|
July 1995
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
Houston Branch
Bryan–College
Station: More than a College Town
Three distinctive features characterize
the economy of the Bryan–College Station metropolitan
area: it perennially has the lowest unemployment rate among
Texas metro areas; it has a record of solid economic growth,
despite a remote location on the Texas highway system; and
it is the home of Texas A&M University. This article examines
the economy of the Bryan–College Station (B/CS) metropolitan
statistical area (MSA), located just 95 miles northwest of
Houston. The MSA consists of Brazos County, population 128,000,
with almost all local economic activity concentrated in Bryan
and College Station. Texas A&M University has been at
the center of the region's past growth, but an enrollment
cap and flat spending may limit the school's future role.
Indeed, B/CS's future depends on an economic base more independent
of Texas A&M, and the region already shows signs of becoming
more than a big college town.
Texas A&M University
In 1865, William Joel Bryan donated
land for a projected townsite on an extension of the Houston
& Texas Central Railroad, and the following year, the
town of Bryan was made the seat of Brazos County. In 1871,
the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas—located
five miles south of Bryan in College Station—became
the state's first venture into higher education.
The Agricultural and Mechanical College
opened in 1876 with six faculty members and 40 students. The
school's original charter offered males a curriculum of agricultural
and mechanical arts, without excluding scientific and classical
studies and including military education. In 1963, the school
began to offer limited coeducational opportunities for women,
and by 1970 it was fully coeducational. It was renamed Texas
A&M University in 1963 in recognition of its new and diversified
role.
After World War II, enrollment was fixed
at about 8,000 men until 1963, but the number of students
mushroomed under coeducational policies. By 1980, enrollment
had grown to 33,500, and in 1990 an enrollment cap of about
43,000 was imposed. Today, Texas A&M's College Station
campus is the fourth largest in the nation and second largest
in the state, with women making up 43 percent of enrollment.
The local economic impact of this explosion in the number
of students was profound, and the B/CS communities spent 20
years coping with university expansion as their first economic
priority.
Texas A&M's growth brought two important
local results. One was the shift of economic influence from
Bryan to College Station. Bryan served as the retail and service
center for Texas A&M throughout much of its history, with
College Station little more than the rail stop its name implies.
However, as Figure 1 shows, College Station's proximity to
campus and vibrant economy kept its retail sales growing much
faster than Bryan's over the past decade. Despite the long-standing
rivalry between the towns, they have put aside their differences
enough in recent years to develop such joint programs as a
common 911 emergency program, a landfill, an animal shelter
and a shared Chamber of Commerce and economic development
board.
The second and most important effect
of rapid growth at Texas A&M was simply the university's
large and growing influence on both communities. One local
business and community leader described the relationship as
"like sleeping with an elephant." For example, decisions
made by the university in past years concerning new dormitories
could make or break the local apartment market. A 1994 estimate
of the impact of direct spending by Texas A&M on the local
community placed it at $572 million. This includes wages and
salaries for 2,500 faculty members and approximately 10,000
staff; the cost of various supplies, utilities and other services;
and expenditures by visitors for commencement, conferences
and professional meetings. This figure directly makes up 30
percent of total personal income in the B/CS area, and (even
allowing for substantial leakages of this income out of a
relatively small metro area) as the money is respent, it means
that 50 to 70 percent of B/CS income stems directly or indirectly
from the school's activities.
The Local Economy
The B/CS unemployment rate is always
among the lowest in the state, near 3 or 4 percent throughout
the 1990s and typically half the state average. Why? Partly,
this is because the stable government sector makes up 40 percent
of wage and salary employment in B/CS. We find nothing comparable
in other Texas metro areas; such government centers as Austin,
San Antonio and Killeen-Temple have less than 30 percent of
total employment in government. Additionally, the volatile goods
sectors of mining, construction and manufacturing provide less
than 12 percent of B/CS employment, among the lowest shares
in the state. In contrast, goods production makes up 19 percent
of employment in Dallas, 21 percent in Houston and 29 percent
in such small metro areas as Longview or Sherman.
Table 1 shows location quotients that
illustrate the concentration of private employment in B/CS
relative to private employment in the state. Calculating the
distribution of employment in B/CS and in Texas for each private
industry sector yields a ratio called a location quotient:
[see this issue PDF
file for equation]
If this ratio is significantly greater
than 1, it shows an unusual concentration of employment in
B/CS compared with the state.
These ratios show that the region has
retained strength in its traditional agricultural sector as
part of the rich Brazos Valley, although farming, poultry
and cattle have continued to decline in influence in recent
years. Otherwise, the only sources of real strength that stand
out in these aggregate numbers are retail trade sectors, personal
services, movies and amusements, and other local services-all
tied to serving a large and transient student body.
Looking Forward
The imposition of an enrollment
cap at Texas A&M has provided the B/CS community with
the opportunity to catch up with university growth, as spending
per student (apart from inflation) had flattened out a decade
earlier. Already, however, the question has become: where
will future growth in B/CS come from? One direct approach
has been to open a new campus. Blinn College, with its main
campus in nearby Brenham, will soon open a new branch in Bryan.
The new campus will consolidate several locations now operating
in the B/CS area and reinforce Blinn's long- standing ties
as a feeder campus for Texas A&M.
Beyond that, the B/CS metro area has
already developed two important regional roles that broaden
its economic base beyond Texas A&M. First, it has capitalized
on the extraordinary concentration of restaurants and retail
stores that developed to serve the student population, and
it has become a significant retailer for the surrounding region.
Second, partly stimulated by the College of Medicine at Texas
A&M, B/CS has developed a growing health services complex,
with two hospitals and a large clinic. As cost-cutting and
reliance on primary care facilities push medical procedures
out of big regional medical centers and into local communities,
B/CS should see continued growth in health services.
The $82 million George Bush Presidential
Library will provide another immediate boost to the local
economy when it opens in 1997. The hospitality industry is
already the second largest industry in B/CS, mostly due to
Texas A&M campus visitors, alumni, training programs and
athletics. Based on other presidential libraries, initial-year
visitors could number as high as 450,000, with 300,000 visitors
per year thereafter. Even a fraction of this number would
take the local hotel and restaurant industry to a new plateau.
The B/CS business community has benefited
less than might be expected from the presence of a major research
university. There are local success stories of new businesses
and spin-offs from university research-mostly in consulting
and technology-but they are few. Looking to the future, Texas
A&M and the B/CS economic development foundation have
created a technology transfer program for local economic development.
The university scans its research for marketable concepts,
and a local incubator program offers free rent, utilities,
and marketing and legal advice. Based on successful programs
at Stanford, Auburn, Princeton and other universities, the
plan is for the talent and initiative of Texas A&M faculty
and graduate students to help build local businesses. If successful,
the program would provide a substitute for higher Texas A&M
budgets and a continued role for the university in local economic
growth.
—Robert W. Gilmer and Timothy
K. Hopper
Houston
Beige Book
June 1995
The Houston economy continues to draw
strength from the national economy and from improved energy
markets. Through May, local employment gains totaled 3.1 percent
for the previous 12 months, led by advances in goods production.
Despite low natural gas prices, oil service and machinery
profits have been strong. Chemical markets have slowed but
continue to generate excellent profits; refining margins have
swung sharply positive in recent weeks.
Retail and Auto Sales
Winter goods have cleared out,
and retail inventories have been in line for spring and summer.
Despite a high dollar value for overall retail sales in Houston
and brisk local hiring by retailers, the bottom line is hurt
by price reductions made to generate traffic in individual
stores.
Auto and truck sales in May rebounded
from a weak March and April to register a 10-percent increase
this May over a year earlier. The turnaround leaves Houston
auto dealers 1 percent ahead of last year's sales pace.
Upstream Oil and Natural Gas
Crude oil prices moved past $20
per barrel in mid-April and stayed in the $19-$20 range much
of May and June. Prices fell under $18 as OPEC met to set
production quotas in late June, and Houston-based companies
seem to be basing plans for 1995 on prices near $18 per barrel.
Natural gas prices followed a similar pattern, as Gulf Coast
spot prices slowly moved up from $1.55 per thousand cubic
feet in April to $1.70 in mid-June but slipped back to $1.55
when oil prices fell under $18.
Oil services and machinery demand remains
seasonally flat, with prices soft and inventories up. Companies
with good access to international markets have fared best,
as improved oil prices have spurred overseas activity. Activity
in the Gulf of Mexico continues to improve. Day rates for
rigs drilling in the Gulf remain depressed, despite more rigs
going to work and the movement of Gulf rigs to other basins.
Refining and Chemicals
Gasoline and other oil product
prices turned around sharply in April and May, with wholesale
gasoline prices rising 25 percent. A heavy driving season
and limited imports kept retail gasoline prices at 10-year-high
levels through late June. After a poor first quarter, refining
margins have strengthened substantially, and refiners are
looking forward to a good year in 1995.
Prices for key petrochemical products
are flat, and demand has eased slightly in the past two months.
Inventories are accumulating, but stocks remain well below
usual levels. Despite leveling off, prices remain high enough
to provide excellent profits. Several very large chemical
construction projects have been announced along the ship channel;
industry construction around the world has sharply improved
the local market for engineering and construction personnel.
Housing
New home sales in May were up 15
percent over May of last year, with lower interest rates and
a low unemployment rate given credit. Optimism by local builders
was reflected in the year's highest level of housing starts.
Despite the positive May results, year-to-date sales lag 1994
sales by 21 percent. Existing home sales also improved from
a weak April, but May sales lagged those of May 1994.
Apartment construction is up by one-third
from last year, but concerns about over-building signal a
slowdown ahead. Fewer multifamily starts are planned for the
second half of this year, and starts will remain slow through
next year.
| About Houston
Business
For more information or
copies of this publication, contact Bill Gilmer
at (713) 652-1546 or bill.gilmer@dal.frb.org,
or write to Bill Gilmer, Houston Branch, Federal
Reserve Bank of Dallas, P.O. Box 2578, Houston,
Texas 77252. This publication is available on
the Internet at www.dallasfed.org.
The views expressed are
those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect
the positions of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
or the Federal Reserve System. |
|
|