Demographic Changes and Implications for Virginia’s Cities, Towns and Suburban Counties...

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


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.


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%)


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








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


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


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.



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.



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


THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION


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









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


Since 1980, Virginia’s central cities have grown slowly and failed to keep pace with statewide growth rate

THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION


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



-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



-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.



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.



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


….and inconsistent with growth in neighboring counties.



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








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



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



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



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


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.


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



Increase in foreign born, 1990-2000

> 10%

5% to 10%%

> 5%

Foreign Born

Few counties have significant percentages of foreign born.



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








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



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


$-

$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






Current Trends are 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.

Virginia’s current pattern of growth is isolating low-income residents & minorities from opportunities.

Inequality and Isolation


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



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%


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


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





Poverty rate change, 1990-2000Hampton Roads area






Poverty rate change, 1990-2000Bristol metro



Current Trends are Contributing to the Decentralization of

Metropolitan Virginia


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


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.



Densities in the core are decreasing throughout the state.

Density change, 1990-2000Roanoke metro





Density change, 1990-2000Norfolk metro





Density change, 1990-2000Lynchburg metroSource: Paul Jargowsky,

“Windows on Urban Poverty,” University of Texas, 2003.


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


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


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


$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…



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)


...an idea substantiated by Florida case studies


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)


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


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.


The density-related fiscal savings are estimated to be substantial.


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.


Current Trends Diminish Economic Competitiveness &

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.

Virginia’s current pattern of growth is hampering its competitiveness by eroding its quality of life.

Competitiveness


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


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


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







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







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


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


www.brookings.edu/metro

Date post:	18-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	louisa-glenn
View:	217 times
Download:	2 times

Demographic Changes and Implications for Virginia’s Cities, Towns and Suburban Counties...

Documents