TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Bureau of Business Research • The University of Texas at Austin TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW VOL. XLVII, NO. 6, JUNE 1973 Editor, Robert H. Ryan Managing Editor, Kathleen Luft Editorial Board: Robert H. Ryan, Chairman; Stanley A. Arbingast; John R. Stockton; Francis B. May; Robert B. Williamson· Kathleen Luft. ' CONTENTS ARTICLES 121: The Business Situation in Texas, by Francis B. May 1 25: Texas Population in 1970: 7. Patterns of Population Distribution, by Robert K. Holz 130: Texans and the Metric System, by J. Bryan Adair I 34 : The Energy Economy: Energy in Perspective, by Robert M. Lockwood 136: Texas Construction: New Towns for Texas, by Connie Cone TABLES 122: Selected Barometers of Texas Business 123 : Business-Activity Indexes for Twenty Selected Texas Cities 128: Major and Minor Population Regions in Texas 129: Indexes of Consumer Prices, U.S. and Houston, Texas 131 : Estimated Costs of Metrication to Texas Industries 133: Summary of Cost Estimates to the Texas Consumer 134: Estimated Total and Per Capita Consumption of Primary Energy , World, by Type, Selected Years, 1770-1970 I 34: Estimated Consumption of Primary Energy, World, by Source, Selected Years, 1770-1970 13 5: The Rise of the Major Sources of Primary Energy and Their Principal Applications 13('): Possible Range of Historical Consumption of Primary Energy, World, through About 1970 137 : Estimated Values of Building Authorized in Texas 138: Population and Land Uses in Texas' New Towns 139: Local Business Conditions Barometers of Texas Business (inside back cover) CHARTS 12 1: Texas Business Activity 122: Crude-Oil Production, Texas 122 : Crude-Oil Runs to Stills, Texas 123: Average Weekly Earnings, Manufacturing Industries, Texas 123: Average Workweek, Manufacturing Industries, Texas I 24: Estimated Personal Income, Texas I 24 : Bank Debits, Texas 124: Total Building Authorized, Texas 132: A Conceptual Display of How Texans Might Benefit from a Nationally Coordinated Metrication Plan 138 : Residential Building Authorized, Texas MAP 127: Population Distribution in Texas, 1970 Puhlished monthly hy the Bureau of Business Research, Graduate School of Business. The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712. Second-class postage paid at Austin, Texas. Content of this puhlication is not u>pyrighted an<.I may he repro<.luced freely, hut acknowll'll~mt..·nt of source w ill he appreciated. The views expressed h~· authors are not nert•ssar il y those of the Bureau of Business Rl'sl'arch. Suhsniption. $4.00 a year: in <.lividual copies 35 cents. BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH Business Research Council: Vernon M. Briggs, James R. Bright, Robert T. Green, Darwin D. Klingman, George Kozmetsky, George M. Scott, Lee A. Tavis Director: Stanley A. Arbingast Assistant Directors: Florence Escott, David L. Karney Statistician: John R. Stockton Consulting Statistician: Francis B. May Cooperating Faculty: C. P. Blair, Charles T. Clark, Law­ rence L. Crum, Clark C. Gill, Gary L. Holstrum, Robert K. Holz, Lorrin G. Kennamer, H. K. Snell, Jerry Todd, Ernest W. Walker, Robert B. Williamson Administrative Assistant: Margaret Robb Energy Specialist and Coordinator of Radio Programs: Robert M. Lockwood Transportation Specialist: Charles P. Zlatkovich Coordinator of Special Projects and of Television Pro­grams: Robert H. Ryan Research Associates: J. Bryan Adair, Charles Adams, Connie Cone, Christine Fox, Ida M. Lambeth, Kathleen Luft, Eugene Robinson, Thomas A. Taylor, Barbara Terrell, James S. Wilson Computer Programmer: Marilyn Turnbull Statistical Associate: Mildred Anderson Statistical Assistant: Constance Cooledge Statistical Technician: Kay Davis Cartographers: James Buchanan, Alice Lo Librarian: Merle Danz Administrative Clerks: Armour Goodman, Maureen Meehan Senior Secretaries: Jennifer Brewster, Clintsy Sturgill Senior Clerk Typists: Susan Cox, Geraldine Edwards, Agnes Marie Sullivan Senior Clerks: Robert Jenkins, Salvador B. Macias Printing Coordinator: Daniel P. Rosas Print Shop Foreman: Robert L. Dorsett COVER DESIGN BY MARY LANGRIDGE Reprints of feature articles are available from the Bureau at ten cents each. A · tion The Bureau of Business Research is a member of the ssoc1a for University Business and Economic Research. US ISSN 0040-4209 THE BUSINESS SITUATION IN TEXAS Francis April saw a continuation of the steady but unspectacular rise in estimated personal income in Texas which began after the February dip in the index. At 165.9 percent of its 1967 base value, the index of personal income was I percent above its March level. The average value of the index for the first four months of this year is 7 percent above the value for the January-April period of 1972. Continued growth in economic activity is reflected also in the overall index of Texas business activity, which rose I percent over the level for March to 172.6 percent of its 1967 base. The January-April average of this index was 8 percent above the average for the corresponding period of 197 2, and the gain reflects widespread improvement in Texas regional indexes. All but one of the indexes of business activity fo r twenty Texas cities show rises over January-April 1972 level. Austin, usually a stellar performer, registered a I-percent decline from its high level during the first four months of last year. This decline is not evidence of weakening economic forces in the state's capital, but rather a statistical anomaly resulting from an unusual upsurge of the Austin index to an unprecedented peak of 246.2 percent in January 1972, the highest value in the history of the indicator of Austin business activity. If the January value is excluded, the Austin index in 19 73 has exceeded the 1972 period in every month, averaging 2.3 percent above February-April 1972. The other nineteen Texas cities show gains for the first four months ranging from 1 percent for Wichita Falls to 20 percent for Corsicana. The state's largest cities had four­month gains in business activity of 10 percent for Houston and 6 percent each for Dallas, Fort Worth, and San Antonio. Inspection of the chart of Texas business activity shows that the index has been rising less rapidly since reaching an B. May all-time peak of 181. 2 percent of its 196 7 base in November 1972. Between December 1972 and April of this year the index has fluctuated between 175. 1 percent and 167.6 percent of its base value. At times in the past the index has behaved in a similar fashion, fluctuating within a relatively narrow range of values. These periods of hesita­tion have frequently been followed by an upward surge to new high values. This may well be the case during the latter part of 1973, despite concern in some quarters that the boom may have peaked and that business conditions may be poorer during the latter part of the year. The current cyclical upswing has been underway since November 1970, a period of 29 months. Since the end of World War II the average length of a cyclical upswing has been 49 months. One upswing-from April 1958 to May 1960-lasted only 25 months. The longest, February 196 I-November 1969, lasted I 05 months. The current upswing should continue for many more months unless it is cut off by monetary stringency intended to reduce the rate of inflation. At this time such a credit shortage does not seem probable. Crude-petroleum production in the state in April was unchanged from its March level of 114.6 percent of the 196 7 base value. With Texas oil wells producing at maximum capacity, little improvement in this index is to be expected. There is no spare crude petroleum-producing capacity in this country, but demand for crude petroleum continues to climb. The difference between supply and demand is being made up by crude-oil imports, which averaged 2,770,000 barrels daily in February, up 33.1 percent over the average of 2,081,000 barrels imported daily in February 1972. This rapid increase in imports is adding to the nation's balance of payments difficulties which have forced two devaluations of the dollar during the past two years. If demand for crude petroleum continues to increase at current rates, the United States will be spending about $30 billion a year for imports from the Middle East by the middle of the next decade. The implications for our balance of payments position are extremely serious. The need for Alaskan oil and for an expanded exploration and drilling program in this country is obvious. Proposed alternatives to oil and natural gas which are environ­mentally clean will require years to develop. Yet Americans cannot wait for these new energy sources to become available: the energy crisis is here and now. Offshore drilling in proved areas must be accelerated. New, promising areas must be tested without further delay. April crude-oil runs to stills were down 2 percent from March. Average runs to stills for the first four months of this year were 6 percent above the January-April 19 72 period. Texas has a total refinery capacity of 3,235 ,000 barrels of crude petroleum a day, 27.2 percent of total U.S. refining capacity. Exxon has announced plans to add 250,000 barrels a day of capacity at its big Baytown refinery, which, with a total capacity of 600,000 barrels a day, will become the world's second largest. Creole Petro­leu rn has a refinery at Amuay Bay, Venezuela, which can process 630,000 barrels a day. Other U.S. refiners are contemplating expansions of existing refineries and construction of new ones which will go far toward relieving the current shortage of refining SELECTED BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS (Indexes-Adjusted for seasonal variation-1967=100) Percent change Index Apr 1973 Mar 1973 Year-to­date average 19 73 Apr 1973 fro m Mar 19 73 Year-to­date average 197 3 from 1972 Estimated personal 16 5. 9p 164.4pincome 163.6 7 Business ac tivity 172. 6 17 1.1 171 .6 8 Crude-pet roleum 114.6p I 14.6pproduction 115.1 ** 4 Crude-oil runs to stills 121.2 123.9 120.9 2 6 Total electric-power 157.0p 159.9Puse 160.6 2 7 Industrial electric- power use 153.0p 142.5p 145.4 7 5 Bank debits 225.6 221.9 2 19.5 2 18 Urban build ing permits issued 175.4 232.0 192.5 - 2 4 5 New residential 187. 1 2 13. 1 21 1.9 - 12 4 New nonresiden tial (unadjusted) 159.4 264.8 179.9 - 40 Total industrial production 137.2p 135.3p 135.1 6 Total nonfarm em­ ployment 123.5p 123.4p 123.2 ** Manufacturing em­ ployment 114.7p 115.2p 115.2 ** 5 Total unemployment 130.0 129.6 130.3 ** - 15 Insured unemployment 143.7 141.8 136.7 - 19 Average weekly earn- ings-manufacturing 136.6p 13 5.4p 133.S Average weekly hours­ 99 .7pmanufacturing 99.3p 97.9 ** p Preliminary. ** Change is less than one half of 1 percent. 250 CRUDE-OIL PRODUCTION, TEXAS Index Adiusted for Seosonol Voriotion-1967=100 200 150 , ~-J"I'-"-.... .Ir-"-!"-­ A.. - 100 - ~ ~ 50 0 196• 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 !173 250 200 CRUDE-OIL RUNS TO STILLS, TEXAS Index Adiusted for Seasonal Vo riotion-1967=100 150 100 - -·· ....,..._to. ...... ' ... 50 196• 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 capacity, provided environmental objections do not unduly delay construction. Currently the annual increase in de­mand for refining capacity is 1,000,000 barrels a day. Increases in imports of refined products have not been large enough to alleviate shortages of fuel oil last winter and gasoline this summer. During the first four months of this year, imports of residual fuel oil, which is used as industrial boiler fuel , were 15.6 percent above the January-April 1972 period. Imports of other refined products, which include gasoline and light fuel oils suitable for home heating, were up 20.8 percent for the same period. Total electric-power use in Texas declined 2 percent in April. For January-April it was 7 percent above the level for the first four months of 1972. Industrial power consump­tion for the four-month period was up 5 percent over thal for the comparable period of last year. April total electric­power consumption was 157 percent of average con­sumption in 1967, a 57-percent increase in five and one third years. Currently, Texas power plants rely upon fossil fuels as their basic energy source. Fuel oil, lignite, and natural gas cannot be relied upon to sustain this high growth rate. In the future, atomic power probably will provide energy for electric utilities in those sections of the state which lack extensive, economically recoverable lignite supplies. Total urban building permits issued in the state declinnl 24 percent in April. The drop was the result of decreases in the value of both residential and nonresidential permits issu ed. For the January-April period, the value of total permits was 5 percent above that for the first four months of last year. For the same period, residential permits were up 4 percent and nonresidential permits were up 5 percent. Nationally, the value of building permits dropped to a two-year low in April. Despite that drop, residential TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 200 150 t­ 100 50 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 AVERAGE WORKWEEK MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES, TEXAS 110 Index Ad1usled lor Seasonal Yoriotion-1967=100 ---+-------i---+----< 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 building is expected to continue at reasonable levels for the balance of the year. Housing commitments totaled $ 14.5 billion at the end of March. The April drop in permits was due in part to bad weather in some parts of the country. The federal moratorium on subsidized housing and rising land costs contributed to the decline. Inflation in costs of materials has contributed to the shift from detached single-family residences to town houses. condominiums. and mobile ho mes. which have a smaller unit cost than ddached single-family homes. Manufacturers' shipments of mobile homes reached a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 642.000 units in February. the lat<.'st month for which data are available. This was an 11.7-percent increase over the February 19 7 2 rak of mobile home shipments. The mobile home industry is occupying an increasingly important position in the ho me-building industry. As the cost of housing rises. new methods of financing must be found. The home-building industry cannot be left at the mercy of monetary poliL·ies designed to retard inflation, policies which haw in the past caUSL'd severe del'lines in the ho me-building industry. The credit crunches of 1965-19(16 and 1968-1070 had a major impact on the housing industry. ot only were interest rates high. hut credit was extn.:1m'ly diffintlt to obtain. The Committee for h:onomic Develo pment has proposed that variable rate mortgages be used to make the housing sector less vulnerable to swings in the economy. Interest rates on the mortgages would fluctuate with changing conditions in the money markets. Mortgage payments would remain the same each month but the term of thL' mortgage would be lengthened to give effect to inncased interest rates or reduced when interest rates delline. .-\!lowing mo rtgage intcrL'Sl rates to vary would incT<'ase their attractiveness as long-term investment in thL' fac·e L)f long-term uncertainties about the kvel of inll'rcst ratL'S. This would increase the !low of funds into thL' home-building industry. April nonfarm employ ment rosL' o nly a fraction o f a percentage po int over the ~larch level. There were 4.018.700 Texans engaged in nonfarm employment in April. This was a 4.3-percent innL'ase over the total for April 1972. a substantial gain. Manufacturing employed 7<>2.200 wo rkers in April. up 4 percent over April 197 2 figures. Durable-goods employ­ment made strong gains. rising<> pen-.: nt a hove tht' Ie1·L' I for April of last year to a total of 416.400. Among the categories o f durable-goods industries that had strong gains over levels in April 197 2 were primary metal industries, +6 percent: fabricated metal products. +6 percent; oil-field machinery. +12 percent: electrical machinery. +8 percent: and instrument manufacture. + 14 percent. Employment in the manufacture of nondur:.ibk goods rose I percent. increasing to 345.800 in April from 34 1.500 in April 197 2. Gains of 3 percent each in employment in four categories-bakery products. apparel. paper and allied products. and printing and publishing..-an 8-percent gain in brewing. and a 4-percent gain in the manufacture of leather goods were partially offset by dedines in other nondurable­goods employment. A 6-percent del'line in the petrolcum­refining industry and a 3-percent decline in employment in making industrial chemicals held to tal employment in the manufacture of nondurables to its small gain. Contract construction, a highly cyl'lical industry. was an outstanding performer. rising 9 percent over the level in April of last year to a total employment of 268,500 workers. Although public utilities are capital-intensive industries. requiring relatively small labor inputs in relation to their total investment. expansion in several sectors of the utilities industry was rapid enough to cause gains in April employ­ment over the level in April of last year. Both communica- BUSI ESS-ACTIVlTY INDEXES FOR TWENTY SELECTED TEXAS CITIES (Adjusted for seasonal variation-I 967= 100) Percent change Year-to- Apr date Year-to 1973 average date from 1973 Apr Mar average Mar from City 1973 1973 1973 1973 1972 Abilene 125.7 132.2 129.8 5 JO Amarillo I 57.4 170.9 I 59.2 8 18 Austin 221.6 209.5 218.6 6 I Beaumont I OJ. I 105.6 104.4 4 8 Corpus Christi 167.6 152.4 159.2 JO 3 Corsicana 143.J 131.0 139.8 9 20 Dallas 183.3 176.6 178.8 4 6 Et Paso 160.9 I 53.1 160.0 JO Fort Worth 157.7 l 58. 7 I 59.5 6 Galveston 124.J 130.2 127.8 5 JO Houston 176. 5 180.6 179.6 2 10 Laredo 160.J 170.7 165.3 6 11 Lubbock 173.4 170.4 I 57.1 2 19 Port Arthur 113.2 95.2 I 05.0 19 4 San Angelo I 57.3 I 54. J 163.0 2 7 San Antonio 161.4 157. 5 160.J 2 6 Texarkana 112.0 115.4 116.3 3 2 Tyler Waco 134.2 154. 5 133.3 I 53.8 145.3 160.6 •• 10 11 Wichita Falls 122.3 124.6 123.5 -2 •• Change is less than one half of I percent. 250 I I I I I I I ESTlMATED PERSONAL INCOME, TEXAS Index Adjusted for Seasonal Voriation-1967=100 200 _,.,.,... ,..,. 150 .-..N ~ 1---.-1\ ,...rr"" 100 i..........­ ~ ~ 50 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 SOURCE: Quarterly doto from the Office of Bu si ness Economic s, U.S. Deportment of Commerce; intervening monthly data from the Bureau of Business Research. tions and gas companies and systems had 5-percent in­creases in workers. Electric utilities and systems had a 3-perccnt gain. Wholesale and retail trade are not capital intensive. Increases in husiness activity in these two sectors usually have an immediate impact in terms of employment. Increases in consumer incomes have raised the level of wholesale and retail sales and, consequently, employment. Comhined employment in both wholesale and retail trade rose in April to 984,500 from 940,000 in April 1972 (+5 percent). Employment gains were particularly good for sellers of building materials and fa rm equipment (+7 percent). Retailers of general merchandise, food , and clothing increased their employment 6 percent each. Auto dealers increased their employment 5 percent over the April 1972 level. BANK DEBITS, TEXAS Index Adjusted for S•osono/ Voriotion-1967=100 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 The finance, insurance, and real estate sector increased employment in April to 229,200, up 8 percent over the level in April 1972. Banks increased employment 6 percent, lo 55.'>00. Real estate and other financial offices increased their employment 13 percent, lo 93,300. Insurance carriers, agents, and brokers increased employment 3 percent, to 80,000. Service indust ries have experienced strong growth since the rnd of World War 11 as state and natio nal economies have become increasingly service-oriented. That growth is reflected in comparisons of April 1973 figures with those for the same month last yea r. Total employment in all service industries was 672,700 in April (+5 percent). Business and repair services employed 140.300 ( +9 per­cent). Amusement and motion picture theatres increased 124 their employment to 33,600 (+8 percent). Employment in medical and health services was up 5 percent, to 178,200. Government employment in April for federal, state, and local governmental agencies totaled 734,600 in April, up 3 percent over April l 972 figures. Federal government employment, at 16 1,800, was virtually unchanged from that in .April of last year. State employment , at 149, 100, was up 3 percent. Local government, the largest of the three employers, had 423 ,700 workers on the payroll in April, up 4 percent over the level in April 1972. With employment at high levels in the state, unemploy­ment was at low levels. During the first four months of this year the index of total unemployment averaged 15 percent below the January-April 1972 level. Insured unemployment was down 19 percent. In the twenty-three labor-market areas for which the Texas Employment Commission col­lects employment data, unemployment was generally low. Lubbock had the lowest percentage of unemployment ( 1.7 percent). Austin was next lowest, with 1.8 percent unem­ployment. Dallas was third lowest, with 1.9 percent unemployment. Fort Worth had 3 percent, Houston 2.5 percent, and San Antonio 2.9 percent unemployment. Average weekly earnings during the first four months of the year were 5 percent above earnings for the like 197 2 period. The increase was due to higher hourly pay, because average hours worked per week declined I percent below the average fo r January-April 1972. The entire picture of Texas business is at present one of general prosperity. There are problems to be solved, but the American people have a reputation for successfully solving problems. If a recession occurs during the latter part of this year or early next year, the history of recessions since World War II suggests that it will be mild and of no more than one year's duration. TOTAL BUILDING AUTHORIZED, TEXAS Index Adius,ed for Seosonol Vorialion-1967=100 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 Includes additions, alterations, and repairs . The nonresidential co mponent i.t not seasonally adjusted. During the first century of the modern petroleum industry in the United States (I 8 59-195 8), one of every four holes, three of every ten dry holes, and one of every three feet drilled in search of oil and gas were drilled in Texas. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW TEXAS POPULATION IN 1970: * 7. PATTERNS OF POPULATION DISTRIBUTION Robert K. Holz** Introduction Geographers and demographers have long been inter­ested in studying the distribution of human populations, and in making maps that accurately portray that distribu­tion. Cartographers believe that the dot map may be the best method of showing population disposition, because individual dots designating small units of population can be placed to indicate the exact geographical location of the population they represent. When a relatively small population is being mapped at large scale, it is theoretically possible to locate each person precisely, with a single dot. I The ratio of dots (symbols) to population would then be 1: 1. Use of that ratio, however, for the Texas population-11 ,196,730 persons in 1970­would require so many dots that preparation of a map would not be feasible. At small scale, East and Central Texas would merge into a solid area of black ink. Rarely is human population distributed uniformly over the surface of the earth. This is true even for small rural areas, and the distribution is skewed still more unevenly by highly concentrated urban populations. Since most popula­tion maps are drafted at small scale to show the location of very large populations, it usually is necessary to make the unit value of the dot greater than one, that is, the symbol-to-population ratio increases from 1: I. On the accompanying map of Texas population distribution, each small dot represents 100 people, a ratio of 1: 100. This smaller ratio creates another problem for the cartographer­positioning the point symbols on the map so that the different units of population are represented accurately. People do not live in Texas in mathematically discrete units of 100. How this problem was solved in preparing the map will be discussed below. Increasing the ratio of symbol to population does not solve all drafting problems. Large concentrations of people in urban areas contrast sharply with sparser and more evenly distributed rural populations. During the early experimental drafting process. dots began to accumulate disproportionately around major cities such as Dallas and Houston. Eventually these areas turned completely black, and individual dots were obscured. The urban areas became large spots of black ink-by no means a visually acceptable *This article is the seventh in a series entitled Texas Population in 1970 by members of the staff of the Population Research Center at The University of Texas at Austin. The articles are appearing intermittently in the Texas Business Review. **Dr. Holz is an associate professor of geography; acting chairman, Department of Geography: and a faculty research affiliate of the Population Research Cenkr. The University of Texas at Austin. method of showing how population is distributed. Ob­viously another technique was needed to symbolize the population of these urban population concentrations. The technique employed here is graduated map symbols. that is, symbols of different sizes which are deliberately selected to indicate variations in city size. Methods used to select graduated symbols are discussed in the section on method­ology. In the 19 70 Census of Pop11/a rion. population is re­corded in a number of categories: unincorporated places of 1,000 or more: all incorporated hamlets; villages: towns; cities; and counties. In preparation of this map, the county was used as the basic statistical unit. Each county was viewed as a discrete unit, and dots of graduated sizes were used to account for every person reported living in that county at the time of the census enumeration. Actual representation of every person in a county was not possible, because county total population did not always match the numerical values assigned to the map symbols used. Procedures Three main sources of information were used in the preparation of this map: (I) the 19 70 Census of Popula­tion. Texas, Adl'Gnce Report, 2 ( 2) the 1971 "Official State Highway Map" of Texas,3 and l)) Texas county road maps, at a scale of approximately I: 125,000 (I inch=2 miles). The county maps, prepared by the Texas State Highway Department, are redrafted every four to five years. and hence they are highly accurate and relatively current. For this project, the population of each Texas county was mapped separately and the population symbols were placed according to information obtained from the individual, larger-scale county highway maps. The U.S. Bureau of the Census classifies population according to two main types: urha11 and rural. According to the Census Bureau's definition. the urban population is composed of all persons residing in a central place of 2,500 or more. Each urban place of 2.500 or more is recorded in the Census and also shown on the official highway map. For this study, each urban place was located on the 1971 "Official State Highway Map" and assigned an appropriate graduated symbol. (See the map legend for a list of these symbols.) For cities of Jess than 200.000 it was relatively easy to assign graduated dots of increasing size for the larger central places. But six Texas cities-Houston. Dallas, San Antonio, El Paso. Fort Worth. and Austin -are so large they had to be represented differently; graduated circles were used for those cities. The most difficult cartographic problem was mapping the distribution of those people classified as rural (living in noncentral places). Although one of the most highly urbanized states (79.7 percent urban), Texas has 2,275,284 persons considered "rural" by Census classification. The 1970 Census provides figures for all incorporated places in Texas and unincorporated places of 1,000 or more. These places were located on the highway map or on county maps and assigned proper symbols. At that point in the mapping process for an individual county, all urban population had been accounted for, and that portion of the rural population living in incorporated places of less than 2,500 and unincorporated places of 1,000 or more had been mapped. The remaining segment of the rural population-those people living in unincorporated places of less than 1,000 and in isolated individual houses on the rural landscape-was located by information pro­vided by the Texas county maps, which show all central places on the rural landscape. For unincorporated places of less than 1,000, large-scale insets (about I :20,000) showing street plans and individual buildings are reproduced in the margins of the maps. In order to estimate the population of these unincorporated central places, dwelling units were counted, and the house count was multiplied by a factor of 3.5 (the size of the average family) to determine local population. Every third place of business was considered a dwelling unit, because many business buildings also serve as residences in rural Texas. As the next step, the population living in individual houses scattered over the rural country­side was identified. These houses, shown on the Texas county road maps in their proper locations, were counted and multiplied by 3.5. Choice of a symbol-to-population ratio of 1: I 00 for use in mapping rural population was not made capriciously or arbitrarily. Other population maps and the categories of data used on them were carefully examined. Experiments were made with various ratios, arid preliminary mapping was done with a ratio of one dot to 50 persons. That ratio proved unworkable and too large, since counties heavily populated with people classified as rural were obscured when the correct number of dots was added. A smaller, more practicable ratio-I: 100-was selected for use on the final map. This ratio works well in West Texas, where population is thinly distributed and the counties are large. It crowds the symbols in the more heavily populated, smaller, East Texas counties, but the individual dots are still discernible. Locating or positioning the dots for rural areas was a problem. On the basis of an average family size of 3.5, 28.5 rural houses equal a population of I 00 persons. The cartographers counted houses, then located the dot for each population of I 00 as close as possible to the center of that group of 28.5. The dots are positioned as accurately as possible in relation to the actual location of houses on the landscape. Individual inaccuracies are relatively insignificant in view of the total appearance of dots in specific rural areas. For example, in a county that was topographically divided into a well-populated, flat, agriculturally productive section and a ·sparsely populated, hilly area of low agricultural productivity, the dots are positioned in that section of the county where most people live. This procedure works well in Central and West Texas, where counties are large and population is sparse. In East Texas however, the large rural population makes it more difficul; to reflect accurately the distribution within individual counties. Apparent gaps or holes in the population distribu­tion shown on this map indicate areas of lesser population concentration. Chain-like strings of dots occurring on the map, espe­cially in West Texas, present a true picture of settlement which is structured along the Texas state highway grid. The highway system has a strong influence on population distribution in the state, and vice versa, since highways serve people. Thus all urban and rural population was located and mapped with appropriate symbols, and the symbol totals were compared with the total urban-rural population listed by the Census Bureau for each county. When the totals matched, the cartographer moved to the next county and repeated the process. Another issue faced was the problem of rapid suburban growth around large urban places in Texas. In some counties-Potter, Randall (Amarillo); Lubbock (Lubbock); Tarrant, Dallas (Fort Worth, Dallas); Jefferson, Orange, Hardin (Beaumont, Port Arthur, Orange); Harris, Fort Bend, Brazoria (Houston, Galveston); Travis (Austin); and Bexar (San Antonio)-suburbanization posed serious prob· !ems because of its rapid and sometimes unreported growth. This growth represents probably the most serious obstacle to the compilation of an accurate population dot map. Because of the absence of incorporated names for many suburban areas and of maps to indicate their growth, the cartographers for this project were forced to consider 1960-1970 suburban growth an extension of the tendencies recorded in 1960. Suburban growth as indicated on the 1960 county highway maps served as the base data for the emplacement of dots, unless other information was avail· able. Ana lysis Two striking characteristics of Texas population distri· bution are discernible from the map: (I) an abrupt change from dense to sparse population west of the Central Texas area, and (2) a clustering, or nodality, of population in areas which provide economic or social advantages. The East Texas Population Concentration Geographers have long recognized the 1OOth meridian of west longitude as an important dividing line in land-use practices in the United States. West of this line, annual precipitation decreases to less than 20 inches, and unless the land is irrigated, dry-land farming gives way to pastoral activities. The geographic position of the 20-inch isohyet (line of equal rainfall) does not always correspond exactly JUNE 1973 127 MAJOR AND MINOR POPULATION REGIONS IN TEXAS 1 Percent County Percent Population 2 County of state area of state density Region County population population (square miles) area (per square mile) Major 892 Tarrant 716,317 860 Regional total 2,043,638 18.2 1,752 0.65 1,166 Dallas-Fort Worth Dallas l,327,321 Houston-Galveston Brazoria 108,312 l,422 Galveston 169,812 429 Harris l,741,912 l,71 l Regional total 2,020,036 18.04 3,562 l.33 567 l,044 Waco Bexar 830,460 l,247 Comal 24,165 567 Hays 27,642 670 McLennan 147,553 l ,034 Travis 295,516 l ,015 Williamson 37,305 1,126 Regional total l,487, l 24 13.28 6,703 2.5 "221 San Antonio-Austin-Bell 124,483 Minor El Paso El Paso 359,291 3.20 l,054 0.39 340 Lower Rio Grande Cameron 140,368 883 Valley Hidalgo 181,535 l,541 Willacy 15,570 595 Regional total 337,473 3.01 3,019 l.l 2 Ill Beaumont-Port Chambers 12, l 87 617 Arthur Jefferson 244,773 945 Orange 71,170 356 Regional total 328,030 2.92 l ,918 0.71 171 Corpus Christi Nueces 237,544 905 San Patricio 47,288 680 Regional total 284,832 2.5 l,585 0.59 179 Lubbock Lubbock 179,295 l.60 892 0.33 201 Midland-Odessa Ector 91,805 907 Midland 65,433 938 Regional total l 57,238 1.40 l,845 0.69 85 Amarillo Potter 90,5 l l 901 Randall 53,885 911 Regional total 144,396 l.28 l,812 0.67 79 Wichita Wichita 121,862 l.08 612 0.22 199 Grand total 27 counties 7,463,215 66.6 24,754 9.59 301 ~The total state area is 267,338 square miles. In 1970, the average population density for the state was 42.7 per square mile. to that of the 1 OOth meridian. In wet years the isohyet may he farther west, in dry years farther east. The I OOth meridian marks the "average" position, in addition to a sharp drop in population density from east to west. The position of the 20-inch isohyet is less critical in the northern part of the United States-for example, along the Canadian border, where cooler temperatures due to higher latitude and increasing elevation reduce surface evapora­tion. To the south, in Texas, hotter temperatures mean increased surface eva p0ration, and the 20-inch rainfall line becomes critical. In Texas the 98th, not the JOOth, west meridian most closely marks a sharp break in land-use practices and in population density. The JOOth west meridian forms the eastern (north-south) border of the Texas Pan handle, and extension of the line southward to the border with Mexico reveals that the major break in population density occurs farther eastward. The population is much sparser west of a line drawn from a point just west of San Antonio to a point west of Fort Worth-the approximate location of the 98th meridian. Both south and north of San Antonio, the break in population density occurs farther to the east. San Antonio functions as a western node, or extension, of the more densely populated eastern part of the state. East and Central Texas are remarkable for their large and rapidly growing population nodes, but perhaps more interesting are the relative uniformity of rural population distribution in those areas and the evenness in size and spacing of smaller central places. In the area east of a line drawn from San Antonio to Fort Worth and from San TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Antonio to Kingsville are found over 100 of the state's 254 counties and approximately one third of the state's total land area. Nearly 8.5 million persons, over 75 percent of the population, live in this area. Most of these people live in the large urban centers of Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio, but careful examination of the population map reveals the dense, rather even distribution of the rural population of East Texas. Texas Population Clusters In Texas, 11 clusters, nodes, or regions of population concentration are apparent. Each region contains at least 1 percent of the state's population; together they comprise almost two thirds of the Texas population. (See accom­panying table for a list of these regions and their popula­tions.) The state of Texas has an area of 267,338 square miles and a population of 11, 1 96 ,730, or an average density in 1970 of 42. 7 persons per square mile-not a very dense population by either U.S. or world standards. The density of the U.S. population in 1970 was 57.4; that of the world was 63. In the Texas regions of greatest population concentration, the average per square mile ranges from 1,666 at Dallas-Fort Worth to 79 at Amarillo. Even the low figure is significantly above the state average. For all 11 regions combined, the density figure is 301 persons per square mile. (See table.) Three of the population regions are significantly larger than the others; they are called major regions in this study. In descending numerical order they are (1) Dallas-Fort Worth, (2) Houston-Galveston, and (3) San Antonio-Austin­ Waco. The first two regions contain more than 18 percent of the state's population, and the third contains over 13 percent. Together the three regions contain 49.5 percent of the population on just 4.5 percent of the state's total area. Dallas-Fort Worth has the largest population- 2,043,638-and the densest-1,166 persons per square mile. Among the major regions, San Antonio-Austin-Waco has the fewest number of people and the largest area. One peculiar feature of this region is a southwest-northeast vector stretching from San Antonio through Austin to Waco along the Balcones Fault Zone of Central Texas. In this region, the distribution of population is discontinuous; the nodes of very dense population are interspersed with zones of low density. Several nodes are located within the larger major region. The regions established here were organized along county lines. Though population distribution is only slightly influenced by county boundaries, these civil divi­ sions are the statistical reporting units for Census Bureau counts. If population counts for subcounty units had been available, a more adequate population region could have been delineated. Obviously, in heavily populated counties such as Dallas, Tarrant, El Paso, Bexar, and Harris, most of the population lives within the built-up urban areas. But even there, not all open spaces are occupied by residential dwellings. Refinement of these population regions to smaller units would prove that densities are higher than indicated by the figures detailed in this study. It would also shrink the sizes or areas of the eleven regions. For the Future Our final concern is with the residential distribution of the Texas population in the years ahead. Do present trends provide any key to where Texans will live in the future? The answer lies in the patterns evident on the accom­panying map. The " new settlers" on the "Texas frontier" will, to an overwhelming degree, take up residence in the 11 population nodes, and the 3 major nodes will absorb the bulk of this new population. The Gulf Coast regions and the Lower Rio Grande Valley will continue to be attractive places to live, especially for older, retired northerners. The western regions should continue to grow, although more slowly than those to the east. Most of this new population will settle in cities, and the percentage of Texans classified as urban will probably rise above the 79 .7 percent shown by the 1970 Census. Potential for economic growth is greatest in the 27 counties of the 11 population regions, and it will be there that business and industry will continue to concentrate their activities. I In practice, mobility and errors and time delay in data gathering and mapping make it impossible and unnecessary to locate each member of a human population specifically. 2u.s. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census of Population, Texas, Advance Report, PC (UI-45), Final Population Counts, p. 31. 3state of Texas, "Official State Highway Map," 1971. INDEXES OF CONSUMER PRICES U.S. AND HOUSTON, TEXAS (1967=100) Percent change aassification Apr 1973 Apr 1973 from Mar 1973 Apr 1973 from Apr 1972 All items United States 130.7 5 Houston, Texas 130.5 n.a. 5 Food United States 136.5 12 Houston, Texas 137.3 n.a. 11 Housing United States 132.8 ** 4 Houston, Texas 132.9 n.a. 4 Apparel and upkeep United States 125.8 3 Houston, Texas 130.4 n.a. 3 Transportation United States 122.6 3 Houston, Texas 116.2 n.a. 1 Health and recreation United States 129.2 ** 3 Houston, Texas 131. 5 n.a. 3 n.a. Not available. Houston index computed quarterly. * * Change is less than one half of one percent. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. TEXANS AND THE METRIC SYSTEM J. Bryan Adair Texans, through three of their congressmen, may signifi­cantly influence the prohable upcoming conversion to the metric system of measurement in the United States. Three representatives from Texas, Olin E. Teague (6th Congressional District), J. J. (Jake) Pickle (10th District), and Dale Milford (24th District), are members of the Science and Astronautics Committee, which handles all legislation concerning national scientific research and devel­opment, scientific scholarships, the National Science Foun­dation, NASA, the National Bureau of Standards, and all matters relating to outer space or to astronautical research and development. It was the National Bureau of Standards that recently published the U.S. Metric Study, a three-year in-depth survey of the metric system and its potential impact on the United States. Legislation being considered by the com­mittee is largely based on the findings of that study. In fact, during the second session of the 92nd Congress, the Senate passed a measure-by unanimous vote and with no debate­that would make metric measurements mandatory within the federal government in ten years and would encourage voluntary conversion throughout the country during the same time span. However, the action came late in the session and the House never brought the legislation to a vote. Another bill has been introduced into the Senate this year and is being considered by the Commerce Committee. Eleven bills dealing with metrication were introduced in the House between January 3 and March 23, 1973. Four of those bills were coauthored by Texas congressmen, two by Congressman Teague (who is chairman of the committee) and two by Congressman Pickle. Bills promoted by both Texans have conversion to the metric system within ten years as a goal, but the rigor of implementation sought by the bills differs somewhat. One Pickle bill calls for the establishment of a nine-member U.S. Metric Conversion Coordinating Commission and declares that after ten years the international metric system will be the sole official measuring system of this country. The key bill introduced by Congressman Teague also calls for a changeover through a national plan hut sets as a goal to make the metric system only as predominant as possible in the ten-year time span. The Teague bill resembles the legislation considered by the Senate Commerce Committee. Neither hill would outlaw use of the customary stan­dards and 111casurcments with which Americans are familiar. Both hills call for a voluntary changeover, as do most of the other nine bills introduced. The metric system of measurement, officially known as Systeme International d'Unites and commonly abbreviated SI, has six hase measurement units: the unit of length is the meter; the unit of mass is the kilogram; the unit of time is the second ; the unit of electrical current is the ampere; the unit of temperature is the kelvin; and the unit of luminous intensity is the candela, or candle. All other units of measurement, such as speed and volume, are defined in terms of the six base units. This measurement system had its beginnings in France, where it was conceived in 1670 by an abbe, Gabriel Mouton. France, however, did not adopt the system until the French Revolution period of the 1790s. During the following century, about 80 percent of the countries of the world adopted the metric system, leaving the United States and the British Commonwealth countries the primary holdouts. That situation has changed radically in the past few years, particularly with Great Britain's decision to adopt SI in 1965. Today all of the major countries of the world except the United States have officially adopted SI or are in the process of conversion to it. As the interna­tional community moves toward this common language of standards and measurements, the United States remains the only English-speaking nation not officially committed to a given system of measurement. There is little question that adoption of the metric system would enhance our position in world trade markets. The export of measurement-sensitive products is often dependent on domestic supplies of parts and tools in countries to which goods are being exported. With Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and a number of other formerly English-measurement countries now committed to the metric system, closer trading ties can reasonably be expected to develop between those countries and industrial­ized nations presently using SI. A result of the realignment is already observable in Britain's recent entry into the European Economic Community. During the 1962-1969 period, the U.S. share of free­world trade decreased 10.4 percent, even though the absolute volume increased. Of the top six major free-world trading nations, only the four using the metric system for the entire period increased their world market shares, with the United States and Britain experiencing declines. Texas manufacturers perform operations in about 98 percent of all manufacturing Standard Industrial Classifica­tions. Texas produced about 5 percent of all U.S. manu­factured exports in 1969, a decline from 5.4 percent in 1960. Still the state ranks seventh in export of manu­ 1ctured goods, and Texas obviously has a stake in any olicy formulation that might alter the position of the fnited States in the world market. The metrication issue and the decisions made during the next few months could be critical. Texas, with its deep-water seaports, large air terminals, and international border, is in a prime position to take advantage of the overseas market for American-made goods. Even by providing embarkation facilities for the shipment of goods manufactured in inland states, Texas benefits, and any increase in that commerce enhances state revenues. Aside from improvement of the U.S. role in interna­tional trade, numerous other reasons exist for switching to SI. Since metric units are related by submultiples of ten, problems of designation and calculation will be simplified. For example, addition of a series of fractions of inches and conversion of the sum to feet require considerable arithme­tic calculation, but the corresponding operation with metric units requires only addition of decimal units and conversion of the sum to the needed measurement by moving the decimal point (such as cents to dollars: 25. cents = .25 dollars). The simpler terminology and greater flexibility of the metric system make it easier to learn and to use. In fact , much of the time spent on fractions in elementary school could be used in teaching other subjects. Engineering and scientific calculations based on units of ten are faster, simpler, and less expensive to the employer. Basic product research in this country is usually performed by use of metric units, which are customarily converted to English units during product design processes. The switch to SI will eliminate the need for inefficiencies involved in conversion of one measuring system to another as a matter of routine operation. From the point of view of the consumer, metrication has several advantages. Prices of items sold by volume, weight, or count are easier to compare if the monetary and measurement systems both have the same decimal unit base. Further, after SI has become accepted throughout American business and government institutions, savings resulting from increased efficiencies should pass on to the consumer-taxpayer. An established trend toward conversion to metric measurements has been apparent in the United States for some years. Notable conversions have occurred in activities and disciplines that are more or less self-contained. The pharmaceutical industry has discarded its traditional drams, grains, and minims in favor of milligrams, grams, and milliliters. Camera equipment is designed with metric dimensions for compatibility with metric-sized film. Mathe­ matics and science education are largely taught in the metric system in the United States, often to very young children. Manufacturers of antifriction bearings of all types have largely changed to metric designs. Automobile me­ chanics have added metric tools to their toolboxes as the number of cars having metric-dimensioned parts has risen to 20 percent of those on U.S. highways. In fact, some foreign-made parts of metric design are presently being installed in American cars, and General Motors has recently announced plans for a metric changeover. Other items that often appear in metric sizes are snow skis, swimming pools, typewriters, and motorcycles. The increasing usage of SI in U.S. business and industry, the adoption of the metric system in all other major trading nations, and the interest taken by Congress in the past few months indicate that metrication in America is a movement with much momentum. This impression is true, but the movement faces resistance from many quarters. Fully 58 percent of the American public has only the vaguest notion of what the metric system entails. Further, a surprising number of people contend that any metric conversion in the United States would primarily benefit those enterprises dealing in foreign trade, all at the expense and inconve­nience of the American consumer-taxpayer. They often hold that businesses wanting to trade with foreign countries should switch to SI and leave the rest of the country alone. But a policy of isolationism is not feasible, for the United States is inextricably involved in international commerce and politics. Although only a small percentage of our GNP is shipped in world commerce, that percentage is a large portion of total world commerce. Countries historically using the metric system have made heavy inroads on the American share of free-world trade. Numerous problems can be expected along with the changeover to SI in this country, but none of them are insurmountable. SI will be phased in over a ten-year period and the initial changes will be "soft," language-only changes. The general public is reluctant to accept widespread change over a short period of time. Many are reluctant to study a new system that might take time or effort to learn, cost money, or change familiar habits and lifestyles. The 58 percent of the population knowing little or nothing about the metric system is the group most reluctant to change. An intensive government-sponsored education program will be necessary to overcome some of this resistance. On the positive side, many secondary-level students have grown accustomed to the idea of national conversion to SI, a probability suggested to them by science teachers for several decades. ESTIMATED COSTS OF METRICATION TO TEXAS I"IDUSTRIFS Estimated conversion cost Industry SIC groups ($ millions) Agriculture/forestry/ fisheries 0100-0900 7 Mining 1000-1400 14 Construction 1500-1700 7 Ordinance (included with SIC 3500) 1900 "Soft" manufacture 2000-3200 101 Primary metals 3300 20 Fabricated metal products 3400 79 Machinery (except electrical), ordinance 3500,1900 70 Electrical machinery 3600 17 Transportation equipment 3700 47 Instrumen ts 3800 14 Miscellaneous manufacturing 3900 2 Transportation 4000-4700 5 Communication 4800 2 Utilities 4900 6 Wholesale trade 5000-5200 30 Retail trade 5300-5900 22 Finance/insurance/real estate 6000·6700 1 Services 7000-8100,8900 5 Total cost to Texas industry $449 The table shows absolute amounts and does not relate metrication costs to volume of sales or value added. Another stumbling block to conversion is the potential initial cost to ind us try and business. Manufacturing busi­nesses will experience costs for tooling and metering changes as well as for employee training programs. In more measurement-sensitive areas, particularly in businesses oper­ating under Standard Industrial Classifications 1900 and 3300-3800 (see table accompanying this article), changes will be more costly, particularly in the fastener and nonelectric-machinery industries. Costs to nonmanufactur­ing industries will be largely for training employees and for educating customers and clients. Wholesale and retail trade businesses expect significant costs, probably for time spent explaining to and placating customers, dual dimensioning in catalogs, drops in sales because of custo mer resistance to change or lack of customer knowledge, and customer resentment of a new and unfamiliar measurement system apparently being imposed by the business se lling the goods. Some fear exists that repair and maintenance of long-life structures and equipment will become prohibitively expen­sive, if not impossible, within a short time after the changeover. Replacement parts and modernized compo­nents compatible with ships, buildings, and similar products built to English measurements and standards may become scarce soon after conversion. Most products falling into this category, however, are custom-built, one-of-a-kind struc­tures, and improvements and modifications are also custom fitted. In most cases, the basic framework of such struc­tures need not be altered as a direct consequence of the new measurement system; modification would be necessary only at points of modification attachment -changes that would quite likely need to be made even if the system of measurement were a constant. Many business organizations will incur costs as a result of retraining needs and initial inefficiencies resulting from lack of familiarity with SI. Inefficiencies will be particularly noticeable during the changeover period in cases where a mechanic's intuitive feel for a tool size or an engineer's conception of design sizes are important. Functioning of such intuitive processes will be hampered until the worker or designer gains experience with the new system. This kind of problem is a primary concern of many unions, which claim that older workers may " lose experi­ence" when their familiar worker-tool-material relationships are replaced by relationships more easily learned by younger workers. Another union demand is that costs to individual workers for tool replacements of measurement­systcm sensitive tools should he borne by someone other than the individual worker. Many small businesses do not have technical, financial, or managerial resources sufficient to plan their own metric changeover. Further, the small businessman is less likely to he in a position to decide when to go metric; large companies tend to set the pace. Small operators are often dependent on the ready availability of standard parts and supplies. In many business and institutional operations, inven­tories of parts and materials will be duplicated, depending on the mix of metric-nonmetric products being produced or serviced. ~any manufacturers customarily maintaining large inventories and users of long-life machinery and goods should expect costs in this area. The Department of Defense expects a significant expenditure for double­inventory provisions. Most accepted engineering standards will require reevalu­ation, in some cases entailing only conversion of units between systems, but in others involving hardware changes. Screw-thread standardization will be a large part of such a program, but this problem has been under study for some time. The fifty-nine thread sizes in customary usage probably will be replaced with a standard set of twenty-five sizes. Similar industry standardizations have taken place in the past ; bricks and light bulbs are examples. Some observers fear that the expanded cooperation between companies within the same industry as a result of the metrication effort could run afoul of the antitrust laws. It has been suggested that such cooperation, if certain conditions are met, should be immune from antitrust action. During the metric changeover, some operations may hold invisible hazards, particularly when rapid decision making involving measurement calculations is necessary. If a machine operator haqitually thinks in terms of English units, he would quite likely translate metric instructions into his familiar measurement language before acting. The delays involved in translation could be critical in some cases. For example, an aircraft pilot used to thinking in terms of feet of altitude might have to translate meters to feet when analyzing instructions from air traffic controlling agencies. These problems have been outlined not as argument against implementation of the metric system in the United States, but as a suggestion of possible problems the businessman-industrialist might encounter when the change­over is being implemented. The benefits of metrication­and its by-products-are expected to far outweigh the costs. For example, many long-needed standardizations and up­datings of materials, processes, customs, and other inbreed- A CONCEPTUAL DISPLAY OF HOW TEXAS MIGHT BENEFIT FROM A NATIONALL Y COORDINATED METRICATION PLAN a: "' <( ...J ...J 0 0 u. 0 "' z 0 -1 :::; ...J iii -2 -3 CUMULATIVE U.S. is Metric -4 NET COST -5 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 YEARS Adapted from chart in U.S. Me tric Study-A Metric America, p. 100. ings of the American industrial mechanism can be accom­plished at virtually no cost if that cost is allocated to the metric changeover. Most of these outdated but institution­alized tools of American business and industry could not be eliminated economically if approached singly, but would be updated easily in a wholesale housecleaning. If the foreign experience is a reliable indicator, metrica­tion in America will be far less traumatic than many predict. British workers have derived a number of English/ metric relationships that allow the worker to maintain some of the "feel" he had under the English system. For example, 30 centimeters is only slightly shorter than the foot, so construction workers habitually thinking in terms of feet can visualize lengths in terms of multiples of 30 centimeters. Other innovative relationships have been used as devices to help soften the impact of metrication abroad. There is no reason that American workers cannot use similar analogies to simplify the transition to the metric system in this country. Estimation of the advantage of metrication in dollar amounts is difficult, largely because many of the benefits are intangible and are not quantifiable. Measurement of the costs of metrication is also difficult, but many businesses in the United States have experience of partial or complete changeovers. On the basis of that experience, estimates by company and governmental officials not having metric experience, and "educated guesses,'' the U.S. Metric Study made rough estimates of the industrial costs of conversion to SI. Factors derived by the study were applied to Texas industry figures, and this process yielded estimates of costs of metrication to Texas industry (see accompanying table). Manufacturing industries, wholesale and retail trade, and mining are expected to incur greater costs than other categories of industry in Texas. The Joss of export trade experienced by Texas primary metals and machinery industries solely as a result of the presently used measurement system is estimated at over $15 million per year at the present rate. The entire cost of metrication to Texas industry could be covered in less than thirty years by the savings in those two industries alone. Further, metrication will give Texas industry as a whole vast opportunities in foreign trade. The disadvantage in foreign trade will increase in the future unless this country adopts the metric system, particularly since many of our primary trading partners are forming trade alliances with other metric countries. Many Texans are interested in potential costs in other areas, such as costs to the consumer, to education, and to federal government agencies. The ten-year costs to Texas consumers as a direct result of metrication are expected to be about $14 million. A breakdown of the major items is shown in an accompanying table. Education costs are expected to be negligible if the program is extended over the ten-year time span. Most educational materials are replaced one or more times within ten years, and replace­ ments can be updated with metric-language material with­ out additional costs. Teacher education, not a great problem, can be handled in normally scheduled workshop and inservice training sessions for public school teachers. SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATES TO THE TEXAS CONSUMER ($ millions) Self-education $ J.8 Cooking eq uipment 5.1 Sewing equipment I.7 Home shop equipment 5.0 Total $13.6 The Texas portion of costs expected to be incurred by civilian agencies of the federal government amounts to approximately $2.30 per person, or $26 million. This cost is the present value, discounted at 4 percent, of costs expected over the ten-year period. This figure should be thought of as an upper limit. The present value of the portion of the Department of Defense estimate allocated to Texas is $690 million. This estimate is no doubt high, but it is difficult to adjust the figure downward with any intuitive or numerical justification. The costs of metrication along with the expected benefits are depicted in an accompanying diagram showing the cumulative costs over the ten-year implementation period and the benefits over the following several decades. The solid line depicts the cost-time relationship that is expected with a nationally coordinated plant. The dashed line shows the relationship expected if no program is instituted and a laissez faire approach to metrication is taken. There exists little doubt that the nation will adopt the metric system of measurement. It is highly probable that legislation will be forthcoming from the 93rd Congress, and that legislation is expected to propose a ten-year coordi­nated transition program. The ne~ system will feel a number of dampers, but none of the problems appears insurmountable. The businessman should not allow himself to. be caught unaware by implementation; a certain amount of preparedness and forethought as well as timely intro­duction of the system into his own operations should smooth the transition. TEXAS TRADE AND PROFESSION AL ASSOCIATIONS AND OTHER SELECTED ORGANIZATIONS, 1973 This list was compiled to assist in answering the requests of many persons who contact the Bureau of Business Research each year seeking information on various phases of Texas business. It contains names of officers and addresses, as well as data on membership and publications. 41 pp. (Texas residents add$. I 0 tax) $2.00 Bureau of Business Research The University of Texas at Austin THE ENERGY ECONOMY ENERGY IN PERSPECTIVE Robert M. Lockwood In a time of resource crises, public attention is apt to be focused almost exclusively on near-term and medium-run prohlems. Even the distant future usually is given more thought than the entire history, or probable history , of a particular resource. These truths certainly apply to the present preoccupa­tion with energy resources. A brief look at the entire range of energy-materials history may offer some useful perspec­tive from which to scrutinize the present world energy crisis. Man and his fire-making forebears have probably burned the equivalent, in primary energy, of 2-5 trillion (1012) harrels of crude oil. Half to nine tenths of this energy has heen consumed during the past 200 years, the period of the Industrial Revolution. The major fossil fuels-coal, crude oil, and natural gas-have accounted for 20-50 percent of this quantity. The balance has been contributed by hydrau­lic, nuclear, and geothermal sources, work animals and animal products, vegetable materials, wind, peat, shale oils, and tar sands. At least 50-80 percent of all the primary energy ever dissipated by man, excluding his own efforts, is attrihutable to wood. No less than 5-6 percent and possibly as much as one fifth of all of the energy expended has been used in what is now the United States, where no more than 5 or 6 percent of the earth's peoples have ever lived. Of the cumulative consumption of fossil fuels, however, the United States has accounted for one fourth. Only about one eighth of the world's coal has been used in the United States, but that country has expended at least half of the petroleum so far produced. The vegetable energy base prevailing through most of human history has supported few applications. Most wood has heen used for domestic heating and cooking. Either direct ly or in the form of charcoal, considerable quantities of wood also supported small-scale industrial applications- ESTIMATED TOTAL AND PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION OF PRIMARY ENERGY,l WORLD, BY TYPE, SELECTED YEARS, 1770-1970 (Crude-oil equivalent) "Commercial" energy All energyl Year Total (billion bbl.) Per capita (gal.) Total (billion bbl.) Per capita (gal.) 1770 0.05 2 0.36 18 1820 0.1 4 0.5 19 1870 1.1 33 3.7 111 1920 7.0 158 11.8 266 1950 12.1 202 18.6 311 1960 24.0 336 31.1 456 1970 42.1 487 50.0 578 1Excluding human effort. largely home crafts such as the manufacture of pottery and weaponry. Vast stands of timber have been laid waste repeatedly by slash-and-bum agriculture, a practice which persisted into modern times in some cultures. The prodigal use of wood through the dawn of history is attested by the early deforestation of most of the Mediterranean basin. The wind and animal power used in transport and agriculture and the water and wind harnessed to mills and water-lifting devices accounted for only a small portion of the total input of primary energy. The significant employ­ment of primary energy sources other than wood hegan around the twelfth century in northwestern Europe, where the climate insured a much higher per capita energy requirement than in the margins of the Mediterranean. Another four or five centuries passed, however, before charcoal-burning and shipbuilding depleted English and some continental timber resources enough to overcome the initial prejudice against the large-scale urban use of coal. Until about 1750, in fact , practically all primary energy was expended on heat applications. The large-scale use of stationary and motive power had to await the third quarter of the eighteenth century, when coal began to be used extensively and a wholly new prime mover, the steam engine, was perfected and made widely available. Rough estimates of the input of primary energy during the last two hundred years illustrate some striking trends in the structure and magnitude of world energy consumption. The shares of the market held by what are now usually ESTIMATED CONSUMPTION OF PRIMARY ENERGY,1 WORLD, BY SOURCE, SELECTED YEARS, 1770-1970 (Million bbl. crude-<>il equivalent) Source 1770 1820 1870 1920 1950 1960 1970 Coal 30 80 1,008 6,130 6,700 12,400 13,900 Petroleum 7 861 5,200 11,200 25,800 Crude oil Natural gas2 6 1 689 172 3,800 1,400 7,700 3,500 16,300 9,500 Hydr'lulic and nuclear 15 20 85 18 200 400 2,400 Commercial 45 100 1,100 7,009 12,100 24,000 42,100 Noncommercial Total 315 360 400 500 2,600 3,700 4,800 11,809 6,500 18,600 7,100 31,100 7,900 50,000 1Excluding human effort. 2Jncluding liquid content. THE RISE OF THE MAJOR SOURCES OF PRIMARY ENERGYl AND THEIR PRINCIPAL APPLICATIONS2 Approximate period Application Primary Secondary of earliest Heat/light Heat/light/power Power source form application (domestic) (industrial) (transport) Heating, lighting, Wood Charcoal Prehistory cooking Process heat Water Prehistory Irrigation, drainage Sailless boat Animals Heating, Prime mover, process and Dung, fat, lighting, heat, fertilization, Carrying men fish oil, bone Prehistory cooking lubrication and goods Fourth mil­ Wind lennium BC Sail boat Third mil­ Prime mover: water Water lennium BC wheel About 600 Prime mover: wind­ Wind AD mill Twelfth Heahng, Coal century cooking Process heat Coal, Prime mover: steam wood Steam Aboutl710 engine Coal Coke About 1710 Process heat Coal Town gas About 1810 Lighting Lighting Coal, Railroad, wood Steam About 1820 steamship Natural gas Crude Kerosine, About 1830 Lighting, heating Lighting Lighting, lubri­ oil Coal, lube oil About 1860 Lighting cation crude oil, Electric­ wood ity About 1880 Lighting Lighting, power Electric­ Water ity About 1890 Lighting Lighting, power Crude oil Gasoline, fuel oil About 1900 IC engine fuel IC engine fuel: land IC engine and Crude boiler fuel: oil Fuel oil About 1910 water Submarine, Electric­ merchant­ Uranium ity 1954-1957 Lighting Lighting, power ship I Excluding human effort. 2£xcluding raw-material and most other nonfuel uses. Sources: Adapted in part from tables in Hans Thirring, Energy for Man (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1958), p. 32, and Richard S. Thoman, Edgar C. Conkling, and Maurice H. Yeates, The Geography of Economic Activity, 2nd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1968), p. 244. called "commercial" sources (fossil and nuclear fuels and hydropower) and "noncommercial" sources have almost reversed themselves in the last two centuries. Accounting for only one eighth in 1770, co mmercial sources made up 84 percent (of a much larger absolute figure) in 1970. The share of the noncommercial sources has fallen from seven eighths in 1 770 to 16 percent in 1970. The consumption of coal and lignite increased about 34 times between 1 770 and 1870 and about 580 times between 1870 and 1970. The use of petroleum, however, was multiplied by almost 3, 700 during the last century, with crude oil rising about 2,700 and natural gas perhaps 9,500 times. The share of coal in total energy consumption (in the selected years tabulated here) rose from about 8 percent in 1770 to a high of 52 percent in 1920 and gradually faded to 36 percent in 1950. Holding its own fairly well through the fifties (while increasing its absolute consumption by 85 percent), coal finally retreated during the sixties, falling to a share qf about 28 percent before the onrushing fluid fuels, especially natural gas. Despite the fact that coal contributed more than half of the primary energy supply of the world commercial market until after 1960, petroleum captured 63 percent of the growth in com­mercial energy consumption during the century ending with 1970. World consumption of all except human energy may have increased from about 500 million barrels of crude-oil equivalent (COE) in 1820 to about 50 billion barrels of COE in 1970, or about l 00 times in 150 years. The thermal efficiency of energy utilization has improved so much, however, that an increase of l 00 times in the gross input of primary energy between 1820 and 1970 probably implies an increase of about 500 times in the useful energy consumed. The 1820 data may have represented 500 million barrels of COE at a weighted-average efficiency of 5 percent, for a net consumption of 25 million barrels of C'OF. A I '>70 dl'iciency rate, on the average, of 25 percent, WOUid yield a net COllSUlllptiOll of J 2.5 billion barrels Of COE, or 500 tillles the 18 20 figure. During the last 150 years, the average annual rate of ini.:rease of world energy consumption (for the periods between the years shown in these tables) has never fallen below I percrnt. Since 1950 the rate has been consistently above 5 percent. Except for the years before 1820 and between 1920 and 1950, the rate of growth of commercial energy consumption has never been less than abo ut 3.4 perce nt. During the century ending with 1970, the com­po und rate attained almost 8 percent. To the extent that much of the growth in the demand for co mmercial energy Jllaterials has represented displacement of noncommercial fuels, these data are overstated. Despite its obviously wide limits of accuracy, however, the series for total energy is understated, at least to the extent to which energy expenditures are saved by improved efficiency. In the commercial series also, this influence runs counter to, although it may not wholly offset, the effect of growth attributable to the displacement of traditional sources of primary energy. Many of the sa me qualifications apply to the figures for estimated per capita consumption of commercial and total energy. POSSIBLF RANGE Of HISTORICAL CONSUMPTI0'.'1 OI• PRI\IARY ENERGY,! WORLD, THROUGH ABOUT 1970 (Trillion [lOl2 J bbl. crude-oil equivalent) Time peri od "Co mmerci al" sources2 O ther sources3 Total Thro ugh about 1770 About 177 1-1970 Total Negligible I 0.2 5-2.5 0.75­L5 I -4 0.25-2 .5 1.7 5-2,5 2 -5 1Excluding human effort. 2coal and lignite, crude oil, natural gas, and electricity from hydro, nuclear, and geothermal sources. 3ttydraulic and geothermal (nonelectric) sources, wind, peat, animal and vegetable energy and wastes, bituminous sediments (oil shales), and heavy oil (" tar") sands, Harrison Brown has pointed out that industrial civili­zation was built on cheap, easily obtained raw materials, largely coal and iron ore. A cataclysmic war could destroy this civilization beyond reconstruction. The wreckage of a world industrial plant of which, say, 70 percent had been dest royed, could not simply be cleared away and rebuilt. With so much capital equipment gone, the old tools and tec hniques would have to be employed once more. But the old methods could he used again only if coal and iron ore were as easily obtained as in the eighteenth and ninetee nth centuries. A catast rophic war might introduce another age of universally agrarian civilizations, in which hydraulic and vegetable energy resources, shallow coal deposits, and domestic animals would eventually determine the location and the maximum size of urban concentration and indus­trial development. I-:ven without such a war, the age of fossil fuels must end eventually, because it is fo unded on cxhaustihk resources irreplaceable during fewer than thou­sands of !!ennations of our species. 13(> TEXAS CONSTRUCTIO N NEW TOWNS FOR TEXAS Connie Cone As po pulation continues to skyrocket, the growth crisis makes Texans increasingly aware that major new directions for urban develo pment are needed. The population of Texas is expected to include l 0 million more people by the year 2000, an increase which will create a tremendous need for additional housing. To accommodate this projected growth and the ensuing growth of business and industry. some 18 million acres will be urbanized in the next 30 years. Developers are taking a critical look at how cities have evolved-most often, fragmented urban sprawl has been followed by deterioration of the city core -and are now looking toward a new concept of comprehensive city planning. As part of an effort to organize and direct future growth, entire cities-"new to wns"-are being planned and built by both private and governmental organizations. New towns are self-contained cities offering a sound economic base .and a full range of activities and facilities no rmally associated with urban life. They are designed to offer a "back-to-nature" environment plus all the con­veniences and amenities of existing cities, but without the glaring disadvantages. The enactment of Title VI I of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970 was a big boost to new towns, and 13 planned cities in the nation have already received federal loan guarantees, with more than 70 applications awaiting approval. Texas' largest cities are expected to more than double in size in the next 5 decades. So it seems appropriate that several HUD-approved new to wns are to be constructed on the periphery of the 3 largest metropolitan areas: Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio. Several other new towns have been proposed in Texas and are at various stages of planning. Under consideration for HUD approval of loan guarantees is a planned development for Tyler. Another new town, the San Antonio " in-town" renovation projcL·t. may be built along the San Antonio River, adjacent to the central business district. The Woodlands. The po pulation of Houston is expected to surpass 3 million by the year 2000. To help accommo­date this growth, a new to wn will be created 28 miles north of Houston, with a develo pment period of 20 years. The maximum federal loan guarantee of $50 million has been extended to this venture, which is expected to be a $3 billion develo pment. Of the 16,939-acre forest tract, approximately 37 percent will be used to house the projected population of I 50,000. Commercial and industrial areas, totaling 2,466 acres, along with other econo mic sectors, should provide job oppo rtunities within the town for over 26 percent of the populatio n. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW APRIL BUILDING STATISTICS IN REVIEW Although the Bureau of Business Research index of construction authorized in Texas dropped 24 percent from the all-time high set in March, the average monthly index shows a 5-percent gain over the level for the first four months of 19 72. The total estimated value of building authorized for January-April 1973 reached $1.3 billion, with an increase of 4 percent over the same period last year. Although slumps occurred in most major categories, there were some substantial increases in the non­residential sector. Among Texas SMSA's, Houston ranks first in total value of building authorized thus far in 1973, with $315.9 million, an 18-percent increase over the 1972 level. Dallas follows with $226.3 million, then Fort Worth with $98.3 million, Austin with $91.0 million, and San Antonio with $85.3 million. Most striking are the changes in the medium-sized SMSA's, in comparison with figures for January-April 1972. Amarillo, Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito, Bryan-College Station, Lubbock, McAllen-Pharr­Edinburg, and Tyler all show increases of 90 to 141 percent, with a major portion of the growth in the nonresidential building sector. The housing units are structured according to the economic and ethnic composition of San Antonio's popula­tion. Thirty percent of all housing will be available to those with incomes under $ 7 ,500; 4 7 percent is planned for income groups between $7 ,500 and $10,500 annually; and 23 percent for incomes over $10,500. Flower Mound. A small, incorporated town of about 2,000 people represents the initial phase of the fi[st new town actually to take shape in Texas. Based on a projected population boom which is expected to more than double the population of Dallas-to well over 3 million-in the next 3 decades, this new town lies 20 miles northwest of Dallas, toward the growing Fort Worth area and near the new regional airport. This 20-year development has been offi­cially approved by HUD and has been granted $18 million in loan guarantees. The ultimate proposed population of 64, 141 people is to be housed in some 18,300 dwelling units in all categories Percent change J an-Apr 1973 Apr Jan-Apr Apr 1973 from 1973 1973 from Jan-Apr Classification (thousands of dollars) Mar 1973 1972 A ll permits 293,897 1,270, 186 -26 4 New construction 260,236 1, 155, 101 -30 4 Residential (housekeeping) 144,096 630,866 -19 3 One-family dwellings 90,801 381,084 -16 Multiple-family The design of the town includes a town center and 7 villages containing 49,000 dwelling units. Schools, churches, recreational and cultural centers, health and medical centers, and business and commercial shopping centers will be provided. The developers have donated 400 acres for construction of a 15 ,000-student branch of the University of Houston. Almost one fourth of the total new-town acreage will be preserved as wildlife corridors or recreation areas, both serving as buffer zones between the various types of land usages. San Antonio Ranch. Population estimates predict approximately 1.5 million citizens for San Antonio by the end of this century. To be developed over a 30-year period, the new town of San Antonio Ranch will be located 16 miles northwest of the city on a 9 ,318-acre tract. HUD has authorized $18 million in federally guaranteed loans for the venture, which is expected to boost the San Antonio economy by more than $1 billion. To house the new town's ultimate population of 87,972 residents, a total of 28,767 dwelling units will be con­structed on 4,2 29 acres. The next-largest single use of land will be for natural preserves or "open space," constituting 24 percent of the total acreage. The rest of the land will be divided among industrial areas, retail and office space, schools, and transportation systems. A major vocational and technical training center will be located on 500 acres allocated by the developers. dwellings 53,295 249,782 -23 19 Nonresidential buildings 116,140 524,235 -40 5 Hotels, motels, and tourist courts 7,325 35,549 -57 46 Amusement buildings 2,764 11,639 -9 30 Churches 4,877 I 5,302 58 35 Industrial buildings 6,243 40,267 -57 44 Garages (commercial and private) 1,384 5,702 176 -80 Service stations 799 4 ,277 -53 -5 Hospitals and institutions 11,052 75,009 -73 250 Office-bank buildings 19,241 103,036 -51 -21 Works and utilities 9,495 23,323 11 41 Educational buildings 10,817 48,290 -47 -35 Stores and mercantile huildings 33,662 135,434 -9 -I Other buildings and structures 8,481 26,407 30 98 Additions, alterations, and repairs 33,661 11 5,085 15 SMSA vs. non-SMSA Total SMSAt 268,580 1, 164,888 -27 4 Cen tral cities 203,397 876,3 19 -28 12 Outside central cities 65,183 288,569 -22 -14 Total non-SMSA 25,316 105,297 -26 2 10,000 to 50,000 population 13,337 60,118 -27 Less than 10,000 population 11,979 45, 179 -24 6 * Only building for which permits were issued within the incorporated area of a city is included. Federal contracts and public housing are no t included. t As defined in 1970 Census. Source: Bureau of Business Research in cooperation with the Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. POPULATION AND LAND USES IN TEXAS' EW TOWNS Flower San Antorio Category Mound Woodlands Ranch Population 64,141 150,000 87,972 Jobs 16,454 40,000 n.a. Land use Residences 2,989 6,339 4,229 Industrial areas 427 2,000 1,234 Commercial space 262 466 180 Schools 260 n.a. 330 Open space and recreation 1,456 4,000 2,203 Roads 345 1,6492 642 Other 417 2,694 550 Total acreage 6,156 17,148 9,368 n.a. Not available. I No project agree ment signed. Statistics subject to change. 2 Includes schools, roads, and other infrastructure. Source: HUD Challenge, January 1973, p. 21. and price levels. Residential areas will comprise 2,989 acres·· 50 percent of the total acreage. Parks and recreation areas interspersed throughout the residential areas will occupy 1,500 acres. Commercial, educational, religious, and cultural facilities will be provided through 2 community centers and a major town center. Also to be included are a community college, a medical center, and an enclosed shopping center. More than 5,000 jobs will be generated by 3 planned industrial parks, with a total of 16,454 jobs to be created by all economic sectors of the city. The new-town concept provides an alternative to the familiar urban sprawl; an opportunity to achieve orderly urban growth in the right locations; a chance to develop the land in a more efficient manner and to maintain or and improve current standards of living. Those ideals, however, arc not easy to realize, and problems and failures have plagued many new towns. Some have bogged down with typical city problems of congestion and pollution. Others have run out of cash, and still others have been so innovative as to literally scare away their potential resi­dents. Financial requirements are high, requiring long-term borrowing at reasonable interest and repayment, and the net cash !low for the development is outward for many years. Acquiring land in sufficiently large and contiguous tracts is difficult. Further, it is hard to attract residents RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AUTHORIZED, TEXAS Index Ad1usted for Seosonol Yoriotion -1967=100 196• 1965 1966 1967 1961 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 Exclu,h1 oddition1, alterations , and r•po ir1 . 13X unless jobs exist and hard to attract employers unless a labor force is available. Perhaps the most crucial problems have been those concerned with local social and political pressures. Most people are cautious of bigness and out­siders, and that is exactly what most developers represent. As one marketing consultant has suggested, it may he more realistic to visualize an evolvement from new towns as they are today to a "mini" new town approach. Just cutting down the scale of the typical new town reduces the financial and political problems to the extent that many cities across the nation-including small and medium-sized towns-could plan and successfully implement new town areas. These "mini" new towns would offer jobs, housing, and city facilities. The major difference would be that of scale: less acreage, a smaller population. Such projects are already underway in many places across the nation. For Texas, one such offshoot of the new town is Texas Eastern's Houston Center, envisioned to be "a City of the Future in which people can live and work in uncongested and beautiful surroundings." Planned as "city-within-a­city" in Houston's central business district, the entire venture is privately developed. This breed of new town could well be a prototype for urban development of the future. REVAMPING OF TEXAS SMSA'S Tables in the Texas Business Review are scheduled for revision in accordance with the revamping of the nation's standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSA's) recently announced by the Office of Management and the Budget. Combination of the Dallas and Fort Worth areas reduces the number of SMSA's in Texas to twenty­four. The new Dallas-Fort Worth SMSA includes eleven counties: Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Hood, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwell, Tarrant, and Wise. The Houston SMSA has been widened to include Waller County. The OMB also added Callahan County to the Abilene SMSA; added Hardin County to the Beau­mont-Port Arthur-Orange SMSA; added Comal County to the San Antonio SMSA; added Hays County to the Austin SMSA; and added Clay County to the Wichita Falls SMSA but excluded Archer County. All federal agencies use the SMSA's for compila­tion of general-purpose statistics, including census data on housing, industry, population, and trade; current employment and payroll data; and local housing-market and labor-market analyses. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW LOCAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS Statistical data compiled by Mildred A11derso n, statistical associate, technician. Business conditions are reported in the following tables first by metropolitan areas, second by counties and cities. Standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSA's) are defined by county lines and include the counties listed. All SMSA's are designated as such hy the U.S. Bureau of the Census except one, the Longview­Marshall area, which is now a significant metropolitan node. Population figures represent the 1970 Census counts except where otherwise noted. The population estimates not taken from the Census are generally based on utility connections and are subject to substantial error. Building-permit values are collected from municipalities by the Bureau of l:lusiness Research in cooperation with the l:lureau of the Co11sta11ce Coo/edge, statistical assistant. and Kay Davis. statistical Census. They represent only building intentions within city limits, since construction permits are not issued except by incorporated cities in Texas. The building data also exclude federal contracts and public works projects, such as highways. waterways, and reservoirs. The hank debit statistics for SMSA's and most central metropolitan cities are collected by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Most other bank debits figures shown are collected from cooperating banks by the l:lureau of Business Research. Employment estimates are compiled by the Texas Employment Commission in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Footnote symbols are explained on pages 140 and 148. INDICATORS OF LOCAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS FOR STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS Percent change Percent change from from Apr Mar Apr Apr Mar Apr Reported area and indicator 1973 1973 1972 Reported area and indicator 1973 1973 1972 ABILENE SMSA CORPUS CHRISTI SMSA Jones and Taylor Counties; population 113,959 Nueces and San Patricio Counties; population 284,832 Urban building permits 1,340,09 3 -6S -47 Urban building permits (dollars) S,134,533 -1 S -2 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 242,S 39 7 IS Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 742,286 IS 23 Nonfarm employment 40,S SO 2 Nonfarm employment 101,100 ** Manufacturing employment S,860 I 8 Manufacturing employment 11, 160 I s Unemployed (percent) 2.6 13 -13 Unemployed (percent) 4.2 20 14 AMARILLO SMSA DALLAS SMSA Potter and Randall Counties; population 144,396 Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Kaufman, and Urban building permits (dollars) S,799,S26 SI 181 Rockwall Counties; population 1,555,950 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 7SS,31S -4 2S Urban building permits (dollars) 41,879,S46 -39 -22 Nonfarm employment S9,900 ** •• Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 14,643,912 4 19 Manufacturing employment 8,200 ** 4 Nonfarm employment 777,SOO 4 Unemployed (percent) 2.4 -4 -47 Manufacturing employment 160,950 ** 6 Unemployed (percent) 1.9 -s -24 AUSTIN SMSA Travis County; population 295,516 FORT WORTH SMSA Urban building permits (dollars) 23,883,900 -31 2S Johnson and Tarrant Counties; population 762,086 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) l,218,S84 10 17 Urban building permits (dollars) I 7 ,44S,4 I 6 -43 7 Nonfarm employment J S7,000 • * s Bank debits, seas, adj. ($1,000) 2,630,S3S -s 12 Manufacturing employment 13,SIO ** s Nonfarm employment 307,000 1 2 Unemployed (percent) 1.8 -10 ** Manufacturing employment 73,4SO ** 2 Unemployed (percent) 3.0 9 -33 BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR-ORANGE SMSA Jefferson and Orange Counties; population 315,943 SOUTHWEST METROPLEX: DALLAS/FORT WORTH Urban building permits (dollars) 3,2 J 7 ,S 31 -19 -4S Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Bankdebits,seas.adj. ($1,000) 647,417 -I 18 Rockwall, and Tarrant Counties; population 2,318,036 Nonfarm employment 123,100 -I I Urban building permits (dollars) S9,324,962 -41 -15 Manufacturing employment 38,500 * * 2 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($ 1,000) 17 ,2 74,447 2 18 Unemployed (percent) S.0 16 4 Nonfarm employment 1,084,500 4 Manufacturing employment 234,400 ** s BROWNSVILLE-HARLINGEN-SAN BENITO SMSA Unemployed (percent) 2.2 -4 -29 Cameron County; population 140,368 Urban building permits (dollars) 6,472,931 IOI 493 EL PASO SMSA Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 270,488 9 33 El Paso County; population 359,291 Nonfarm employment 4S,700 2 7 Urban building permits (dollars) 18,17S,9S9 41 11 S Manufacturing employment 8,130 2 17 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 913,937 19 Unemployed (percent) 6.3 2 -IS Nonfarm employment 133,200 4 Manufacturing employment 27,8SO I s BRYAN-COLLEGE STATION SMSA Unemployed (percent) 4.7 2 •• Brazos County; population 57,978 Urban building permits (dollars) 3,823,S99 72 27S Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 109,713 2 14 (Monthly employment reports are not available for the Bryan-College Station SMSA). Percent change Percent change from from Apr Mar Apr Apr Mar Apr Reported area and indicator 1973 1973 1972 1973 1972 Reported area and indicator 1973 ODESSA SMSA Galveston County; population 169,812 Ector County; population 91,805 Urban building permits (dollars) 2,280,005 -36 -31 Urban building permits (dollars) 1,304, I 06 -6 -89 Bank debits, seas, adj. ($1,000) 296,153 -1 25 Bankdebits,seas.adj.($1,000) 189,753 JI 18 Nonfarm employment 62,900 3 Nonfarmemployment 60,100 ** -3 Manufacturing employment 11,050 •• -2 Manufacturing employment S,630 •• 6 Unemployed (percent) 4.2 -s -37 Unemployed (percent) 2.4 -8 -33 (Employment data are reported for the combined Midland and HOUSTON SMSA Odessa SMSA's since employment figures for Midland and Ector Brazoria, Fort Bend, Harris, Liberty, and GALVESTON-TEXAS CITY SMSA Counties, composing one labor-market area, are recorded in com­bined form by the Texas Employment Commission.) Montgomery Counties; population 1,985,031 Urban building permits (dollars) 63,273,489 -40 12 SAN ANGELO SMSABank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 13,326,319 -2 16 Tom Green County; population 71,047Nonfarm employment 926,000 1 3 Urban building permits (dollars) 843,441 35 155Manufacturing employment 155,100 •• 3 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 155,747 •• JIUnemployed (percent) 2.S -4 -17 Nonfarm employment 24,850 •• 4 Manufacturing employment 4,470 4 6KILLEEN-TEMPLE SMSA Unemployed (percent) 3.1 •• -9 Bell and Coryell Counties; population 159,794 Urban building permits (dollars) S,173,345 8 1 SAN ANTONIO SMSA Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 214,473 15 35 Bexar and Guadalupe Counties; population 864,014 (Monthly employment reports are not available for the Killeen- Urban building permits (dollars) 21,434,500 -17 -48Temple SMSA.) Bankdebits,seas.adj.($1,000) 2,182,IS~ 2 18 LAREDO SMSA Nonfarm employment 319,000 I 8 Manufacturing employment 35,875 3 IWebb County; population 72,859 Unemployed (percent) 2.9 • • -28 Urban building permits (dollars) 459,880 -93 -37 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 112,070 3 27 SHERMAN-DENISON SMSA Nonfarm employment 24,750 -1 -1 Grayson County; population 83,225 Manufacturing employment 1,640 1 s Unemployed (percent) 9.8 -13 -16 Urban building permits (dollars) 1,017,575 15 -52 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 110,849 -16 4 LONGVIEW-MARSHALL METROPOLITAN AREA Nonfarm employment 33,000 •• 2 Gregg and Harrison Counties; population 120,770 Manufacturing employment 10,690 •• 2 Unemployed (percent) 3.2 •• -14Urban building permits (dollars) 3,527,053 -10 119 Bankdebits($1,000) 207,067 S 28 TEXARKANA SMSANonfarmemployment 51,000 •• 2 Bowie County, Texas, and Miller County, Arkansas; Manufacturing employment I S,470 * * 6 Unemployed (percent) 3.6 9 -18 population 101,198 (Building permits and bank debits are included for those portions of Urban building permits (dollars) 525,607 -14 -44 Kilgore and Gladewater in Rusk County and Upshur County.) Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 163,762 •• 18 Nonfarm employment 40,400 ** I LUBBOCK SMSA Manufacturing employment 9,050 I 2 Lubbock County; population 179,295 Unemployed (percent) 5.2 -12 -IO Urban building permits (dollars) 9,085,068 -21 157 (Since the Texarkana SMSA includes Bowie County in Texas and Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 642,455 -6 34 Miller County in Arkansas, all data, including population, refer to Nonfarm employment 75,800 7 the two-county region.) ** Manufacturing employment 8,530 2 7 Unemployed (percent) 1.7 -11 -29 TYLER SMSA Smith County; population 97,096 McALLEN-PHARR-EDINBURG SMSA Urban building permits (dollars) 2,SSS,698 -36 102 Hidalgo County; population 181,535 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 242,370 -2 II Urban building permits (dollars) 4,569,678 -36 98 Nonfarm employment 42,1 so I 4 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 278,963 6 30 Manufacturing employment 13,630 •• 6 ** Nonfarm employment 47,300 7 Unemployed (percent) 3.4 -3 -6 Manufacturing employment S,350 4 25 Unemployed (percent) 6.7 -17 -4 WACO SMSA McLennan County; population 147,553 MIDLAND SMSA Urban building permits (dollars) 1,930,872 -74 -46 Midland County; population 65,433 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 366,728 •• 27 Urbanbuildingpermits(dollars) 1,416,653 119 114 Nonfarm employment 62,800 •• 2 Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 199,522 -6 14 Manufacturing employment 13,760 -I 5 Nonfarm employment 60,100 ** -3 Unemployed (percent) 2.7 13 -21 Manufacturing employment S,630 ** 6 Unemployed (percent) 2.4 -8 -33 WICHITA FALLS SMSA (Employment data are reported for the combined Midland and Archer and Wichita Counties; population 127,621 Odessa SMSA's since employment figures for Midland and Ector Urban building permits (dollars) 691,396 -72 -28 Counties, composing one labor-market area, are recorded in com­Bank debits, seas. adj. ($1,000) 274,089 -2 16 bined form by the Texas Employment Commission.) Nonfarm employment 45,700 3 14 Manufacturing employment S,850 •• Unemployed (percent) 2.4 ­4 -14 •• Absolute change is less than one half of 1 percent. Urban building-permit data are preliminary and subject to revision. TEXAS BUSINESS REVIE INDICATORS OF LOCAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL MUNICIPALITIES Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population Apr 1973 (dollars) Percent change from Mar Apr 1973 1972 Apr 1973 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Mar Apr 1973 1972 ANDERSON Palestine 27,789 14,S2S 3S7,S2S 319 31S 28,S23 9 32 ANDREWS Andrews 10,372 8,62S 6,02S -S8 -87 10,921 8 21 ANGELINA Lufkin 49,349 23,049 3S0,9S7 -lS •• ARANSAS Aransas Pass (see San Patricio) 8,902 ATASCOSA Pleasanton 18,696 S,407 6,S7 J -10 -7 AUSTIN Bellville 13,831 2,371 26,000 -96 -73 J0,998 17 34 BAILEY Muleshoe 8,487 4,S2S I 9,74S 8 3S BASTROP Smithville 17,297 2,9S9 16,S30 -36 -IS 3,843 -2 18 BEE Beeville 22,737 13,S06 80,72S -88 -34 26,322 -2 19 BELL (Jn Killeen-Temple SMSA) Bartlett (see Williamson) Belton Harker Heights Killeen Temple 124,483 8,696 4,216 3S,S07 33,431 371,200 296,300 837,221 2,806,444 43 -70 llS -64 S2 -61 149 S4,162 101,160 23 6 so 39 BEXAR (Jn San Antonio SMSA) San Antonio 830,460 6S4,1S3 21,083,871 -16 -48 2,119,868 23 BOWIE (In Texarkana SMSA) Texarkana 67,813 S2,l 79 S21,SS7 - s -42 140,438 16 BRAZORIA (In Houston SMSA) Angleton Clute Freeport Pearland 108,312 9,770 6,023 11,997 6,444 l 38,8SO S,33S 101,840 980,7SO -33 789 41 31 -49 -87 -37 19 26,892 6,892 39,4SI 10,13S - lS I 7 3 SI IS 37 8 BRAZOS (Constitutes Bryan-College Station SMSA) Bryan College Station S7,978 33,719 17,676 692,838 3, 130,76 1 -14 121 7 744 101,9S3 14,720 7 4 16 23 BREWSTER Alpine 7 ,780 S,971 13,000 271 12 6,S97 13 BROWN Brownwood 2S,877 17,368 26S,OSO 37 62 BURLESON Caldwell 9,999 2,308 S,S32 7 29 BURNET Marble Falls 11,420 2,209 19,722 120 101 CALDWELL Lockhart 21,178 6,489 79,100 -87 -94 12,762 9 29 Urban building permits Bank debits Percent change Percent change COUNTY City Population Apr 1973 (dollars) from Mar Apr 1973 1972 Apr 1973 (thousands of dollars) from Mar Apr 1973 1972 CALHOUN Point Comfort Port Lavaca Seadrift 17,831 1,446 10,491 1,092 1,000 ISS,S83 I0,03S -87 4 I ,608 2 I ,363 799 -34 -13 S9 46 -2 -13 CAMERON (Constitutes Brownsville­Harlingen-San Benito SMSA) Brownsville Harlingen La Feria Los Fresnos Port Isabel San Benito 140,368 S2,S22 33,S03 2,642 1,297 3,067 I S,176 S,361,819 86S,I JO 39,SOO S9,82S 146,677 446 -S7 7S -S4 122 863 11 s 819 IS 108,001 100,430 4,377 2,291 6,887 I0,33S 7 2 2S I -13 -8 39 21 47 28 59 25 CASTRO Dimmitt 10,394 4,327 30,444 -II 29 CHEROKEE Jacksonville 32,008 9,734 I 24,SOO -S9 88 3S,S S8 7 46 COLEMAN Coleman 10,288 S,608 0 COLLIN (In Dallas SMSA) McKinney Plano 66,920 I S,193 17,872 71,9SO 2,799,283 -93 -29 -63 -1 39,379 27 5 l COLORADO Eagle Lake 17,638 3,S87 S,417 -7 -9 COMAL New Braunfels 24,16S 17,8S9 728,000 32 84 33,614 25 COOKE Gainesville Muenster 23,471 13,830 1,411 123,lSO 1,000 -78 -9S -84 28,271 4,712 •• 33 39 CORYELL (In Killeen-Temple SMSA) Copperas Cove Gatesville 3S,31 I 10,818 4,683 860,680 92 48 7,96S 13,322 -4 -8 40 21 CRANE Crane 4,172 3,427 3,SOO 338 - 93 3,133 - 3 16 DALLAS (In Dallas SMSA) Carrollton Dallas Farmers Branch Garland Grand Prairie Irving Lancaster Mesquite Richardson Seagoville 1,327,321 13,8SS 844,401 27,492 81,437 S0,904 97,260 10,S22 SS , 131 48,S82 4,390 3,818,176 21,686,029 1,441,S06 4,099,108 3,979,304 2,760,08S S80,000 402,733 3,229,088 100,433 30 -34 79 3 33 -S4 -s -83 -s -23 -24 9 -4S 79 -9 1 -7S -68 149 -30 24,306 13,831,244 27,209 91,616 41,832 120,189 12,780 38,211 94,803 11 ,426 2 4 9 6 7 •• I 9 -JI 25 -l 28 4 32 42 19 22 39 DAWSON Lamesa 16,604 11,S S9 46,200 87 -SI 34,161 •• 53 DEAF SMITH Hereford 18,999 13,414 29S,000 - 8 - 8 ... DENTON (In Dallas SMSA) Denton Justin Lewisville Pilot Point 7S,633 39,874 741 9,264 1,663 1,388,680 0 S62,S20 32,300 -6S -31 -S7 136 90,186 2,004 34,308 2,661 2 s I -II 20 60 36 -20 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population Apr 1973 (dollars) Percent change from Mar Apr 1973 1972 Apr 1973 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Mar Apr 1973 1972 DE WITT Yoakum (see Lavaca) 18,660 EASTLAND Cisco 18,092 4,160 8,876 17 91 ECTOR (Constitutes Odessa SMSA) Odessa 91,805 78,380 1,304,106 -6 -89 188,660 11 21 ELLIS (In Dallas SMSA) Midlothian Waxahachie 46,638 2,322 13,452 30,200 138,500 -93 31 -81 -21 4 ,393 28,685 6 s 47 28 EL PASO (Constitutes El Paso SMSA) El Paso 359,291 322,261 18,175,959 41 11 s 884,595 - 8 28 ERATH Stephenville 18,191 9,277 305,550 138 184 18,726 - 7 22 FANNIN Bonham 22,705 7,698 3,000 -98 -94 17,839 - II 35 FAYETTE Schulenburg 17,650 2,294 10,400 22 700 FORT BEND (In Houston SMSA) Richmond Rosenberg 52,314 5,777 12,098 965,100 241,140 178 -28 759 25 13,859 14,380 9 41 GAINES Seagraves Seminole 11,593 2,440 5,007 0 79,900 137 208 4,137 14,595 -- s 13 46 71 GALVESTON (Constitutes Galveston-Texas City SMSA) Dickinson Galveston La Marque Texas City 169,812 10,776 61,809 16,131 38,908 1,076,358 1,203,647 -54 -9 -56 51 18,796 180,721 21,673 37,251 3 3 7 4 23 38 27 8 GILLESPIE Fredericksburg 10,553 5,326 203,610 86 12 22,135 - 6 7 GONZALES Nixon 16,375 1,925 6,000 -76 25 GRAY Pampa 26,949 21,726 41 ,000 -51 -10 45,348 - 10 16 GRAYSON (Constitutes Sherman-Denison SMSA) Denison Sherman 83,225 24,923 29,061 75,647 941,928 -76 90 -83 -44 34,663 73,611 4 17 15 GREGG (Jn Longview-Marshall Metropolitan Area) Gladewater Kilgore Longview 75,929 5,574 9,495 45,547 50,100 365,510 2,966,500 -63 23 32 -47 SS 154 8,578 28,912 129,528 17 8 27 29 28 GUADALUPE (In San Antonio SMSA) Schertz Seguin 33,554 4,061 15,934 273,798 44,950 380 2 -6 -75 2,572 33,815 - 12 4 59 31 Urban building permits Bank debits Percent change Percent change from Apr 1973 from COUNTY City Population Aprl973 (dollars) Mar 1973 Apr 1972 (thousands of dollars) Mar 1973 Apr 1972 HALE Hale Center Plainview 34,137 1,964 19,096 1,000 393,660 264 - so 87 79,923 - 9 39 HARDEMAN Quanah 6,79S 3,948 0 7,649 - 8 26 HARDIN Silsbee 29,996 7,271 17,983 4 26 HARRIS (In Houston SMSA) Baytown Bellaire Deer Park Houston Humble La Porte Pasadena South Houston Tomball 1,741,912 43,980 19,009 12,773 1,232,802 3,278 7,149 89,277 ll,S27 2,734 770,S92 324,0S7 62S,137 S4,920,4S9 S8S,03S 190,312 1,327,808 67,800 224,000 143 -80 -81 -39 172 -37 -so -84 62 122 17 12 208 -33 47 97,6S2 81,817 16,172 12,486,772 I S,861 6,0S4 14S,744 28,499 14 4 -18 3 s 9 2 9 29 9 16 22 22 22 28 HARRISON (In Longview-Marshall Metropolitan Area) Hallsville Marshall 44,841 1,038 22,937 144,943 -88 26 1,768 38,281 7 I 10 30 HASKELL Haskell 8,SI 2 3,6SS S0,400 320 6,931 -I 34 HAYS San Marcos 27,642 18,860 IS4,72S -87 -39 l 7,S44 -s HENDERSON Athens 26,466 9,S82 220,000 -47 -42 26,326 11 39 HIDALGO (Constitutes McAllen-Pharr-Edinburg SMSA) Alamo Donna Edinburg Elso McAllen Mercedes Mission Pharr San Juan Weslaco 181,S3S 4,291 7,36S 17,163 4,400 37,636 9,3SS 13,043 I 5,829 S,070 15,313 48,000 S7,216 S47 ,930 33,800 2,021,000 S4,820 990,194 132,412 27,880 646,176 2S2 -87 -72 61 -38 S3 186 -16 -27 674 -48 106 S9 -75 530 18 3 379 4,363 6,610 36,241 I0,!8S 108,S 14 11,772 40,605 10,436 6,561 22,676 10 16 3 -I 2 •• 11 s -4•• -22 23 2 54 31 29 60 27 57 7 HOCKLEY Levelland 20,396 11,445 61,360 -53 -10 28,892 -19 23 HOOD Granbury 6,368 2,473 4,964 4 28 HOPKINS Sulphur Springs 20,710 10,642 38,3S3 -4 16 HOWARD Big Spring 37,796 28,735 147,600 -S2 252 77,831 IS 23 HUNT Greenville 47,948 22,043 345,490 194 104 36,544 -4 22 JACKSON Edna 12,97 5 5,332 41 ,697 -78 4SO 10,041 •• JASPER Jasper Kirbyville 24,692 6,251 1,869 12,800 967 - 94 23,097 4,413 2 3 24 40 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population Apr 1973 (dollars) Percent change from Mar Apr 1973 1972 Apr 1973 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Mar Apr 1973 1972 JEFFERSON (In Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange SMSA) Beaumont Groves Nederland Port Arthur Port Neches 244,773 I I S,919 18,067 16,810 S7 ,371 10,894 2,483,089 76,2S4 164,466 237,771 13 -S8 -3 -70 -44 -S8 -6 -48 414,203 23,171 16,346 114,343 21,470 4 3 2 lS 2 22 IS 29 29 18 JIM WELLS Alice 33,032 20,121 428,127 -6 86 7S,091 32 66 JOHNSON (In Fort Worth SMSA) Burleson Cleburne 4S,769 7,713 16,0IS 199,368 217,20S -27 -63 -2 -27 11,394 29,47S - I•• 26 37 KARNES Karnes City 13,462 2,926 27,000 97 6,Sl6 42 KAUFMAN (In Dallas SMSA) Terrell 32,392 14,182 187,oso -29 - 7 KIMBLE Junction 3,904 2,6S4 19,8SO 4,288 6 33 KLEBERG Kingsville 33,166 28,711 413,410 41 -61 34,738 28 30 LAMAR Paris 36,062 23,441 294,33S 34 39 LAMB Littlefield 17,770 6,738 0 12,420 - 6 22 LAMPASAS Lampasas 9,323 S,922 63,4SO 22 -so 18,738 23 41 LAVACA Hallettsville Yoakum 17,903 2,712 S,7SS 337,944 33,lOS S91 234 768 -7S 7,497 14,889 lS -2 39 7 LEE Giddings 8,048 2,783 120,0SO -S4 127 9,417 -13 9 LIBERTY (In Houston SMSA) Dayton Liberty 33,014 3,804 S,S91 4S,000 24S,9 so -S4 161 -62 3 10,849 18,684 l s 36 18 LIMESTONE Mexia 18,100 S,943 0 12,944 4 2S LLANO Kingsland Llano 6,979 1,262 2,608 49,SOO 102 24 7,813 11,710 -24 s - 17 66 LUBBOCK (Constitutes Lubbock SMSA) Lubbock Slaton I 79,29S 149,101 6,S83 9,08S,068 8,2SO -21 -8S 1S8 -S9 S82,881 8,649 6 8 41 38 LYNN Tahoka 9,107 2,9S6 3S,000 -41 21 9,S81 -2 79 McCULLOCH Brady 8,S71 S,SS7 4S,400 -48 -36 1S,047 12 41 McLENNAN (Constitutes Waco SMSA) McGregor Waco 147,SS3 4,36S 9S,326 89,2SO l,6S7,422 288 -7S 21S -S2 8,S7S 3SS,919 6 4 26 27 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population Apr 1973 (dollars) Percent change from Mar Apr 1973 1972 Apr 1973 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Mar Apr 1973 1972 MATAGORDA Bay City 27,913 11,733 109,32S 37 IS3 28,27S - I 4 MAVERICK Eagle Pass 18,093 lS,364 186,00S -9 -13 17,876 •• -18 MEDINA Castroville Hondo 20,249 1,893 S,487 73,S91 21 139 2,103 6,888 9 2 34 32 MIDLAND (Constitutes Midland SMSA) Midland 6S,433 S9,463 l,416,6S3 119 114 204,S30 -I 20 MILAM Cameron Rockdale 20,028 S,S46 4,6SS 13,112 -31 -77 10,277 9,313 2 3 17 19 MILLS Goldthwaite 4,212 l,693 8,902 -s II MITCHELL Colorado City 9,073 S,227 8,740 •• 44 MONTGOMERY (In Houston SMSA) Conroe 49,479 11,969 74,048 -I MOORE Dumas 14,060 9,771 199,248 -44 2S9 NAVARRO Corsicana 31,lSO 19,972 91,086 -S8 237 48,080 9 43 NOLAN Sweetwater 16,220 12,020 166,9SO 38 4S4 29,736 -l 32 NUECES (In Corpus Christi SMSA) Bishop Corpus Christi Port Aransas Robstown 237,S44 3,466 204,S2S 1,218 11,217 4,283,68S 136,608 ** 134 - s 7 4,3S7 624,878 1,124 20,134 26 12 II I 75 27 -I 6 ORANGE (In Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange SMSA) Orange 71, 170 24,4S7 363,933 SS 4S S7,S24 -11 PALO PINTO Mineral Wells 28,962 18,411 12,87S -83 -38 3S,291 -I 24 PANOLA Carthage IS,894 S,392 so,soo -8S so 8,186 9 26 PARKER Weatherford 33,888 1 l,7SO 33,870 - 68 - 96 32,009 - 3 18 PARMER Fri ona 10,S09 3, 111 49,700 2 418 30,748 - 33 21 PECOS Fort Stockton 13,748 8,283 46,4SO - 16 - 32 17,203 - 18 38 POTTER (In Amarillo SMSA) Amarillo 90,Sl I 127,010 s,s S2,476 S4 199 711,440 - 7 29 RANDALL (In Amarillo SMSA) Amarillo (see Potter) Canyon S3,88S 8,333 247,oso 4 23 16,460 -18 54 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population Apr 1973 {dollars) Percent change from Mar Apr 1973 1972 Apr 1973 {thousands of dollars) Percent change from Mar Apr 1973 1972 REEVES Pecos 16,526 12,682 210,200 -49 136 29,975 - 5 24 REFUGIO Refugio 9,494 4,340 0 6,438 14 21 RUSK Henderson Kilgore (see Gregg) 34,102 10,187 1,729,950 29,860 3 24 SAN PATRICIO {In Corpus Christi SMSA} Aransas Pass Sinton 47,288 5,813 5,563 83,194 85,540 -94 33 -37 -18 12,189 9,832 2 4 19 -1 SAN SABA San Saba 5,540 2,555 88,050 577 SCURRY Snyder 15,760 11, 171 81,845 -14 -86 26,730 10 42 SHACKELFORD Albany 3,323 1,978 18,000 4,119 23 18 SHERMAN Stratford 3,657 2,139 0 25,128 -28 84 SMITH (Constitutes Tyler SMSA} Tyler 97,096 57,770 2,5 33,730 -34 109 228,870 3 17 STEPHENS Breckenridge 8,414 5,944 14,200 -68 -64 SUTTON Sonora 3,175 2,149 297,060 223 4,781 11 33 TARRANT {In Fort Worth SMSA} Arlington Bedford Burleson (see Johnson) Euless Fort Worth Grapevine North Richland Hills White Settlement 716,317 90,643 10,049 19,316 393,476 7,023 16,514 13,449 10,924,868 1,231,332 188,104 11,055,103 766,174 558,700 860,670 72 125 73 -40 -11 -26 66 32 -29 155 -19 362 140,310 13,269 2,308,566 19,907 22,451 9,853 3 1 -3 70 -11 14 19 18 94 2 39 TAYLOR {In Abilene SMSA) Abilene 97,853 89,653 1,340,093 -64 -47 214,484 - 4 22 TERRY Brownfield 14,118 9,647 38,788 -54 -85 30,623 -15 12 TITUS Mount Pleasant 16,702 8,877 62,700 -63 -70 28,386 - 4 6 TOM GREEN (Constitutes San Angelo SMSA) San Angelo 71,047 63,884 843,441 35 155 155,901 2 17 TRAVIS (Constitutes Austin SMSA} Austin 295,516 251,808 23,883,900 -31 27 1, 148,926 2 13 UPSHUR Gladewater (see Gregg) 20,976 UPTON McCamey 4,697 2,647 2 ,070 - 3 - 10 Urban building permits Bank debits COUNTY City Population Apr 1973 (dollars) Percent change from Mar Apr 1973 1972 Apr 1973 (thousands of dollars) Percent change from Mar Apr 1973 1972 UVALDE Uvalde 17,348 10,764 156, 102 -72 12 36,981 2 41 VAL VERDE Del Rio 27,471 21,330 32,247 -1 31 VICTORIA Victoria 53,766 41,349 500,441 -82 -2 144,5 l 7 2 21 WALKER Huntsville 27,680 17,610 423,031 -33 -28 35,241 10 37 WARD Monahans 13,019 8,333 4,100 -97 -93 16,282 20 24 WASHINGTON Brenham 18,842 8,922 142,655 -71 -22 34,560 3 12 WEBB (Constitutes Laredo SMSA) Laredo 72,859 69,024 459,880 -93 -37 114,148 -7 30 WHARTON El Campo 36,729 8,563 648,655 404 601 23,577 -11 II WICHITA (In Wichita Falls SMSA) Burkburnett Iowa Park Wichita Falls 121,862 9,230 5,796 97,564 15,892 6,236 669,268 -95 33 -69 -78 -25 12,046 4,771 242,274 3 4 2 23 7 17 WILBARGER Vernon l 5,35 5 11,454 67,870 -79 -96 46,035 4 43 WILLACY Raymondville 15,570 7,987 8,600 -92 -92 12,141 -16 WILLIAMSON Bartlett Georgetown Taylor 37,305 1,622 6,395 9,616 410,650 66,180 273 -57 - 7 21 l,747 14,954 18,5 57 5 2 2 •• 6 34 WINKLER Kermit 9,640 7,884 l,000 -81 WISE Decatur 19,687 3,240 14,000 -99 -66 11,146 23 70 YOUNG Graham Olney 15,400 7,477 3,624 227,700 1,388 245 -99 -19 -98 21,929 9,487 5 3 35 12 ZAVALA Crystal City 11 ,370 8,104 9,043 -4 •• Absolute change is less than one half of 1 percent. No data, or inadequate basis for reporting. BAROMETERS OF TEXAS BUSINESS (All figures are for Texas unless otherwise indicated.) All indexes are based on the average months for 1967=100 except where other specification is made; all except annual indexes arc adjusted for seasonal variation unless otherwise noted. Employment estimates are compiled by the Texas Employment Commission in cooperation with the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. The symbols used below impose qualifications as indicated here: p--preliminary data subject to revision; r-revised data; *-dollar totals for the fiscal year to date; t-employment data for wage and salary workers unly. Year-to-date average Apr Mar Apr 1973 1973 1972 1973 1972 GENERAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY Texas business activity (index) ................................ 172.6 l 71.1 155.8 171.6 159.4 Estimates of personal income (millions of dollars, seasonally adjusted) .......................$ 4,149p $ 4,113p $ 3,762r $ 4,091 $ 3,818 Income payments to individuals in U.S. (billions, at seasonally adjusted annual rate) .............................$ l,008.9p $ 1,00l.3p $ 919.4r $ 997.7 $ 910.1 Wholesale prices in U.S. (unadjusted index) ...................... 130.7 129.7 1l7.5 128.0 1l7.1 Consumer prices in Dallas (unadjusted index) .................. 130.S 124.8 128.9 l 24.0 Consumer prices in U.S. (unadjusted index) ...................... 130.7 129.8 124.3 129.2 l 23.8 Business failures (number) . .. .... .. ......... ... .............. 54 72 73 Business failures (liabilities, thousands) .........................$ $ l 3,484 $ l l ,47 3 $ $ 16,837 Sales of ordinary life insurance (index) ......................... 189.9 184.2 160.9 185.3 161.2 PRODUCTION Total electric-power use (index) ............................... l 57.0p 159.9p 154./ 160.6 150.2 Industrial electric-power use (index) ........................... 153.0p 142.sP 142.1 r 145.4 138.4 Crude-oil production (index) ................................. l 14.6p 114.6p 1 l S.6r 115.1 111.0 Average daily production per oil well (bbl.) ...................... 19.4 19.1 19.9 l 9.1 18.S Crude-oil runs to stills (index) ................................ 121.2 123.9 112.9 120.9 114.S Industrial production in U.S. (index) ........................... l 23.0p l 21. 8p 112.8r 121.S 110.7 Texas industrial production-total (index) ........... .. .......... 137.2p 135.3p 129.4r 135.1 127.1 Texas industrial production-total manufactures (index) ............ 142. l p l 39. 8p 130.Sr 139.2 l 29.1 Texas industrial production-durable manufactures (index) .......... l 56.8p 154. 5P l 41.9r l 53.6 138.3 Texas industrial production-nondurable manufactures (index) ....... 131.Sp 129.3p l 22. 3r 128.8 122.4 Texas industrial production-mining (index) ..................... l 19.oP 117.6p 1l9.3r 117.4 11 s.s Texas industrial production-utilities (index) ..................... 161.2p 160.9p 158.8r 160.6 I 54.S Urban building permits issued (index) .. ........................ 175.4 232.0 172.0r 192.S 184.2 New residential building authorized (index) ........... . ........ 187.1 213.1 178.4 211.9 204.2 New residential units authorized (index) ....................... 153.2 172.4 155.4 167.0 165.6 New nonresidential building authorized (unadjusted index) . .. ..... 159.4 264.8 169.0 179.9 170.8 AGRICULTURE Prices received by farmers (unadjusted index, 1910-14= 100) ......... 433 443 322 419 331 Prices paid by farmers in U.S. (unadjusted index, 1910-14=100) ...... 513 sosr 450 493 441 Ratio of Texas farm prices received to U.S. prices paid by farmers 84 88 72 85 75 FINANCE Bank debits (index) Bank debits, U.S. (index) Bank commercial loans outstanding (index) 225.6 156.S 221.9 215.2 154.3 183.4 194. 1 131.4 219.S 152.2 186.7 189.8 127.3 Reporting member banks, Dallas Federal Reserve District Loans (millions) Loans and investments (millions) Adjusted demand deposits (millions) Revenue receipts of the state comptroller (thousands) Federal Internal Revenue collections (thousands) . $ 9,578 . $ 13,645 .$ 4,115 .$ 385,707 . $1,036,525 $ $ $ $ $ 9,274 13,316 4,158 289, 158 981,696 $ $ $ $ $ 7,809 11,357 3,658 337,912 761,91 s $ 9,188 $ 13,240 $ 4,190 $ 360,769 $8,342,362. $ 7,564 $ 11 ,063 $ 3,688 $ 321,316 $7 ,257,605* Securities registrations-original applications Mutual investment companies (thousands) .$ $ 40,682 $ 16,065 $ $ 183,851 All other corporate securities Texas companies (thousands) .$ $ 19,999 $ 15,773 $ $ 194,230 Other companies (thousands) .$ $ 15,976 $ 63,738 $ $ 323,528 Securities registration -renewals Mutual investment companies (thousands) .$ $ 38,157 $ 20,255 $ $ 267,135 Other corporate securities (thousands) . $ $ 47 $ 2,931 $ $ 13,21 s LABOR Total nonagricultural employment in Texas (index)t 123.Sp 123.4p 118.4r 123.2 117.S Manufacturing employment in Texas (index)t 114.7p 115.2p l 10.7r 115.2 109.7 Average weekly hours-manufacturing (index)t 99.7p 99.3p 98.9r 97.9 98.7 Average weekly earnings-manufacturing (index)t l 36.6p 135.4p 128.0r 133.S 127.3 Total nonagricultural employment (thousands)t 4,018.7p 3,980.4p 3, 85 I.7r 3,975.6 3,790.4 Total manufacturing employment (thousands)t 762.2p 761.3p 735.6r 759.6 724.l Durable-goods employment (thousands)t Nondurable-goods employment (thousands)t 416.4p 345.8p 414.6p 346.7p 394. l r 34I. Sr 413.7 345.9 387.0 337.1 Percent of total labor force unemployed 2.8 2.8 3.3 2.9 3.6 Total civilian labor force in selected labor-market areas (thousands) 3,7 58. s 3,734.2 3,598.0 3,706.3 3,570.7 Nonagricultural employment in selected labor-market areas (thousands) 3,560.8 3,543.9 3,378. l 3,519.3 3,3 s 8.7 Manufacturing employment in selected labor-market areas (thousands) 643.7 640.1 598.4 634.3 594.7 Total unemployment in selected labor-market areas (thousands) 109.2 110.7 131.8 111.0 133.1 Percent of labor force unemployed in selected labor-market areas 2.9 3.0 3.7 3.0 3.8 BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH RETURN REQUESTED TIIE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN SECOND-CLASS POSTAGE PAID AT AUSTIN, TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS 78712 VISITOR ECONOMIC IMPACT: THE AUSTIN, TEXAS, EXAMPLE by Charles P. Zlatkovich In recent years, the visitor industry has gained recognition as one of the growth industries of Texas. Analyses of the industry's impact at the state level have been made by the Texas Highway Department for several years. This study is an attempt to complement that work by providing an estimate of the economic impact of visitors on a single local area, the Austin area. The author of Visitor Economic Impact: The Austin, Texas, Example, Charles P. Zlatkovich, is a research associate of the Bureau of Business Research. $2.00 (Texas residents add $.10 sales tax.) x + 31 pp. PUBLICATIONS, 1973 . A complete listing of all available publications by the Bureau of Business Research may be obtained without charge by request of the Bureau. Bureau of Business Research The University of Texas at Austin