State of Metropolitan America: Benchmarking Austin Metro Area with New Tool

Comparing metro regions has gotten a little bit easier with the Brookings Institution’s State of Metropolitan America report and accompanying interactive indicator map.

Released in early May, the indicator map brings together a range of data including Population, Demographics, Immigration, Educational Attainment, Work, Commuting Patterns, and Income & Poverty all accessible with only a few clicks of the mouse. Each of the subject areas include a range of indicators that are displayed using graduated symbols grouping the data by both percent and numeric value, depending on the setting. The data is also readily available as a table and downloadable as a .csv file.

The metro areas map includes the indicators for the 100 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas in the nation, including six in Texas: Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Houston-Sugarland-Baytown, San Antonio, Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, El Paso, and McAllen-Edinburg-Mission. There is also a map setting to examine the data for selected cities, suburbs, and states. Here is an example of the map interface.

(Click image for larger)


Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos MSA is ranked 1st of the 100 largest metro regions in the percentage of workers that work at home (6.2%). This probably is not a surprise to many who have examined Austin's Creative and Entrepreneurial Culture.

I took a few minutes to play with this tool to see how the Austin metro region stands in a few other interesting indicators. All of these data come from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey 2008 estimates and benchmarked against the 100 metro regions in the Brookings report.

Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX ranks

• Third for highest percentage of the total population that has moved within the last year at 22.3%. This includes migration into the region and those relocating within the region.
• Third highest percentage of the total population that is of working age (defined as 18-64) at 66.3%.
• Eighth highest in percentage of the White population with a high school diploma (95.3%), but only fifty-first for percent of the Hispanic population with a high school diploma (64.2%).
• Eighth highest percentage of the total population with a bachelor's degree at 38.2%.
• Tenth in wage-equality by gender with a male to female ratio of 1.12.
• Ranks near the bottom (84th) in median hourly wage earnings for people with less than a High School degree at $10.18.
• Sixth highest in percentage of total jobs in professional, scientific, and management industries at 14.6%.
• Highest median household income of the six metro regions in Texas that are profiled in the tool. Twenty-Eighth highest in U.S. at $59,400.

And,

• Ninth highest in percentage of workers carpooling to work at 13.2%.

Chris Ramser

Final Participation Rates Released for First Phase of Census

The Census Bureau has released the final Census 2010 participation rates from the mail-out mail-back operation, the first phase of the data collection. On Saturday, Census takers will begin the next phase, non-response follow-up, which includes visiting those addresses that did not respond to the Census forms.

To view more about the final participation rates, visit this posting on the Census coordination blog.

Chris Ramser

National Survey of Household and Small Business Hazardous Waste Collections

Small businesses that generate hazardous waste can be classified as Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators (CESQG) if they produce less than 100 kilograms per month of hazardous materials. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allows collection of these materials through Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) collection programs, as many of the materials are similar or identical to materials already being collected from households. However, the EPA defers to the states on the regulation of this activity, and some states do not allow collection of CESQG material through HHW programs. To gain more information on this issue, the Lone Star Chapter of the North American Hazardous Materials Management Association (NAHMMA) conducted a survey of Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) collection programs nationwide. The purpose of the survey was to determine how many states allow the collection of Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG) waste through HHW programs, and to assess the pros and cons of CESQG collection via HHW programs.

(Click image for larger map)

The survey results show that 31 of 50 states, or 62% of states, do allow collection of CESQG through HHW programs. In states allowing such activities, primary reasons given for doing so were to provide a cost-effective disposal option to small businesses, to protect the environment through prevention of illegal dumping, and to mitigate the costs of providing HHW collection to citizens. The primary drawbacks to CESQG collection through HHW programs were a reluctance to accept and handle payments, need for increased capacity and training, and potential for increased liability. Because CESQG collection is not mandatory even in states where it is allowed, the majority, if not all potential drawbacks are avoided by allowing each HHW facility to elect not to collect CESQG materials if they did not wish to do so. The North American Hazardous Materials Management Association (NAHMMA) has recognized that significant environmental, financial and programmatic benefits can be realized by collecting CESQG waste through HHW programs. NAHMMA recommends that states not currently allowing these activities consider reviewing their current policies and regulatory structure. NAHMMA members are available to speak to the benefits and to provide examples of successful collection program options.

Pros of CESQG Collection Via HHW Programs

• Cost-effective disposal option for small businesses
• Protection of the environment
• Prevention of illegal dumping
• Reduces the cost burden of HHW disposal
• Existing resources used to handle greater volume
• Ability to assist with school laboratory cleanouts

Cons of CESQG Collection Via HHW Programs

• Need for increased capacity
• Inability/lack of desire to handle financial transactions
• Need for more training
• Potential for increased liability

To read the complete report which has been endorsed by the North American Hazardous Materials Management Association and the Environmental Quality Company, Click here.

Updated Census 2010 Participation Rate Data

For updated Census 2010 participation rates taken from March 30th for Capital Area cities, counties, and all cities over 50,000 in Texas, see this posting from the Census Coordination Blog.

Chris Ramser

So how good are Population Projections?

If you are using population projections that are publicly available, chances are you’re using the Texas State Data Center (TXSDC) as your resource. They’ve got several projection scenarios available and other planning organizations like the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization utilized a modified version of two of their scenarios for the 2035 transportation plan.

How do the estimates compare to the projections? Well, the Census Bureau released population estimates yesterday for counties and if you compare those numbers to the projection made by TXSDC using the Scenario 3.0, then that projection was off only 2.1%.

So what does that mean, are we growing 2.1% faster than we were from 2000-2007?

Maybe, but the Census Bureau and the TXSDC use slightly different methodologies that could attribute for some of the difference. But, still 2.1% is pretty good, I think.

Here’s a look at this data for CAPCOG counties:

(click image for larger)

Hays, Caldwell, and Williamson are pretty much dead on. The rural areas seem not as accurate, but I think that might be due more to the methodological differences.

So what will we look like in 10 years based on those projections. Population for the region would be 2.37 million, which is over 550K more than current population estimates.

(Click image for larger)


Of course all this assumes the population estimates are accurate. I guess we’ll have to wait until the Census 2010 data is released in April 2011 to see how we really measure up.

Chris Ramser

Tracking Census 2010 Participation Rates while the Census is being conducted

Yes that's right, it is being done! Check out this posting from our Census coordination blog.

Here's a few highlights from that post.

The current national participation rate stands at 16% as of March 23rd. Here's what the rate looks like for Capital Area counties versus the Census 2000 rate.

And here are the Top 10 cities in the Capital Area region.

For all cities in the region, see this spreadsheet. We'll probably look at this again in the next coming weeks.

Data from the Census Bureau's Take 10 Map, http://2010.census.gov/2010census/take10map/

Chris Ramser

Reducing Illegal Dumping- Are Signs Effective?

Many communities struggle with the challenge of illegal dumping and the best way to address the issue. Within the CAPCOG region, there is a Regional Environmental Task Force (RETF) which is a multi-jurisdictional law enforcement effort formed to address the problems associated with illegal dumping and other environmental crimes.

The Chair of this Task Force, Sidney Parker of Travis County, has been gathering some data over the last couple of years regarding the effectiveness of No Dumping Signs. With limited funding and manpower, No Dumping Signs can be a low cost way to address this challenge – but are the signs effective?

According to Sidney’s data, the answer is yes, but only if the signs are used appropriately.

First of all, the most effective signs have the following characteristics:

- Made of metal
- Large size
- In English and Spanish
- Are placed strategically

Here are the signs that the CAPCOG region is now using:



An important note about the placement – Sidney has found that placing a sign ONLY at the problem dump site is not effective. Most likely, the dumper has already made their decision by this point, so the sign does not serve as a deterrent. On the other hand, if signs are placed at entry points along the way to the dump site - as well as at the dump site - the signs are much more effective.

Sidney’s theory is that this placement adds more psychological value to the signs – potential dumpers see the message over and over, not only when they are going to dump, but regularly along their normal driving routes.

Do the signs actually reduce instances of illegal dumping?

Here is a chart that shows, as an example, five dump sites tracked over a year and a half. For these five sites, dumping was reduced by 100 instances or 68%.

(Click image for larger version)


What does this mean regarding costs for a County?

One sign costs about $276 when the cost of the sign and the labor to install is included (this cost includes about $26 for the sign and post and about $250 in labor which includes employee’s time, travel, and insurance). It is estimated to cost about $500 for the County to clean up one illegal dumping instance. So if we look at these same five sites as an example, the County saved about $53,000 over the year and half by installing the No Dumping signs.

(Click image for larger version)


It is impossible to quantify exactly how much of this reduction can be attributed to the signs alone as opposed to other contributing factors, but we do know that sites with signs do see a decrease in dumping.

Of course, signs alone will not solve the problem of illegal dumping. But, if done right, they can be a low cost way to have an effect on a problem that plagues many communities.

Ashley Fisher