Demographic Changes and Implications for Virginia’s Cities, Towns and Suburban Counties
Metropolitan Policy ProgramRobert Puentes, Fellow
The Brookings Institution
Presented at the Virginia Transit Association Annual MeetingWilliamsburg, VAMay 9, 2005
Demographic Changes and Implications for Virginia’s Cities, Towns and Suburban Counties
II How are these trends affecting cities and suburban counties?
I What are the general demographic and market trends affecting metropolitan Virginia?
IV What is the new competitive cities agenda?
III What are the implications for mobility and transitservices?
Demographic Changes and Implications for Virginia’s Cities, Towns and Suburban Counties
II How are these trends affecting cities and suburban counties?
I What are the general demographic and market trends affecting metropolitan Virginia?
IV What is the new competitive cities agenda?
III What are the implications for mobility and transitservices?
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Geography Refresher
Central cities (31.1%)
Urbanized areas (73.0%)
Metropolitan areas (78.2%)
Share of state population depends on these geographic definitions.
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Geography Refresher
Metropolitan areas (84.7%)
New definition
New definitions increase the “metropolitan” geography of Virginia
Micropolitan areas (3.21%)
Metropolitan plus Micropolitan areas
(87.9%)
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
What are the general demographic and market trends affecting metropolitan Virginia?I
Virginia is growing quickly and in some challenging ways
The Commonwealth is decentralizing rapidly
Virginia’s demographics are changing in central cities and on the suburban fringe
Education and income levels were much higher in the neighboring counties compared to Virginia’s central cities
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
What are the general demographic and market trends affecting metropolitan Virginia?I
Virginia is growing quickly and in some challenging ways
The Commonwealth is decentralizing rapidly
Virginia’s demographics are changing in central cities and on the suburban fringe
Education and income levels were much higher in the neighboring counties compared to Virginia’s central cities
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Challenging Growth
Virginia was the 16th fastest growing state, with an increase from 6.2 to 7.1 million in the1990s
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Population Change (%)
VIRGINIA (14.4%)
Maryland
North Carolina
KentuckyWest Virginia
Tennessee
US Average = 13.2%
Percent Population Change, 1990-2000Source: U.S. Census Bureau
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Challenging Growth
Since 2000, Virginia grew at the 12th fastest rate
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
Population Change (%)
VIRGINIA (5.4%)
Maryland
North Carolina
KentuckyWest Virginia
Tennessee
Percent Population Change, 2000-July 2004
US Average = 4.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Percent Population Change, 1990-2000
Douglas County, CO
Forsyth County, GA
Elbert County, CO
Henry County, GA
Park County, CO
Loudoun County, VA
Paulding County, GA
Summit County, UT
Boise County, ID
Eagle County, CO
191.0%
123.2%
106.0%
103.2%
102.4%
96.9%
96.3%
91.6%
90.1%
90.0%
Fluvanna County, VA
Spotsylvania County, VA
Manassas Park, VA
Stafford County, VA
Green County, VA
61.3%
57.5%
52.8%
51.0%
48.0%
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
45.
55.
76.
80.
98.
Challenging Growth
Several Virginia counties experienced rapid population growth.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Percent Population Change, 2000-July 2004
Loudoun County, VA
Flagler County, FL
Douglas County, CO
Rockwall County, TX
Forsyth County, GA
Henry County, GA
Kendall County, FL
Newton County, GA
Lincoln County, SD
Paulding County, GA
41.0%
38.5%
35.4%
35.2%
34.0%
33.7%
33.0%
31.5%
30.3%
29.7%
Alleghany County, VA
Stafford County, VA
Spotsylvania County, VA
Suffolk City, VA
Prince William County, VA
29.5%
24.2%
23.7%
20.3%
19.9%
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
12.
22.
25.
49.
52.
Challenging Growth
Loudoun County is now the nation’s fastest growing.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Over two-thirds of Virginia’s population growth came from minority residents.
Whites30%
Other14%
API12%
Hispanics19% Blacks
25%
Challenging Growth
Share of Population Change by Race, 1990-2000Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Virginia saw the 7th largest increase in residents age 65 and older during the 1990s.
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000Increase of
residents 65 and
older, 2000
Challenging Growth
19.2% increase
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Percent Change in Number of 25-34 Year Old Residents, 1990-2000
During the 1990s, only two counties saw an increase in the percentage of 25-34 year old residents
-7% to -10%%
-4% to -6.9%
-3% to -3.9%
-0% to -2.9%
0% to 5%
Challenging Growth
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
What are the general demographic and market trends affecting metropolitan Virginia?I
Virginia is growing quickly and in some challenging ways
The Commonwealth is decentralizing rapidly
Virginia’s demographics are changing in central cities and on the suburban fringe
Education and income levels were much higher in the neighboring counties compared to Virginia’s central cities
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
90-00 RankIllinois 5.6% 30New Hampshire 4.8% 31Iowa 4.8% 32Kentucky 3.7% 33Rhode Island 3.6% 34VIRGINIA 2.3% 35Wisconsin 2.3% 36Massachusetts 1.9% 37Hawaii 1.7% 38Louisiana 1.3% 39New Jersey 1.2% 40
Population ChangePopulation Change, 1990-2000
Decentralization
central cities include: Arlington CDP, Bristol, Charlottesville, Danville, Fredericksburg, Hampton, Lynchburg, Newport News, Norfolk, Petersburg, Portsmouth, Richmond, Roanoke, Suffolk and Virginia Beach. For this exercise, Alexandria was also included because it retains the characteristics of a central place.
Virginia’s cities have grown by 0.5% since 2000
Virginia ranked relatively low in terms of change in combined population of central cities
central cities include: Arlington CDP, Bristol, Charlottesville, Danville, Fredericksburg, Hampton, Lynchburg, Newport News, Norfolk, Petersburg, Portsmouth, Richmond, Roanoke, Suffolk and Virginia Beach. For this exercise, Alexandria was also included because it retains the characteristics of a central place.
31.1%
32.6%
36.3%
68.9%
67.4%
63.7%
0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 8,000,000
1980
1990
2000
Central Places
Remainder of Virginia
Population Share - central cities and Remainder of State, 1980-2000
Decentralization
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Since 1980, Virginia’s central cities have grown slowly and failed to keep pace with statewide growth rate
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Decentralization
Roanoke
Staunton Richmond
Hopewell
Petersburg
NorfolkPortsmouthDanvilleMartinsvilleBristol
Radford
Lynchburg
Lexington
Norton
Population Growth, 1990-2000
> 50%
20% to 49%
11.4% to 19%
6% to 11.4%
0% to - 10%
0% to 5%
In the 1990s, much of Virginia grew rapidly, while most cities lost population
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
-12.0%
-7.0%
-2.0%
3.0%
8.0%
13.0%
Population Change, 1990-2000
Decentralization
In the 1990’s, growth was uneven among Virginia’s central cities
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
-12.0%
-7.0%
-2.0%
3.0%
8.0%
13.0%
Population Change, 2000-July 2004
Decentralization
And more than two-thirds have declined since 2000.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
S p o tsylv a n ia
C n ty
S ta ffo rd C n ty Ja m e s C n ty H a n o v e r C n ty Y o rk C n ty B e d fo rd C n ty C h e sa p e a k e C h e ste rfie ld C n ty P rin c e G e o rg e
C n ty
D in w id d ie C n ty A lb e m a rle C n ty A m h e rst C n ty W a sh in g to n C n ty P ittsylv a n ia C n ty R o a n o k e C n ty
Population Change, 1990-2000
Spo
tsyl
vani
a
Sta
fford
Jam
es C
ity
Han
over
Bed
ford
Che
sape
ake
Che
ster
field
Pr
Geo
rge
Din
wid
die
Alb
emar
le
Yor
k
Am
hers
t
Was
hing
ton
Pitt
sylv
ania
Roa
noke
Decentralization
….and inconsistent with growth in neighboring counties.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
S p o tsylv a n ia
C n ty
S ta ffo rd C n ty Ja m e s C n ty H a n o v e r C n ty Y o rk C n ty B e d fo rd C n ty C h e sa p e a k e C h e ste rfie ld C n ty P rin c e G e o rg e
C n ty
D in w id d ie C n ty A lb e m a rle C n ty A m h e rst C n ty W a sh in g to n C n ty P ittsylv a n ia C n ty R o a n o k e C n ty
Population Change, 2000-July 2004
Spo
tsyl
vani
a
Sta
fford
Jam
es C
ity
Han
over
Bed
ford
Che
sape
ake
Che
ster
field
Pr
Geo
rge
Din
wid
die
Alb
emar
le
Yor
k
Am
hers
t
Was
hing
ton
Pitt
sylv
ania
Roa
noke
Decentralization
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
….and inconsistent with growth in neighboring counties.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Decentralization
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
N a tio n a l R ic h mo n d W a sh in g to n N o rfo lk
Outside 10-mileRing
Inside 10-mileRing
Nat
iona
l
Ric
hmon
d
Was
hing
ton
Nor
folk
Only about half of all jobs in the Norfolk and Washington metros are within 10 miles of the city center.
Source: John Brennan and Edward W. Hill , Where are the Jobs?” Brookings, 1999
In the Washington, DC the majority of office space is in “edgeless” locations
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
What are the general demographic and market trends affecting metropolitan Virginia?I
Virginia is growing quickly and in some challenging ways
The Commonwealth is decentralizing rapidly
Virginia’s demographics are changing in central cities and on the suburban fringe
Education and income levels were much higher in the neighboring counties compared to Virginia’s central cities
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
75%
19%
0%
3%
3%
WhiteBlackHispanicAsianOther
70%
19%
2%4%5%
Demographic Change
Race/Ethnic composition, 1990 & 2000
1990 2000
Virginia’s resident population became more diverse throughout the 1990s
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
64%
30%
0%
3%
3%
WhiteBlackHispanicAsianOther
57%33%
2%3%5%
Race/Ethnic composition, 1990 & 2000
1990 2000
Demographic Change
In central cities, the white population share declined relative to the increasing share of blacks and Hispanics
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Petersburg
Danville
Hampton Alexandria
Portsmouth
Richmond
Norfolk
Lynchburg
Newport NewsRoanoke
Virginia Beach
Bristol
ArlingtonFredericksburg
Charlottesville
Suffolk
Virginia
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
Change in white population, 1990-2000
Demographic Change
The white population declined in all but two of Virginia’s central cities, despite a 6.7% growth rate, statewide
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Roanoke
Washington Albemarle
Dinwiddie
Chesapeake
York
Bedford Hanover
James City
Spotsylvania
Chesterfield Amherst
Virginia
Prince George
Pittsylvania
Stafford
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Change in white population, 1990-2000
Demographic Change
All but one of the neighboring counties far surpassed the statewide growth rate of white residents
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAMBristol
Petersburg
LynchburgSuff olk
Norfolk
Richmond
Fredericksburg
Roanoke
Portsmouth
Danville
Alexandria
Charlottesville
Virginia
Newport News
Hampton
Virginia Beach
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Change in black population, 1990-2000
Demographic Change
The black population lagged the state in every central city outside Hampton Roads.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Amherst Albemarle Virginia
Hanover
Spotsylvania
Pittsylvania
Chesterfield
York
Bedford
Washington
James City
Dinwiddie
Roanoke
Chesapeake
Prince George
Stafford
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
110%
120%
130%
140%
150%
160%
Change in black population, 1990-2000
Demographic Change
Many of the neighboring counties surpassed the statewide growth rate of black residents
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Increase in foreign born, 1990-2000
> 10%
5% to 10%%
> 5%
Foreign Born
Few counties have significant percentages of foreign born.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
DISTRICT OFCO LUMBIA
ARLING TON
ALEX ANDRIA
FAUQ UIER
CHARLES
LO UD O UN
FAIRFAX
MO NTG O MERY
PRINCE G EO RG E'S
CALVERT
PRINCE WILLIAM
JEFFERSO N
I 66I 9
5
I 270
I 495
Route 50
I 95
Percent Foreign Born (by Census Tract)
Less than 5%
5% - 15%
16% - 25%
26%- 35%
Greater than 35%
Washington region, share foreign-born by census tract, 2000Source: Singer, “At Home in
the Nation’s Capital,” June 2003
In many metro areas, the locus of immigration is shifting from
the central city to the suburbs
Foreign Born
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
What are the general demographic and market trends affecting metropolitan Virginia?I
Virginia is growing quickly and in some challenging ways
The Commonwealth is decentralizing rapidly
Virginia’s demographics are changing in central cities and on the suburban fringe
Education and income levels were much higher in the neighboring counties compared to Virginia’s central cities
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Arlingto
n
Alexa
ndria
Charlo
ttesv
ille
VIRGIN
IA
Richm
ond
Virgin
ia B
each
Lynch
burg
Hampt
on
Norfolk
Roanok
e
Suffolk
Bristo
l
Share of population 25 years and older with at least a BA, 2000
Educational Attainment
Educational attainment in central cities varied widely, but on average was comparable to Virginia’s
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Share of population 25 years and older with at least a BA, 2000
Educational Attainment
Neighboring counties tended to have higher rates than the statewide level and the central cities’ average
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
$-
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
Black Householder
Hispanic Householder
White Householder
Va BeachNorfolk
RichmondArlington
HamptonRoanoke
DanvilleCharlottesville
BristolVIRGINIA
Median household Income by race and ethnic group, 2000
Income Levels
In the central cities, income levels across racial groups were often lower than Virginia’s levels
$-
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000Black HouseholderHispanic HouseholderWhite Householder
Stafford
York
Chesterfield
Hanover
James City
Spotsylvania
Albemarle
Roanoke
Dinwiddie
Pittsylvania
VIRGINIA
Median household Income by race and ethnic group, 2000
Income Levels
Regardless of race/ethnicity, the neighboring counties’ income levels were often much higher than Virginia’s
II How are these trends affecting cities and suburban counties?
I What are the general demographic and market trends affecting metropolitan Virginia?
IV What is the new competitive cities agenda?
III What are the implications for mobility and transitservices?
Demographic Changes and Implications for Virginia’s Cities, Towns and Suburban Counties
Current Trends are Isolating Low-income Residents &
Minorities From Opportunities
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Decentralization:
• Exacerbates social isolation in the core.
• Reduces educational opportunities in cities and older suburban counties.
• Distances poor people from job opportunities.
Virginia’s current pattern of growth is isolating low-income residents & minorities from opportunities.
Inequality and Isolation
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
3.3%
8.80%
11.30%
2.8%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
Norfolk Richmond
Source: Allen and Kirby. “Unfinished Business: Why Cities Matter to Welfare Reform.” Brookings, 2000.
Norfolk and Richmond have a disproportionate amount of the state’s welfare cases.
Share of TANF cases, 1999
Share of population
Inequality and Isolation
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Norfolk-Virginia BeachRichmond
Roanoke
Washington, DCUrbanized Area
Arlington Cnty &Northern Virginia
Richmond
Roanoke
No Data< 5%5 to 10%10 to 15%15 to 20%20 to 30%30 to 40%> 40%
Share of tax-filers using EITC, 2000
Large Cities Large Suburbs Small Metro Rural
17.50% 9.70% 14.50% 17.20%
Inequality and Isolation
EITC utilization is highest in Virginia’s largest cities and in the rural portions of the Commonwealth
Source: Berube and Forman, “Rewarding Work: The Impact of the EITC” Brookings, 2001
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Poverty remains stubbornly concentrated in cities and inner suburbs.
Source: Paul Jargowsky, “Windows on Urban Poverty,” University of Texas, 2003.
Poverty rate change, 1990-2000Richmond metro
Inequality and Isolation
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Poverty remains stubbornly concentrated in cities and inner suburbs.
Source: Paul Jargowsky, “Windows on Urban Poverty,” University of Texas, 2003.
Poverty rate change, 1990-2000Hampton Roads area
Inequality and Isolation
Source: Paul Jargowsky, “Windows on Urban Poverty,” University of Texas, 2003.
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Poverty remains stubbornly concentrated in cities and inner suburbs.
Source: Paul Jargowsky, “Windows on Urban Poverty,” University of Texas, 2003.
Poverty rate change, 1990-2000Bristol metro
Inequality and Isolation
Source: Paul Jargowsky, “Windows on Urban Poverty,” University of Texas, 2003.
Current Trends are Contributing to the Decentralization of
Metropolitan Virginia
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
1982 1987 1992 1997
Average Annual
Change in
Developed Land,
1982-1992 and
1992-1997Source: USDA Natural Resources Inventory
From 1982 – 1997 only ten other states urbanized land at a higher rate than Virginia.
42.6% change
32.4% change in population
from 1980-2000
Rapid Land Consumption
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
53.7%
41.5%
34.3%
52.3%
70.0%
24.5%
47.0%
2.7%
23.2%
4.9%
29.7%
58.8%
-1.0%
23.2%
29.4%
6.4%
-5.0% 5.0% 15.0% 25.0% 35.0% 45.0% 55.0% 65.0% 75.0%
Charlottesville
Danville
Bristol, VA-TN
Lynchburg
Norfolk
Richmond
Roanoke
Washington, DC-MD-VA
Change in Urbanized Land Change in Population
Source: Fulton et al., “Who Sprawls Most?”
Change in
Developed Land,
1982-1997
All of Virginia’s metropolitan areas are decentralizing.
Rapid Land Consumption
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Densities in the core are decreasing throughout the state.
Density change, 1990-2000Roanoke metro
Source: Paul Jargowsky, “Windows on Urban Poverty,” University of Texas, 2003.
Rapid Land Consumption
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Densities in the core are decreasing throughout the state.
Density change, 1990-2000Norfolk metro
Source: Paul Jargowsky, “Windows on Urban Poverty,” University of Texas, 2003.
Rapid Land Consumption
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Densities in the core are decreasing throughout the state.
Density change, 1990-2000Lynchburg metroSource: Paul Jargowsky,
“Windows on Urban Poverty,” University of Texas, 2003.
Rapid Land Consumption
The state is projected to continue to grow. Over half of the built space on the ground in 2030 will be new.
Source: Chris Nelson, “Rebuild America,” Brookings 2004
Rapid Land Consumption
Area Units 2000 Units 2030 % new 2030*
Virginia 2,904,192 4,030,007 57.6%
DC Metro 3,894,000 2,282,000 41.9%
Richmond Metro 448,000 255,000 41.2%
Norfolk Metro 682,000 348,000 38.6%
Area Sq. Feet 2000 Sq. Feet 2030 % new 2030*
Virginia 2,612,294 4,236,715 59.5%
DC Metro 5,133,485 3,061,945 59.6%
Richmond Metro 639,170 380,287 59.5%
Norfolk Metro 504,295 842,035 59.8%
HO
US
ING
CO
MM
ER
CIA
L S
PA
CE
* - including replaced space
Current Trends Increase Costs on Municipalities
& Taxpayers
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Low density development increases demand for:
Low density development increases the costs of key services:
• New schools• New roads • New public facilities • Sewer and water extensions
• Police• Fire• Emergency medical
Low density development imposes greater costs on state and localities.
Decentralization is Costly
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
$0
$4,000
$8,000
$12,000
$16,000
$20,000
Low-DensitySprawl
Low-DensityPlanned
Sprawl Mix Planned Mix High-DensityPlanned
Community Prototypes (10,000 units)
UtilitiesRoads/StreetsPublic FacilitiesSchoolsRecreation
Estimated cost savings by community prototypeSource: Real Estate Research Corporation (1974)
Studies estimate the degree of capital cost savings from denser development…
Decentralization is Costly
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Florida Growth Patterns Study Total Public Facilities Costs by Development Type (Per Dwelling Unit 1989 Dollars) $0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
$16,000
$18,000
Average of Case Studies UnderNon-Compact
Average of Case Studies UnderCompact
Other
Schools
Utilities
Roads
Source: Duncan (1989)
Decentralization is Costly
...an idea substantiated by Florida case studies
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Dollar costs of new services (including police, fire, highway, schools, and solid waste) per 1,000 new residents for a family of 4 in KentuckySource: Bollinger, Berger, and Thompson (2001)
Decentralization is Costly
Development Pattern Cost
Central city counties
Fayette (more concentrated) ($1.08)
Jefferson (more spread out) $37.55
Suburban counties
Shelby (more concentrated) $88.27
Pendelton (more spread out) $1,222.39
Counties with small towns
Warren (more concentrated) $53.89
Pulaski (more spread out) $239.93
Outer ring and rural
Garrard (more concentrated) $454.51
McCracken (more spread out) $618.90
Studies estimate the service delivery savings from more compact development
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Source: Muro & Puentes (2004)
Nationwide, more compact development could save governments 11% on capital outlays over the long term.
More compact development could save governments almost 4% on service provision.
Decentralization is Costly
The density-related fiscal savings are estimated to be substantial.
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Recent analysis by Burchell and Downs found that:
• Virginia could save 4,726 lane miles of roads and almost 225,000 more water and sewer laterals by compact growth over the next 25 years.
• Would result in a savings of $3.06 billion in road construction costs and $654 million in water and sewer infrastructure
Source: Robert Burchell and others, “Costs of Sprawl -2000.”
Virginia’s current growth could cost taxpayers nearly $3.7 billion in avoidable infrastructure.
Decentralization is Costly
Current Trends Diminish Economic Competitiveness &
Quality of Life
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Decentralization:
• Is weakening the downtown cores that attract and retain young workers and employers.
• Is reducing choice for different types of communities
• Threatens the state’s best natural amenities and the tourism industry.
Virginia’s current pattern of growth is hampering its competitiveness by eroding its quality of life.
Competitiveness
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Bureau of Labor Statistics Regional Economic Information System
Percent Change in Full and Part-time Jobs, 1990-2000
Kansas
South Carolina
Nebraska
Indiana
North Dakota
Virginia
Iowa
Alabama
Vermont
Missouri
19.7%
19.5%
19.4%
19.3%
19.2%
18.7%
17.9%
17.8%
17.7%
17.2%
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
In terms of job growth, Virginia was one of the slowest growing states between 1990 – 2000.
Competitiveness
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Percent of 25-34 with Bachelor’s Degrees by County, 2000
State Average 6.38%
10% - 21%
6% - 9.9%
3% - 5.9%
.7% - 2.9%
And “talent” is concentrated in only a few areas: half of 25-34 year olds with BA’s live in northern Virginia.
Competitiveness
Source: U.S. Census (SF-4) PCT 65
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
RegionCreativity
Index
Rank (All 268 Metros)
Creative Class
High Tech Innovation Diversity
San Francisco 1057 1 12 1 5 1Austin 1028 2 7 13 6 23San Diego 1015 3 6 2 12 41Boston 1015 3 30 14 13 4
Washington 964 9 4 5 85 18Richmond 711 66 56 67 144 97Charlottesville 638 96 51 163 78 145Norfolk 555 120 97 60 200 162Roanoke 539 128 158 108 132 140Bristol/JC 490 148 195 145 71 176Lynchburg 436 169 261 79 83 215Danville 114 262 250 267 242 203
Source: Florida, The Rise of the Creative Class, 2002.
Recent research contends that economic growth increasingly occurs in places that attract and retain talented workers
Competitiveness
Demographic Changes and Implications for Virginia’s Cities, Towns and Suburban Counties
II How are these trends affecting cities and suburban counties?
I What are the general demographic and market trends affecting metropolitan Virginia?
IV What is the new competitive cities agenda?
III What are the implications for mobility and transitservices?
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
What are the implications for mobility and transitservices?
Low and decentralized densities are difficult to serve
III
Separated uses, “edgeless” office space is difficult to serve
Decentralized metro areas affect state budget which affects transit providers
Lack of quality transit could hinder city revitalization efforts
Demographic Changes and Implications for Virginia’s Cities, Towns and Suburban Counties
II How are these trends affecting cities and suburban counties?
I What are the general demographic and market trends affecting metropolitan Virginia?
IV What is the new competitive cities agenda?
III What are the implications for mobility and transitservices?
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Build Family Wealth
4
FIX THE BASICS
1
Build on Assets
2
Influence Metropolitan Growth
5
Create Neighborhoods
of Choice
3
The New Competitive Cities Agenda
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
FIX THE BASICS: Good schools, safe streets, competitive taxes and services, 21st century infrastructure, functioning real estate market
BUILD ON ASSETS: Fixed institutions (universities, hospitals), employment clusters, downtown, historic properties, waterfront
CREATE NEIGHBORHOODS OF CHOICE AND CONNECTION: Improve neighborhoods and expand opportunities for all.
BUILD FAMILY WEALTH: Attract middle income families, retain upwardly mobile individuals (from immigrants to maturing professionals), build the incomes of existing population from within
INFLUENCE METROPOLITAN GROWTH: Disclose/re-target state spending, review state administrative policy
The New Competitive Cities Agenda
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
www.brookings.edu/metro