it’s likely that at some time the Federal Government may combine the two areas of that criteria is met.

I feeling Orlando and Tampa still have a long way to go, but with the possible bright line extension and 50 years of rapid population growth, Iser that as a possibility too.

[N90]

Bro why do people from outside of Texas constantly always push this Austin & San Antonio combined metro thing?

They are two separate metro areas that just so happen to be close to each other. Like why don’t people do this with Orlando & Tampa, which are about the same distance apart as Austin & San Antonio.

As someone that lives in Austin, I hope they’re never officially merged into the same metro. The identity of these two cities are as different as they can be and that’s a good thing.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by N90

Bro why do people from outside of Texas constantly always push this Austin & San Antonio combined metro thing?

They are two separate metro areas that just so happen to be close to each other. Like why don’t people do this with Orlando & Tampa, which are about the same distance apart as Austin & San Antonio.

As someone that lives in Austin, I hope they’re never officially merged into the same metro. The identity of these two cities are as different as they can be and that’s a good thing.

The area between Orlando and Tampa is more built up as well and is pretty much constant suburbia between the 2. Plus it seems Austin expands to the north more than it is expanding to the south.

[bilbao58]

Originally Posted by N90

Bro why do people from outside of Texas constantly always push this Austin & San Antonio combined metro thing?

They're trying to exacerbate the already heated Breakfast Taco War.

[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.

[Lobotomizer]

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.

Florida is growing, but I'm not sure how it's lesser growth could be considered more impressive than the growth in Texas.

Virtually all of Texas' growth is in it's four major metros. DFW added 150,000 on it's own, and is now racing toward 10,000,000 megacity status. Houston is not too far behind. Austin and San Antonio both continue to be among the nation's fastest growing as well.

[ATXboom]

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.

A donut without a hole is a danish
A glove with no fingers is a mitten

[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.

[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.