Transcript Demographic Changes and Implications for Virginia’s Cities

The Brookings Institution
Metropolitan Policy Program
Robert Puentes, Fellow
Demographic Changes and Implications for
Virginia’s Cities, Towns and Suburban Counties
Presented at the Virginia Transit Association Annual Meeting
Williamsburg, VA
May 9, 2005
Demographic Changes and Implications for Virginia’s
Cities, Towns and Suburban Counties
I
What are the general demographic and market
trends affecting metropolitan Virginia?
II
How are these trends affecting cities and
suburban counties?
III
What are the implications for mobility and transit
services?
IV
What is the new competitive cities agenda?
Demographic Changes and Implications for Virginia’s
Cities, Towns and Suburban Counties
I
What are the general demographic and market
trends affecting metropolitan Virginia?
II
How are these trends affecting cities and
suburban counties?
III
What are the implications for mobility and transit
services?
IV
What is the new competitive cities agenda?
Geography Refresher
Share of state population depends on these geographic
definitions.
Central cities
(31.1%)
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
Urbanized areas
(73.0%)
Metropolitan areas
(78.2%)
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Geography Refresher
New definitions increase the “metropolitan” geography of
Virginia
Metropolitan areas
(84.7%)
New definition
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
Micropolitan areas
(3.21%)
Metropolitan plus
Micropolitan areas
(87.9%)
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
I
What are the general demographic and market
trends affecting metropolitan Virginia?
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
I
What are the general demographic and market
trends affecting metropolitan Virginia?
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
70%
Percent
Population
Change, 19902000
60%
50%
Source:
U.S. Census Bureau
40%
30%
North Carolina Tennessee
VIRGINIA (14.4%)
20%
Maryland
Kentucky
West Virginia
10%
0%
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
Population
Change (%)
US Average
= 13.2%
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Challenging Growth
Since 2000, Virginia grew at the 12th fastest rate
18%
16%
Percent
Population
Change, 2000July 2004
14%
12%
10%
Source:
U.S. Census Bureau
North Carolina
8%
6%
4%
VIRGINIA (5.4%)
Maryland
Tennessee
Kentucky
West Virginia
2%
0%
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
US Population
Average = Change
4.3% (%)
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Challenging Growth
Several Virginia counties experienced rapid population
growth.
Percent
Population
Change, 19902000
Source:
U.S. Census Bureau
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
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
45.
55.
76.
80.
98.
Fluvanna County, VA
Spotsylvania County, VA
Manassas Park, VA
Stafford County, VA
Green County, VA
191.0%
123.2%
106.0%
103.2%
102.4%
96.9%
96.3%
91.6%
90.1%
90.0%
61.3%
57.5%
52.8%
51.0%
48.0%
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Challenging Growth
Loudoun County is now the nation’s fastest growing.
Percent
Population
Change, 2000July 2004
Source:
U.S. Census Bureau
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
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%
12.
22.
25.
49.
52.
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%
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Challenging Growth
Over two-thirds of Virginia’s population growth came from
minority residents.
Other
14%
Share of Population
Change by Race,
1990-2000
Source:
U.S. Census Bureau
Whites
30%
API
12%
Hispanics
19%
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
Blacks
25%
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Challenging Growth
Virginia saw the 7th largest increase in residents age 65 and
older during the 1990s.
500,000
Increase of
residents 65 and
older, 2000
450,000
400,000
350,000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
300,000
250,000
200,000
19.2% increase
150,000
100,000
50,000
P
en
n
sy
lv
an
ia
ev
ad
a
N
o
O
hi
ic
hi
ga
n
M
ir
gi
ni
a
V
C
G
eo
rg
ia
ar
ol
in
a
na
A
riz
o
or
th
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
Te
xa
s
or
Fl
C
al
ifo
rn
i
a
id
a
0
Challenging Growth
During the 1990s, only two counties saw an increase in the
percentage of 25-34 year old residents
Percent Change in
Number of 25-34
Year Old Residents,
1990-2000
-7% to -10%%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
-4% to -6.9%
-3% to -3.9%
-0% to -2.9%
0% to 5%
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
I
What are the general demographic and market
trends affecting metropolitan Virginia?
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
Decentralization
Virginia ranked relatively low in terms of change in combined
population of central cities
Population Change
90-00
Rank
Illinois
5.6%
New Hampshire
4.8%
Iowa
4.8%
Kentucky
3.7%
Rhode Island
3.6%
VIRGINIA
2.3%
Wisconsin
2.3%
Massachusetts
1.9%
Hawaii
1.7%
Louisiana
1.3%
New Jersey
1.2%
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Population
Change, 19902000
Virginia’s cities
have grown by
0.5% since 2000
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.
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Decentralization
Since 1980, Virginia’s central cities have grown slowly and
failed to keep pace with statewide growth rate
Population Share central cities and
Remainder of State,
1980-2000
2000
31.1%
68.9%
Central Places
Remainder of Virginia
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
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.
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
1990
32.6%
1980
36.3%
0
67.4%
63.7%
1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 8,000,000
Decentralization
In the 1990s, much of Virginia grew rapidly, while most
cities lost population
Population Growth,
1990-2000
> 50%
20% to 49%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
11.4% to 19%
Staunton
Lexington
6% to 11.4%
0% to 5%
0% to - 10%
Norton
Bristol
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
Richmond
Hopewell
Petersburg
Lynchburg
Roanoke
Radford
Martinsville
Danville
Portsmouth
Norfolk
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Decentralization
In the 1990’s, growth was uneven among Virginia’s central
cities
13.0%
Population Change,
1990-2000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
8.0%
3.0%
-2.0%
-7.0%
C
Su
ha
rlo ffol
k
tte
sv
ill
A
e
rli
ng
to
n
H
am
pt
Va on
N
Be
ew
ac
po
h
rt
Fr
N
ed
ew
er
s
ic
ks
b
Ly urg
nc
hb
ur
g
R
oa
no
ke
R
ic
h
Po mo
n
rt
sm d
ou
th
B
ris
to
l
D
an
vi
lle
N
or
Pe
fo
lk
te
rs
bu
A
rg
le
xa
nd
ria
-12.0%
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Decentralization
And more than two-thirds have declined since 2000.
13.0%
Population Change,
2000-July 2004
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
8.0%
3.0%
-2.0%
-7.0%
C
Su
ha
rlo ffol
tte k
sv
ill
A
e
rli
ng
to
n
H
am
pt
Va on
N
Be
ew
ac
po
h
rt
Fr
N
ed
er ew
s
ic
ks
b
Ly urg
nc
hb
ur
g
R
oa
no
ke
R
ic
h
Po mo
n
rt
sm d
ou
th
B
ris
to
l
D
an
vi
lle
N
o
Pe rfo
lk
te
rs
bu
A
rg
le
xa
nd
ria
-12.0%
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Decentralization
….and inconsistent with growth in neighboring counties.
Population Change,
1990-2000
50%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
40%
30%
Roanoke
Pittsylvania
Washington
Amherst
Albemarle
Dinwiddie
Pr George
Chesterfield
Chesapeake
Bedford
York
Hanover
James City
Stafford
10%
Spotsylvania
20%
0%
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Decentralization
….and inconsistent with growth in neighboring counties.
Population Change,
2000-July 2004
50%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
40%
30%
Roanoke
Pittsylvania
Washington
Amherst
Albemarle
Dinwiddie
Pr George
Chesterfield
Chesapeake
Bedford
York
Hanover
James City
Stafford
10%
Spotsylvania
20%
0%
THE
BROOKINGS
INSTITUTION
Source:
U.S. Census
Bureau
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Decentralization
Only about half of all jobs in the Norfolk and Washington
metros are within 10 miles of the city center.
100%
90%
Outside 10-mile
Ring
80%
Inside 10-mile
Ring
70%
Source: John Brennan and Edward W.
Hill , Where are the Jobs?” Brookings,
1999
60%
50%
Norfolk
Washington
20%
Richmond
30%
National
40%
In the Washington,
DC the majority of
office space is in
“edgeless” locations
10%
0%
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
I
What are the general demographic and market
trends affecting metropolitan Virginia?
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
Demographic Change
Virginia’s resident population became more diverse
throughout the 1990s
Race/Ethnic
composition,
1990 & 2000
White
Black
Hispanic
Asian
Other
0%
3%
3%
Source: U.S. Census
Bureau
19%
19%
75%
1990
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
5%
4% 2%
70%
2000
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Demographic Change
In central cities, the white population share declined relative
to the increasing share of blacks and Hispanics
Race/Ethnic
composition,
1990 & 2000
White
Black
Hispanic
Asian
Other
0%
3%
3%
Source: U.S. Census
Bureau
5%
3% 2%
30%
64%
1990
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
33%
57%
2000
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Demographic Change
The white population declined in all but two of Virginia’s
central cities, despite a 6.7% growth rate, statewide
Suffolk
20%
Virginia
10%
Lynchburg
Hampton
Bristol
Alexandria
Charlottesville
0%
Virginia Beach
-10%
Roanoke
Newport News
Portsmouth
Richmond
-20%
Danville
-30%
Fredericksburg
Arlington
Norfolk
Change in white
population,
1990-2000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Petersburg
-40%
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Demographic Change
All but one of the neighboring counties far surpassed the
statewide growth rate of white residents
50%
40%
Spotsylvania
Change in white
population,
1990-2000
James City
Stafford
Hanover
Bedford
York
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
30%
Chesapeake
20%
Amherst
Prince George
Chesterfield
Dinwiddie
Pittsylvania
Albemarle
Washington
10%
Virginia
Roanoke
0%
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Demographic Change
The black population lagged the state in every central city
outside Hampton Roads.
40%
Vi r gi ni a Beach
Change in black
population,
1990-2000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Hampton
30%
Newpor t News
Al exandr i a
20%
Vi r gi ni a
Lynchbur g
Suf f ol k
Danvi l l e
10%
Ri chmond
Por tsmouth
Char l ottesvi l l e
Peter sbur g
0%
Nor f ol k
Roanoke
Fr eder i cksbur g
-10%
Br i stol
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Demographic Change
Many of the neighboring counties surpassed the statewide
growth rate of black residents
160%
Stafford
150%
140%
130%
120%
110%
Change in black
population,
1990-2000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
100%
90%
Spotsylvania
80%
Chesterfield
70%
Roanoke
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
James City Amherst
Bedford
Albemarle
0%
-10%
Washington
Pittsylvania
Dinwiddie
York
Prince George
Hanover
Virginia
Chesapeake
Foreign Born
Few counties have significant percentages of foreign born.
Increase in foreign
born, 1990-2000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
> 10%
5% to 10%%
> 5%
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Foreign Born
In many metro areas, the locus of immigration is shifting from
the central city to the suburbs
I2
Washington region,
share foreign-born byJE F F E R S O N
census tract, 2000
70
A R L IN G T O N
Source: Singer, “At Home in
the Nation’s Capital,” June 2003
D IS T R IC T O F
C O L U M B IA
A L E X A N D R IA
I9
5
M O NTG O M ERY
LO UD O UN
Route 50
F A IR F A X
Less than 5%
I 66
I 495
Percent Foreign Born
(by Census Tract)
P R IN C E G E O R G E 'S
5% - 15%
26%- 35%
Greater than 35%
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
F A U Q U IE R
P R IN C E W IL L IA M
I 95
16% - 25%
CALVERT
CHARLES
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
I
What are the general demographic and market
trends affecting metropolitan Virginia?
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
Educational Attainment
Educational attainment in central cities varied widely, but on
average was comparable to Virginia’s
70%
Share of
population 25
years and older
with at least a BA,
2000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
A
rli
A ngt
C lexa on
ha
rlo ndr
tte ia
sv
VI ille
R
R GIN
Vi i c h I A
rg
m
o
in
ia n d
B
Ly e a
nc ch
hb
H urg
am
pt
o
N n
or
R fol
oa k
no
ke
Su
ffo
l
B k
ris
to
l
0%
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Educational Attainment
Neighboring counties tended to have higher rates than the
statewide level and the central cities’ average
50%
Share of population
25 years and older
with at least a BA,
2000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
A
lb
e
Ja ma
m rle
es
C
ity
C
he Yo
st rk
er
fie
S ld
ta
ff
or
V d
ir
g
H inia
an
o
R ve
S oa r
po no
ts ke
yl
va
n
B ia
W ed
as fo
hi rd
P ng
itt to
sy n
lv
an
ia
0%
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Income Levels
In the central cities, income levels across racial groups were
often lower than Virginia’s levels
$70,000
$60,000
Median household
Income by race
and ethnic group,
2000
Black Householder
Hispanic Householder
W hite Householder
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$-
Va Beach
Richmond
Hampton
Danville
Bristol
Norfolk
Arlington
Roanoke
Charlottesville
VIRGINIA
Income Levels
Regardless of race/ethnicity, the neighboring counties’
income levels were often much higher than Virginia’s
$80,000
Black Householder
Hispanic Householder
W hite Householder
$70,000
$60,000
Median household
Income by race
and ethnic group,
2000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$-
Stafford
Chesterfield
Dinwiddie
VIRGINIA
James City Albemarle
Spotsylvania
Roanoke
York
Hanover
Pittsylvania
Demographic Changes and Implications for Virginia’s
Cities, Towns and Suburban Counties
I
What are the general demographic and market
trends affecting metropolitan Virginia?
II
How are these trends affecting cities and
suburban counties?
III
What are the implications for mobility and transit
services?
IV
What is the new competitive cities agenda?
Current Trends are Isolating
Low-income Residents &
Minorities From
Opportunities
Inequality and Isolation
Virginia’s current pattern of growth is isolating low-income
residents & minorities from opportunities.
Decentralization:
• Exacerbates social isolation in the core.
• Reduces educational opportunities in cities and
older suburban counties.
• Distances poor people from job opportunities.
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Inequality and Isolation
Norfolk and Richmond have a disproportionate amount of the
state’s welfare cases.
11.30%
12%
10%
Share of TANF cases, 1999
8.80%
8%
Share of population
6%
Source: Allen and Kirby. “Unfinished
Business: Why Cities Matter to
Welfare Reform.” Brookings, 2000.
4%
3.3%
2.8%
2%
0%
Norfolk
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
Richmond
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Inequality and Isolation
EITC utilization is highest in Virginia’s largest cities and in the
rural portions of the Commonwealth
Share of tax-filers
using EITC, 2000
Arlington Cnty &
Northern Virginia
Norfolk-Virginia Beach
Richmond
No Data
< 5%
5 to 10%
10 to 15%
15 to 20%
20 to 30%
30 to 40%
> 40%
Roanoke
Richmond
Roanoke
Large Cities
Large Suburbs
Small Metro
Rural
17.50%
9.70%
14.50%
17.20%
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
Washington, DC
Urbanized Area
Source: Berube and Forman,
“Rewarding Work: The Impact of the
EITC” Brookings, 2001
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Inequality and Isolation
Poverty remains stubbornly concentrated in cities and inner
suburbs.
Poverty rate
change, 1990-2000
Richmond metro
Source: Paul Jargowsky,
“Windows on Urban
Poverty,” University of
Texas, 2003.
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Inequality and Isolation
Poverty remains stubbornly concentrated in cities and inner
suburbs.
Poverty rate change,
1990-2000
Hampton Roads area
Source: Paul Jargowsky,
“Windows on Urban
Poverty,” University of
Texas, 2003.
THEPaul
BROOKINGS
INSTITUTION
Source:
Jargowsky,
“Windows on Urban Poverty,” University of Texas, 2003.
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Inequality and Isolation
Poverty remains stubbornly concentrated in cities and inner
suburbs.
Poverty rate
change, 1990-2000
Bristol metro
Source: Paul Jargowsky,
“Windows on Urban
Poverty,” University of
Texas, 2003.
THEPaul
BROOKINGS
INSTITUTION
Source:
Jargowsky,
“Windows on Urban Poverty,” University of Texas, 2003.
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Current Trends are
Contributing to the
Decentralization of
Metropolitan Virginia
Rapid Land Consumption
From 1982 – 1997 only ten other states urbanized land at a
higher rate than Virginia.
3,000,000
42.6% change
2,500,000
Average Annual
Change in
Developed Land,
1982-1992 and
1992-1997
Source: USDA Natural
Resources Inventory
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
32.4% change
in population
from 1980-2000
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
0
1982
1987
1992
1997
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Rapid Land Consumption
All of Virginia’s metropolitan areas are decentralizing.
29.7%
Washington, DC-MD-VA
Roanoke
47.0%
4.9%
24.5%
23.2%
Change in
Developed Land,
1982-1997
Richmond
Source: Fulton et
al., “Who Sprawls
Most?”
70.0%
23.2%
Norfolk
Lynchburg
52.3%
2.7%
34.3%
6.4%
Bristol, VA-TN
58.8%
-1.0%
Danville
41.5%
29.4%
Charlottesville
-5.0%
53.7%
5.0%
15.0% 25.0% 35.0% 45.0% 55.0% 65.0% 75.0%
Change in Urbanized Land
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
Change in Population
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Rapid Land Consumption
Densities in the core are decreasing throughout the state.
Density change,
1990-2000
Roanoke metro
Source: Paul Jargowsky,
“Windows on Urban
Poverty,” University of
Texas, 2003.
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Rapid Land Consumption
Densities in the core are decreasing throughout the state.
Density change,
1990-2000
Norfolk metro
Source: Paul Jargowsky,
“Windows on Urban
Poverty,” University of
Texas, 2003.
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Rapid Land Consumption
Densities in the core are decreasing throughout the state.
Density change,
1990-2000
Lynchburg metro
Source: Paul Jargowsky,
“Windows on Urban
Poverty,” University of
Texas, 2003.
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
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%
COMMERCIAL
SPACE
HOUSING
The state is projected to continue to grow. Over half of the
built space on the ground in 2030 will be new.
* - including
replaced space
Source: Chris Nelson, “Rebuild
America,” Brookings 2004
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%
Area
Current Trends Increase
Costs on Municipalities
& Taxpayers
Decentralization is Costly
Low density development imposes greater costs on state
and localities.
Low density development increases demand for:
• New schools
• New roads
• New public facilities
• Sewer and water extensions
Low density development increases the costs of key
services:
• Police
• Fire
• Emergency medical
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Decentralization is Costly
Studies estimate the degree of capital cost savings from
denser development…
Utilities
Roads/Streets
Public Facilities
Schools
Recreation
$20,000
Estimated
cost savings
by community
prototype
Source: Real Estate
Research Corporation
(1974)
$16,000
$12,000
$8,000
$4,000
$0
Low-Density
Sprawl
Low-Density
Planned
Sprawl Mix
Planned Mix
High-Density
Planned
Community Prototypes (10,000 units)
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Decentralization is Costly
...an idea substantiated by Florida case studies
Florida Growth
Patterns Study
Total Public
Facilities Costs
by Development
Type (Per
Dwelling Unit
1989 Dollars)
Source: Duncan (1989)
$18,000
$16,000
$14,000
$12,000
Other
Schools
Utilities
Roads
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$0
Average of Case Studies Under Average of Case Studies Under
Non-Compact
Compact
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Decentralization is Costly
Studies estimate the service delivery savings from more
compact development
Dollar costs of
new services
(including
police, fire,
highway,
schools, and
solid waste)
per 1,000 new
residents for a
family of 4 in
Kentucky
Source: Bollinger,
Berger, and
Thompson (2001)
Development Pattern
Cost
Central city counties
Fayette
(more concentrated)
($1.08)
Jefferson
(more spread out)
$37.55
Suburban counties
Shelby
(more concentrated)
Pendelton
(more spread out)
$88.27
$1,222.39
Counties with small towns
Warren
(more concentrated)
Pulaski
(more spread out)
$53.89
$239.93
Outer ring and rural
Garrard
(more concentrated)
$454.51
McCracken
(more spread out)
$618.90
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Decentralization is Costly
The density-related fiscal savings are estimated to be
substantial.
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.
Source: Muro & Puentes (2004)
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Decentralization is Costly
Virginia’s current growth could cost taxpayers nearly $3.7
billion in avoidable infrastructure.
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.”
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Current Trends Diminish
Economic Competitiveness &
Quality of Life
Competitiveness
Virginia’s current pattern of growth is hampering its
competitiveness by eroding its quality of life.
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.
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Competitiveness
In terms of job growth, Virginia was one of the slowest
growing states between 1990 – 2000.
Percent Change
in Full and Parttime Jobs,
1990-2000
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Regional Economic Information
System
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
28
29
30
31
Kansas
South Carolina
Nebraska
Indiana
32
33
34
North Dakota
Virginia
Iowa
35
Alabama
17.9%
17.8%
36
37
Vermont
Missouri
17.7%
17.2%
19.7%
19.5%
19.4%
19.3%
19.2%
18.7%
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Competitiveness
And “talent” is concentrated in only a few areas: half of
25-34 year olds with BA’s live in northern Virginia.
Percent of 25-34 with
Bachelor’s Degrees by
County, 2000
Source: U.S. Census (SF-4) PCT 65
State Average 6.38%
10% - 21%
6% - 9.9%
3% - 5.9%
.7% - 2.9%
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Competitiveness
Recent research contends that economic growth increasingly
occurs in places that attract and retain talented workers
Creativity
Region
Index
San Francisco
1057
Austin
1028
San Diego
1015
Boston
1015
Washington
Richmond
Charlottesville
Norfolk
Roanoke
Bristol/JC
Lynchburg
Danville
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
964
711
638
555
539
490
436
114
Rank
(All 268
Metros)
1
2
3
3
Creative
Class
12
7
6
30
High
Tech
1
13
2
14
9
66
96
120
128
148
169
262
4
56
51
97
158
195
261
250
5
67
163
60
108
145
79
267
Source: Florida, The Rise of the Creative Class, 2002.
Innovation Diversity
5
1
6
23
12
41
13
4
85
144
78
200
132
71
83
242
18
97
145
162
140
176
215
203
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Demographic Changes and Implications for Virginia’s
Cities, Towns and Suburban Counties
I
What are the general demographic and market
trends affecting metropolitan Virginia?
II
How are these trends affecting cities and
suburban counties?
III
What are the implications for mobility and transit
services?
IV
What is the new competitive cities agenda?
III
What are the implications for mobility and transit
services?
Low and decentralized densities are difficult to serve
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
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Demographic Changes and Implications for Virginia’s
Cities, Towns and Suburban Counties
I
What are the general demographic and market
trends affecting metropolitan Virginia?
II
How are these trends affecting cities and
suburban counties?
III
What are the implications for mobility and transit
services?
IV
What is the new competitive cities agenda?
The New Competitive Cities Agenda
3
Create
Neighborhoods
of Choice
2
Build on
Assets
1
FIX THE
BASICS
4
Build Family
Wealth
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
5
Influence
Metropolitan Growth
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
The New Competitive Cities Agenda
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 BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
www.brookings.edu/metro
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM