Headlight Data to SAP&DC - FINAL VERSION 10-29-20

Headlight Data 1108 Lavaca Street

Suite 110-193 Austin, Texas 78701

(352) 231-2401

Hybrid Workforce Feasibility Study

Prepared for: Southern Alleghenies Planning & Development Commission (SAP&DC)

October 29, 2020

Contents I. Project Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 1

II. Executive Summary & Recommendations ............................................................................................... 3

Key Findings ............................................................................................................................................. 3

Recommendations ................................................................................................................................... 4

III. National & Local Worker Migration Trends ............................................................................................ 5

Workers ................................................................................................................................................... 5

Commercial Policies and Real Estate ....................................................................................................... 6

IV. Existing Trends & Benchmarks ............................................................................................................... 8

Population Characteristics ....................................................................................................................... 8

Migration Patterns ................................................................................................................................. 12

Commuter Patterns ............................................................................................................................... 16

Industry & Workforce Characteristics ................................................................................................... 19

Miscellaneous Regional Metrics ............................................................................................................ 22

V. Hybrid Worker Opportunities ................................................................................................................ 28

Relocator Shed ....................................................................................................................................... 28

Hybrid Worker Office Space Locations .................................................................................................. 30

Potential Hybrid Worker Target Businesses .......................................................................................... 31

Appendix A: Detailed Data ......................................................................................................................... 32

Page | 1

I. Project Overview

Project Background Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the popularity of remote workers and workplace models was on the rise. A remote worker is an employee or consultant who works for one or more employers outside of a common office on a permeant basis. In the spring of 2020, the Altoona Blair County Development (ABCD) Corporation initiated discussions with the Southern Alleghenies Planning and Development Commission (SAP&DC) to explore how best to quantify this trend and how it may impact the SAP&DC region as a whole. These organizations resolved to address the question “What will this trend mean to the regional economy and how best can each County’s development strategies benefit?”

While working remotely offers some advantages, it is not without a downside. Working from home can stress “work-life balance”. At home isolation may limit creativity and discovery fueled by in-person exchanges with colleagues. As remote work models accelerate in part due to the pandemic, many expect that the need for smaller co-working spaces that offer flexible lease or membership models will also rise. This is the hybrid model, one that combines some in-office presence with a remote working element.

Introduction SAP&DC engaged Headlight Data (Headlight) to conduct this Hybrid Workforce Feasibility Study. For the purposes of this study, the hybrid workforce includes remote workers, independent contractors, solopreneurs, and telecommuters. This cohort, which has been on the rise in the United States over the past decade, was impelled further by COVID-19 related work from home (WFH) trends. SAP&DC theorized that the counties in its service area may benefit economically from this trend but wanted an objective third-party analysis on this issue.

Page | 2

The analysis area includes the following counties: Bedford, Blair, Cambria, Centre, Fulton, Huntingdon, and Somerset. For purposes of this study, when the entirety of this geographic area is being discussed it will be referred to as “the Region.” On some occasions the Region is considered with the exclusion of Centre County, which has decidedly different socioeconomic characteristics.”

This analysis explores the economics, demographics, and psychographics of the Region, as well as opportunities specific to the Region due to its proximity to major metro areas to include Pittsburgh, Washington D.C., and to some degree the Philadelphia-New York metroplex. Our approach considers existing trends prior to the COVID pandemic, current trends, and forecasted changes related to corporate human resources policies, corporate real estate decisions, and local socioeconomics.

Figure 1: The Region

Page | 3

II. Executive Summary & Recommendations Key Findings Located in the Allegheny Mountains of Pennsylvania, the Region has many attractive assets including natural amenities and historic small towns with charm and character. The following are some of the key empirical findings of this study related to the Region and its prospects for attracting hybrid workers.

• Out-migration of workers from urban areas due to COVID is a real phenomenon though the trend has been strongest in major metro coastal cities. Like many cities, Pittsburgh, Washington DC, and Philadelphia have lost some population during the pandemic but mostly to suburban counties within their metro areas. To use one example, Pittsburgh appears to be on the tail-end of a prolonged work from home (WFH) trend, with roughly 60% of its original workforce commuting into their places of employment. Companies are still adjusting to the emerging market conditions caused by the pandemic and by and large have not established definitive workforce location plans past January, 2021.

• Like western Pennsylvania in general, the Region is in the midst of a trend of decreasing population. Blair County has contracted marginally while Cambria, Bedford and Somerset have decreased more significantly. At least in the short-term, COVID has stimulated a reversal of this trend. Bedford, Somerset, Huntingdon and Blair counties have all gained population both in terms of short-term rentals and new residents.

• Though people are drawn to the Region from across the area, data indicate the strongest resettlement trend from counties surrounding Philadelphia, both within Pennsylvania and surrounding states. This trend was apparent pre-pandemic and has continued during the course of 2020.

• Among the short-list of tech epicenters in North America, Pittsburgh is considered one of the most affordable in terms of talent and real estate. In the post-COVID environment, Pittsburgh stands to gain considerably due to this advantage. The increased deployment of the “hub and spoke” model of corporate operations will likely increase the radius around the Steel City where workers can reasonably live and work.

• Communities in the Region communities are generally too distant to be considered in the labor shed of urban Pittsburgh. Greater acceptance of WFH trends will first benefit suburban communities already experiencing growth such as Greensburg, Cranberry Township, and Butler. Over time, labor sheds will extend out further from these communities and closer to the Region.

• The Region is currently fairly low in employment for positions that accommodate remote workers. However, Blair and Centre counties are increasing in their overall share remote workers, and Somerset County already exceeds state and national benchmarks in this regard.

• The Region has some infrastructure challenges related to welcoming hybrid worker including urban nightlife and food/beverage options, depth of broadband coverage, and availability of shared office spaces. Nonetheless, the Region has above average airport service and all counties in the Region outrank urban locations such as Pittsburgh and Philadelphia according to Headlight Data’s Natural & Recreational Amenities index.

Page | 4

Recommendations • The population and employment characteristics of the Region do not support the concept of a large

in-migration of hybrid workforce talent but there are enough positive signs that the Region should expect an uptick in such workers.

o Over the next three years, Headlight Data forecasts the population of full- or part-time remote workers to reach more than 12,300, increasing by more than 1,700 from the 2018/19 baseline. This represents a 5.4% annual increase in remote workers.

o Relocators are likely to come from a wide geographic area including locations in Virginia, Washington DC, Virginia and Pennsylvania. In particular, Fairfax (VA), Montgomery (MD) and Allegheny (PA) are the top-rated counties according to Headlight Data’s relocator model.

o The vast majority of such workers will locate in Centre, Cambria and Blair counties and, to a lesser extent, Somerset County.

• When considering changes to economic and community development strategies, leaders should keep in mind that although the count of hybrid workers may increase over time, this will not necessarily change the overall tide of net population decline.

o The first implication of this is that affordable shared-office spaces may become available over time due to business closures.

o The second implication is that existing efforts at business recruitment and retention should continue to be a priority. Maintaining a healthy and balanced economy and strong quality of life are exactly the factors that will draw in more such workers in the future.

• Though some hybrid workers will be drawn from Pittsburgh and other parts of western Pennsylvania, both cost of living and quality-of-life considerations will lend to a larger in-migration from communities in the Northeast megalopolis. Regional leadership should consider formally or informally surveying residents who have already relocated from such areas to determine what selling points attracted them to the area and what aspects are still lacking.

• Efforts to expand broadband coverage are already underway and should continue to be pursued. When eligible, public funds should be focused on increasing access within commercial, urbanized areas where hybrid workers are likely to congregate.

• To be successful at attracting such talent, leaders need to target candidates not just based on education, income and talent factors but also based on lifestyle factors that match with the amenities available in the Region.

Page | 5

III. National & Local Worker Migration Trends Since the onset of the COVID-19 public health crisis headlines have abounded related to workers’ shifting styles and locations of work. Though initially the conversation focused on changes to work from home (WFH) policies, recently, the conversation has shifted to how COVID is altering workers’ locations and corporations’ real estate choices. Much of this coverage is anecdotal, though some objective analyses have shed light on the extent of the changes. Some of the more empirical evidence in regard to the issue are outlined below.

Workers The Pew Research Center conducted a survey in the early summer of 2020 on COVID-related issues. According to this research, 3% of the more than 9,000 adults surveyed moved temporarily or permanently due directly to COVID-19. Of more interest to this study are the 9% of those movers who made a permanent change of address. These two factors combined indicate that roughly 0.27% of those surveyed permanently relocated.1 If multiplied by the United States population this means that the number of people who permanently relocated due to COVID was roughly equivalent to the current population of Boston, Massachusetts. As another indicator of this trend, the Harris Poll conducted a survey in April 2020 which found that 38% of respondents living in urban areas considered themselves likely to “move out of densely populated areas and toward rural areas.” Proportions were higher among both younger and more affluent households. 2 It is important to note that these extrapolations are based on survey data gathered over short periods of time. The actual impact could be larger or smaller than these estimates.

The remote work phenomenon will unquestionably change business behavior going forward but the debate remains open about just how much it will change. Global consulting company McKinsey & Company explored this issue in a recent study which was based on feedback from 800 business executives. Respondents predicted that remote work will be far more commonplace two years down the road than it was prior to the COVID outbreak. The fields of Information and Technology and Finance are expected to see the largest changes, increasing to 34% and 24% of the workforce, respectively.3 Bolstering this same point, a recent survey conducted by Upwork indicated that most hiring managers have been favorable of the WFH experiment thrust on them by COVID. Of those surveyed, 56% responded that remote work has gone better than expected. Also, 62% of those surveyed indicated that they are planning on more remote work than they had prior to the pandemic.4

1 D’Vera Cohn, Pew Research Center, “About a Fifth of US Adults Moved Due to COVID-19 or Know Someone Who Did.” https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/07/06/about-a-fifth-of-u-s-adults-moved-due-to-covid-19-or-know-someone-who-did/. 2 The Harris Poll, Wave 8-9, https://theharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/The-Harris-Poll_COVID19-Tracker_Wave-9.pdf. 3 McKinsey & Company, “Executive Views On The Future Of Work.” https://covid.mckinsey.com/future-of-work. 4 Adam Ozimek, UpWork, “The Future of Remote Work.” https://content-static.upwork.com/blog/uploads/sites/6/2020/05/26131624/Upwork_EconomistReport_FWR_052020.pdf.

Page | 6

It is also valuable to understand what type of workers have shifted to working from home. Research by the RAND corporation in May 2020 indicates which occupations at that time were most likely to be telecommuting. Of the major standard occupational classifications, 11 had 25% or higher in “exclusive telecommuting” status.5 When applied to the occupational staffing in the Region, this equates to more than 61,000 people working from home (25% of the labor force). When applied to the Pittsburgh MSA, this equates to more than 361,000 people (or 30% of the labor force). In both locations the most common occupations include office and administrative support, education, sales and related, and business and financial operations.6

One of the issues with survey data is that it does not perfectly represent what people have done or what they will do in the future. For that reason, it is worth exploring metrics that actually measure changes in behavior. Analytics by real estate brokerage firm, Redfin, indicate that rural areas are leading the nation’s rebound in home prices, a trend that has held consistent between April and July of 2020. Median home median home prices in rural areas are up 11.3% over the prior year, as compared to 9.2% for suburban and 6.7% for urban areas.7 At the local level, data indicate some regions have seen notably increased home values, including, Ebensburg, Bellefonte, and Huntingdon. Most communities, however, have seen average levels of appreciation.8 Cell phone tracking is another method for tracking residential movement that has gained popularity during the COVID pandemic. According to these data, the counties of Somerset, Bedford and Huntingdon have experienced a net increase in residents, while all other counties have seen a net decrease.9 Focusing more on urban areas, some residents of Allegheny County have relocated but typically to suburban counties still within the metro area, such as Butler and Washington.10 Those in the urban Washington DC environment have migrated mostly to less urban areas in Virginia and Maryland, though an appreciable minority have also moved to states such as Florida and North Carolina.

Commercial Policies and Real Estate Directly tied to workers’ behaviors are the decisions of the firms which employ them. Experts have indicated that businesses are in the throes of reconsidering their long-term policies related both to WFH and commercial real estate. The process is complicated because it involves HR policies, worker safety, supply chain issues, and existing leases.

Early national indicators are that commercial office prices have yet to soften, although vacancies have increased and development has slowed. According to experts there is regularly a significant delay in price changes during economic recessions, in part because leases can be so long-term that businesses

5 Philip Armour, et. all. “The COVID-19 Pandemic and the Changing Nature of Work” The RAND Corporation, https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA308-4.html. 6 Points Consulting analysis using JobsEQ. 7 Dana Anderson, Redfin.com “Homebuyer Interest in Rural Areas Rises, With Prices Up 11% in July.” https://www.redfin.com/blog/pandemic-causes-rural-suburbs-home-price-increase/. 8 Zillow Home Value Index, https://www.zillow.com/research/data/. 9 CuebIQ, Home Switcher Trend Analysis, https://www.cuebiq.com/visitation-insights-covid19/. 10 Ibid.

Page | 7

cannot react quickly to market changes. 11 On a more local level, office real estate in the Pittsburgh metro area priced at an average of $25.46/SF in 2020Q2, a slight increase over the prior twelve-months. Vacancies did increase slightly from 16.8% to 18.3%. Prospects remain bright as there are more than 1.9 million square feet of office space in development.12 Further correspondence with regional industry experts indicate that urban businesses that thrive on short-term leases such as co-working spaces, however, are struggling to make ends meet. Though the same cannot necessarily be said of rural coworking spaces.

Several other national real estate trends work in favor of Pittsburgh remaining a commercial real estate hot-spot. First and foremost, Pittsburgh is among the most affordable locations for businesses to operate in the United States. Among fifty North American tech markets analyzed, Pittsburgh ranked 44th in terms of cost-burden for the combination of rent and payroll costs.13 Based on these metrics it would be expected that Pittsburgh will continue to gain satellite offices and second headquarters for large businesses for the foreseeable future. Additionally, in the period between 2015 and 2019 population growth has started to shift away from major metro areas, which dominated the early part of the decade, to secondary and tertiary markets such as Pittsburgh.14 Part of the reason for this change is the shift among corporations away from a "fewer and bigger” strategy and toward a “hub and spoke” strategy that embraces geographic diversity and access to a wider talent pool.15 Lastly, the COVID-19 pandemic has turned upside down an increasing trend of greater employee density which has been on the rise since the end of the Great Recession. With new emphasis on reduced workforce density in office environments, larger office buildings may continue to be successful but at a lower per-person capacity than prior to the pandemic.16

Pittsburgh, like most urban markets, has seen its workforce slowly returning to the city. Google Maps Data Mobility Insights are one of the few data sources that can provide empirical insights on aggregate workforce behaviors. These data indicate that much of Allegheny County’s workforce started returning back to work in April and May, 2020. Nevertheless, workforce mobility has remained 35% to 40% below normal levels of activity from the months of June through September. The most recent seven day

11 Courtney Rubin, Medium.com, “The Office is Dead: Get Ready for the Commercial Real Estate Apocalypse.” https://marker.medium.com/the-office-is-dead-16be89f25d01. 12 Jones, Lang LaSalle (JLL) Pittsburgh Q2 2020 Office Insight, https://www.us.jll.com/en/trends-and-insights/research/pittsburgh-office-insight. 13 CBRE Research, “2020 Scoring Tech Talent Scorecard.” http://cbre.vo.llnwd.net/grgservices/secure/US%202020%20Tech%20Talent%20July.pdf?e=1601066135&h=b6e00e4c016b1bc8f04f16fa535b7633. 14 William H. Frey, “Even Before Coronavirus, Census Shows US Cities’ Growth was Stagnating 15 CBRE, “Evolving Location Strategies in the Era of COVID-19.” https://www.cbre.com/-/media/files/covid-19/lag-evolving-location-strategies_v05_final.pdf?la=en. 16 NAIOP, “Trends in Square Feet per Office Employee: An Update.” https://www.naiop.org/en/Research-and-Publications/Magazine/2017/Fall-2017/Marketing-Leasing/Trends-in-Square-Feet-per-Office-Employee-An-Update.

Page | 8

moving average is 39.6% below normal pre-pandemic levels.17 Certain employers have indicated a longer-term shift in policies. For example, K&L Gates, a legal firm employing over 500 lawyers in downtown Pittsburgh, more than six-months into the pandemic still has most of its staff working from home, primarily in suburban locations. Firm representatives have indicated they will likely utilize a much smaller amount of commercial space in the future.18 Many tech companies with robotics or AI divisions in Pittsburgh have announced that WFH policies would remain in effect at least until the end of 2020 including firms such as Google, Uber, Amazon and Microsoft, to name a few.

IV. Existing Trends & Benchmarks Determining the degree of opportunity that the Region has related to the Hybrid Workforce requires an investigation of existing trends. This analysis is not just a generic socioeconomic overview but a targeted investigation of the Region’s trends, assets and opportunities related to attracting talent. Though migration and workforce trends post-COVID-19 will certainly look different, the traces of activity prior to and during the crisis, are good indicators of future potential changes.

Population Characteristics Over the past nine years, the Region has experienced significant decreases in population, due in part to natural decreases (i.e. more deaths than births) and in part to net migration (i.e. more people leaving than coming). In total, the Region has decreased by more than 17,000 individuals since 2010. Cambria leads the Region in population decline overall, as well as in terms of net migration, whereas Somerset leads the Region in population decline due to natural causes. Centre County stands apart as an outlier, having seen an 5.3% population increase since 2010. The downward trends are not unusual for Western Pennsylvania, as nearly all counties are experiencing net population decline including Allegheny (Pittsburgh).

Table 2 displays the population data according to age and race/ethnicity data for the population of the Region. Most cohorts are decreasing in population, with a few exceptions. Those aged 25 to 34 increased, along with most cohorts 55 years and older. The uptick in the older Millennial-aged population (25 to 34 years) is driven primarily by Centre County, but Blair County has also contributed to the upward trend. White alone, which is the predominant race/ethnicity category decreased, whereas populations identifying as Black or African American, Asian, Hispanic, and Two or More Races all increased.

Table 1: Overall Population Trends 2010 – 2019

County 2019 Population

‘10'-19 Change

‘10'-19' % Change

% Change from Natural

Causes

% Change from Net Migration

Centre 162,385 8,155 5.3% 1.5% 3.9%

17 Google Maps, “COVID-19 Community Mobility Report” September 25, 2020, https://www.google.com/covid19/mobility/. 18 Andy Sheehan, CBS Local Pittsburgh, “Some Downtown Businesses Look To Downsize As Employees Work From Home. ”https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2020/09/04/downtown-pittsburgh-businesses-downsizes/.

Page | 9

Cambria 130,192 (13,269) (9.2%) (3.3%) (6.1%) Blair 121,829 (5,216) (4.1%) (2.4%) (1.7%) Somerset 73,447 (4,312) (5.5%) (3.5%) (1.9%) Bedford 47,888 (1,811) (3.6%) (1.7%) (2.0%) Huntingdon 45,144 (850) (1.8%) (1.5%) (0.3%) Fulton 14,530 (332) (2.2%) (1.0%) (1.0%) Region 595,415 (17,635) (2.9%) (1.6%) (1.3%)

Source: Census, Annual Population Estimates 2010-2019

Figure 1: Population Change by County, 2010-2019

Source: Census, Annual Population Estimates 2010-2019

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Thou

sand

s

Bedford Blair Cambria Centre Fulton Huntingdon Somerset

Page | 10

Figure 2: Compound Annual Growth by County, 2010-2019

Source: Headlight Data based on Census, Annual Population Estimates 2010-2019

Figure 3: Sources of Population Growth, 2010-2019


(2.9%)

0.7%

(10.0%)

(8.0%)

(6.0%)

(4.0%)

(2.0%)

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Bedford Blair Cambria Centre Fulton

Huntingdon Somerset SAP Region Pennsylvania

(10,000)

(8,000)

(6,000)

(4,000)

(2,000)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

Births Deaths US Net Migration Int. Net Migration

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Page | 11

Table 2: Population Trends by Age and Race/Ethnicity, 2010-2019

Current Population

2010 Population

10'-19' Change

10'-19' %

Change

Sparklines

Under 5 years 28,391 31,140 (2,749) (8.8%)

5 to 9 years 30,249 32,993 (2,744) (8.3%)

10 to 14 years 32,001 33,529 (1,528) (4.6%)

15 to 19 years 42,953 52,106 (9,153) (17.6%)

20 to 24 years 53,293 54,282 (989) (1.8%)

25 to 34 years 71,749 68,627 3,122 4.5%

35 to 44 years 67,345 76,488 (9,143) (12.0%)

45 to 54 years 78,559 88,737 (10,178) (11.5%)

55 to 59 years 42,869 40,715 2,154 5.3%

60 to 64 years 42,575 34,035 8,540 25.1%

65 to 74 years 62,088 48,946 13,142 26.8%

75 to 84 years 34,898 36,397 (1,499) (4.1%)

85 years & over 16,352 13,998 2,354 16.8%

White alone 553,126 571,287 (18,161) (3.2%)

Black or African American alone 16,805 15,660 1,145 7.3%

Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 10,926 8,754 2,172 24.8%

Asian alone 12,428 9,853 2,575 26.1%

Two or more races 8,683 5,155 3,528 68.4%

Some other race alone 761 504 257 51.0%

American Indian & Alaska Native 421 588 (167) (28.4%)

Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander 172 192 (20) (10.4%)

Male 306,421 308,099 (1,678) (0.5%)

Female 296,901 303,894 (6,993) (2.3%)


Page | 12

Migration Patterns In addition to the aggregated data mentioned in the prior section, the US Census Bureau also tracks detailed data migration pattern data including detailed information such as where people are moving to or from in relation to the Region. Importantly, these data do not quantify “natural employment change” (i.e. births and deaths) but focus exclusively on population due to migratory causes.

Every County has seen residents both come and go (i.e. gross migration). On the net, three of the seven counties experienced net out-migration, namely, Somerset, Bedford and Blair. Centre County experience positive in-migration of more than 7,200 individuals and the remaining counties experienced small positive net in-migration. Migration patterns for the Region including Centre County show a positive net effect from numerous locations throughout the state. These data are strongly skewed by students attending Penn State however, so it is more germane to focus on the remaining regional counties.

Migration data excluding Centre County reveal a surprising trend (Figure 5 and Table 5). The Region experienced positive net in-migration from numerous Northeast megalopolis counties, namely, Philadelphia, Montgomery, Baltimore (MD), and Washington (MD). Conversely, there has been a strong negative net effect from Allegheny, Westmoreland, and Indiana counties. In other words, the Region is routinely drawing more people than its loosing from the greater Philadelphia area, yet losing more people than its gaining from the Pittsburgh area.

Table 3: Gross In- & Out-Migration by County, 2014-2018

Region Gross In-Migration

Gross Out-Migration

Net Migration Net Migration Ratio to 2019

Population Bedford 1,453 1,758 (333) (0.7%) Blair 4,699 5,014 (525) (0.4%) Cambria 5,865 5,551 9 0.0% Centre 21,209 10,996 7,270 4.5% Fulton 673 544 126 0.9% Huntingdon 2,292 1,818 359 0.8% Somerset 2,362 2,888 (567) (0.8%) Region 38,553 28,569 6,339 1.1%

Source: Census, County to County Migration, 2014-2018

Page | 13

Figure 4: Net Migration by County (Including Centre County)


Table 4: Top In- and Out-Migration Locations for the Region (including Centre County)19

County* In-Migrants

County* Out-Migrants

County* Net Migrants

Region 33,290

Region (23,299)

Region 6,339 Asia, INT 2,816

Allegheny, PA (1,849)

Bucks, PA 747

Allegheny, PA 1,963

Indiana, PA (949)

Montgomery, PA 691 Bucks, PA 1,072

Clearfield, PA (713)

Chester, PA 499

Westmoreland, PA

1,006

Philadelphia, PA (681)

Westmoreland, PA

449

Philadelphia, PA 950

Mifflin, PA (632)

Lancaster, PA 405 Montgomery, PA 939

Cumberland, PA (616)

Luzerne, PA 337

Chester, PA 872

Dauphin, PA (580)

Erie, PA 299 Lancaster, PA 790

Delaware, PA (559)

Schuylkill, PA 288

Clearfield, PA 739

Westmoreland, PA

(557)


Europe, INT 696

Berks, PA (462)

Lackawanna, PA 225 Source: Census, County to County Migration, 2014-2018

19 Please note that for Tables 4 and 5, inter-regional migration flows have been excluded. For example, a person moving from Bedford County to Cambria County is not represented.

Page | 14

Figure 5: Net Migration by County (Excluding Centre County)


Table 5: Top In- and Out-Migration Locations for the Region (excluding Centre County) County* In-

Migrants County* Out-

Migrants County* Net

Migrants

Region 13,841

Region (15,170)

Region (931) Allegheny, PA 974

Allegheny, PA (1,414)



Centre, PA (1,366)

Montgomery, PA

188

Westmoreland, PA 603

Indiana, PA (878)

York, PA 154 Centre, PA 401

Westmoreland, PA

(533)

Greene, PA 135

Clearfield, PA 383

Cumberland, PA (465)

Davidson, TN 134 Asia, INT 328

Clearfield, PA (465)

Schuylkill, PA 131

Franklin, PA 310

Franklin, PA (331)

Rutherford, TN 118 Cumberland, PA 299

Philadelphia, PA (304)

Baltimore, MD 109

Lancaster, PA 270

Mifflin, PA (285)

Washington, MD

98

Montgomery, PA 244

Berks, PA (259)

Burlington, NJ 98 Source: Census, County to County Migration, 2014-2018

Page | 15

Alternate data sources using cell phone records provide insights on recent COVID influenced trends (Tables 6 and 7). Over the course of 2020, four of the Region’s counties have experienced net in migration. Interestingly, they include some of the counties that have seen the greatest migratory decreases in recent years: Bedford, Huntingdon, Somerset and Blair. In terms of income levels Bedford, Centre, and Somerset have benefited from a notable increase in higher-income residents. Counties contributing to recent in-migration to the Region include many of the same locations previously mentioned. Eastern Pennsylvania counties contribute the strongest influence, outranking Pittsburgh metro area counties such as Allegheny and Fayette.

Table 6: Recent Migration Trends, January - August, 2020

County Cumulative % Change

Low-Income % Change

High-Income % Change

Bedford 4.0% 63.5% 25.1%

Blair 0.1% 8.3% 1.6%

Cambria (1.2%) 19.6.% (1.5%)

Centre (23.7%) (165.0%) 48.3%

Fulton (0.2%) -- --

Huntingdon 0.5% 7.1% (29.5%)

Somerset 4.4% 1.4% 13.3%

Comparison: Pennsylvania

(0.8%) (2.9%) (2.4%)

Source: Cuebiq Mobility Insights, Home Switchers Analysis Table 7: Recent Migration Trends, Origin of In-Migrants, January - August 2020

County Estimated Gross New Residents Montgomery, PA 400

Bucks, PA 376

Chester, PA 372

Allegheny, PA 319

Westmoreland, PA 267

Delaware, PA 183

Clearfield, PA 140

Mifflin, PA 125

Lehigh, PA 116

Fayette, PA 107 Source: Headlight Data using Cuebiq Mobility Insights, Home Switchers Analysis

Page | 16

Commuter Patterns Commuter pattern data reveal an additional angle on an area’s residential and workforce dynamics. Commercial centers typically keep much of their own workforce while also attracting large proportion of in-commuters, whereas exurban and rural communities typically host a large contingent of out-commuters. These data are also a good indicator of individuals’ willingness to drive to and from locations such as the Region to nearby metropolitan locations. Research indicates that in the post-COVID economy, employers may be more adaptable to remote workers but still expect them to be live close enough to commute into the office when called upon.

Centre and Blair Counties are the clear commercial capitals of the Region, both retaining the majority of their own workforce while drawing commuters from surrounding counties. The Region as a whole is fairly self-sufficient, evidenced by the fact that 70.6% of its workforce both lives and works in the Region. Pittsburgh is the top metro area contributing both in-commuters and out-commuters to the Region (5.9% and 7.7%, respectively). Those travelling to the Pittsburgh metro area for work go both to the urban core of Allegheny and to outlying areas such as Westmoreland and Indiana counties. In-commuters come from outlying counties in all directions from the Region.

Table 8: In- and Out-Commuter Patterns by County20

Region In-Commuters Out-Commuters Living & Working in County

Bedford 41.8% 58.7% 41.3% Blair 43.6% 37.1% 62.9% Cambria 41.2% 46.1% 53.9% Centre 45.6% 33.1% 66.9% Fulton 57.1% 66.9% 33.1% Huntingdon 48.7% 61.4% 38.6% Somerset 38.8% 55.8% 44.2% Region (incl. Centre) 27.4% 29.4% 70.6% Region (excl. Centre) 25.1% 32.9% 67.1%

Source: Census LEHD, OntheMap, 201721

20 Within Table 8, percentages for the In-Commuter column indicate in-commuters as a percentage of the workforce, while Out-Commuters and Living & Working indicate percentages of the County’s working population. 21 Data for the following counties are based on ACS 1-year estimates: Blair, Cambria and Centre. Data for the following counties are based on ACS 5-year estimates: Bedford, Fulton, Huntingdon and Somerset.

Page | 17

Figure 6: Commuter Inflow and Outflow from the Region

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, LEHD, OntheMap, 2017

Table 9: Top In- and Out-Commuter Locations by Metro Area for the Region (Excluding in-region MSA’s)

Rate of Commuters from Rate of Commuters to Pittsburgh CBSA (Pittsburgh, PA) 6.9% Pittsburgh CBSA (Pittsburgh, PA) (9.1%) Du Bois, PA 1.8% State College, PA (Centre County) (3.1%) State College, PA (Centre County) 1.6% Harrisburg-Carlisle (Harrisburg, PA) (2.5%) Indiana, PA (Indiana County) 1.5% Philadelphia CBSA (Philadelphia, PA) (2.3%) Philadelphia CBSA (Philadelphia, PA) 1.2% Indiana, PA (1.8%)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, LEHD, OnTheMap, 2017, Home Destination Analysis

Table 10: Top In and Out Commuter Locations by County for the Region, Excluding Centre (Excluding in-region Counties)

Rate of Commuters from Rate of Commuters to Westmoreland, PA 2.3% Allegheny, PA (4.3%) Allegheny, PA 2.2% Westmoreland, PA (2.7%) Clearfield, PA 1.8% Indiana, PA (1.8%) Indiana, PA 1.5% Franklin, PA (1.5%) Franklin, PA 0.9% Cumberland, PA (1.2%)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, OnTheMap, 2017, Home Destination Analysis

In-commuters Out-commuters

63,885 70,714 Living & Working

169,403

Page | 18

Figure 7: Workplace Locations of the Region’s Working Residents (excluding Centre)


Figure 8: Residential Locations of the Region’s Workforce (excluding Centre)


Page | 19

Industry & Workforce Characteristics

Not all types of workers are equally eligible for remote work and, as such, labor force characteristics are an essential data point on the topic of the hybrid workforce. As of 2020, the estimated number of those employed in the Region is around 250,000. The largest sectors include Health Care and Social Assistance (18.0% of the workforce) followed by Educational Services (12.3%) and Retail Trade (12.0%). The rank order of industries across the counties varies, for example, Manufacturing plays a more significant role in Bedford and Fulton Counties. In terms of occupations, the dominant groups include Office & Administrative, Sales & Related, and Food Preparation and Service.

High location quotients (LQs) indicate sectors in which a region has high concentrations of employment compared to the national average. Sectors in the with the largest LQs in the Region are Educational Services, Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction and Utilities (see Tables A2- A3 of the Appendix). Industries with high concentrations of remote workers are not particularly highly concentrated anywhere in the Region. However, Centre, Cambria and Blair counties each have moderately strong concentrations of fields such as Professional, Scientific and Technical Services, Finance, and Information,

Over the three years, employment in the Region is projected to contract by 5,591 jobs, not accounting for effects of the pandemic. Health Care and Social Assistance is projected to increase at a rate of 1.3% and all other sectors are projected to decline.

As shown in Table 13, the Region does host a reasonably large contingent of individuals working from home, totaling 10,610 as of 2018. The proportion of those working from home is highest in Somerset, Centre and Bedford counties (5.4%, 4.6%, and 4.3%). The overall proportion of those working from home is lower in the Region than the state of Pennsylvania and the United States. Notably, the likelihood for people to work from home has been increasing in the Region. For example, in both Centre and Blair counties, these rates have increased between 2018 and 2019.

Page | 20

Table 11: 2020 Industry Employment: Regional Counties

Source: Jobs EQ, Q12020

Industry Bedford Blair Cambria Centre Fulton Hunt-ingdon

Som-erset

Region

Health Care & Social Assistance

1,968 13,667 12,166 9,956 789 2,390 4,099 45,034

Educational Srvcs.

1,128 3,698 4,677 17,626 371 1,591 1,754 30,846

Retail Trade 2,210 8,572 6,759 7,785 415 1,589 2,596 29,926 Manufacturing 2,299 7,263 4,340 4,438 2,749 1,439 2,863 25,391 Accommodation & Food Service

1,589 4,885 4,055 6,382 277 925 2,995 21,108

Construction 1,314 2,736 2,434 3,752 474 854 1,557 13,120 Transportation & Warehousing

2,257 3,825 2,553 2,193 143 392 1,625 12,988

Other Srvcs. (except Public Admin.)

810 2,885 3,060 3,216 306 613 1,655 12,545

Public Administration

500 1,494 2,468 3,216 216 1,642 2,101 11,638

Professional, Scientific, & Technical Srvcs.

295 2,564 1,963 3,776 44 297 815 9,754

Admin., Support, WM & Remediation Srvcs.

545 2,321 2,214 2,463 52 249 656 8,499

Wholesale Trade 351 2,128 1,468 736 130 212 1,030 6,054 Finance & Insurance

326 1,006 1,869 1,345 82 448 750 5,827

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting

690 471 273 655 337 533 542 3,500

Information 129 834 708 1,033 25 59 106 2,895 Arts, Entertainment, & Recreation

145 663 477 1,118 35 139 248 2,825

Real Estate & Rental & Leasing

98 553 460 1,212 18 90 220 2,651

Management of Companies & Enterprises

150 1,013 406 699 0 30 105 2,403

Utilities 119 275 454 396 82 118 164 1,608 Mining, Quarrying, & Oil & Gas Extraction

40 92 119 175 50 122 799 1,397

Total 17,530 61,982 53,831 72,789 13,361 14,206 27,143 250,010

Page | 21

Table 12: 2020 Occupational Employment, Regional Counties

Occupation Bedford Blair Cambria Centre Fulton Hunt-ingdon

Som-erset

Region

Office & Admin. Support

1,876 7,559 6,927 9,625 666 1,619 3,250 31,521

Sales & Related 1,777 6,880 5,355 6,308 434 1,235 2,227 24,215 Food Preparation & Serving Related

1,507 5,478 4,609 6,587 315 1,117 2,245 21,858

Transportation & Material Moving

2,527 6,312 4,408 4,314 411 949 2,511 21,434

Educational Instruction & Library

892 2,838 3,327 8,298 272 1,060 1,418 18,105

Healthcare Practitioners & Technical

600 4,777 4,250 4,388 390 696 1,593 16,694

Production 1,500 4,529 2,759 2,770 1,427 998 1,876 15,859 Management 1,230 3,106 2,697 4,356 585 959 1,669 14,601 Healthcare Support

626 3,778 3,987 2,949 184 895 1,177 13,595

Construction & Extraction

1,118 2,385 2,261 3,351 374 781 1,861 12,132

Installation, Maintenance, & Repair

800 2,677 2,175 2,403 345 531 1,327 10,257

Business & Financial Operations

506 2,073 2,142 3,185 239 498 908 9,552

Building & Grounds Cleaning & Maintenance

625 1,625 1,472 2,591 130 443 1,110 7,996

Personal Care & Service

386 1,681 1,551 1,932 95 413 667 6,726

Protective Service

244 998 1,267 1,873 75 757 1,012 6,225

Community & Social Service

380 1,548 1,369 1,578 112 415 740 6,143

Computer & Mathematical

198 989 997 2,013 90 160 312 4,760

Architecture & Engineering

234 1,124 888 1,394 329 152 464 4,585

Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, & Media

168 770 688 1,283 61 152 290 3,411

Life, Physical, & Social Science

57 369 341 1,003 30 87 182 2,068

Farming, Fishing, & Forestry

233 251 119 229 97 192 147 1,268

Legal 45 238 242 360 19 98 156 1,157 Total 17,530 61,982 53,831 72,789 6,680 14,206 27,143 254,161

Page | 22

Table 13: Work from Home Characteristics, the Region

Region # of People Working from Home

Percent of Workforce

Bedford County 916 4.3% Blair County 1,752 3.1% Cambria County 1,851 3.3% Centre County 3,459 4.6% Fulton County 272 4.2% Huntingdon County 635 3.5% Somerset County 1,725 5.4%

Region 10,610 4.0% Pennsylvania 280,424 4.6% United States 7,422,933 4.9%

Source: American Community Survey 2018 5-Year Estimates

Miscellaneous Regional Metrics The following information addresses numerous other angles related to the Region’s existing and future ability to attract members of the hybrid workforce.

Commercial Office Market Trends As noted in the National & Local Worker Migration Trends section, asking prices and vacancy rates for commercial real estate in urban areas has yet to slip due to the recent recession. Similar trends are observable across the primary cities in and around the Region. Vacancy rates are high and trending higher in certain markets such as Johnstown, Ebensburg, and Carolltown. In Altoona, however, vacancy rates are distinctly low and continuing to drop, perhaps signaling and undersupply of office real estate.

Page | 23

Table 14: Commercial Office Metrics for the Region & Surrounding Areas

Vacancy Rate Gross Asking Rent (per SQFT)

City County Current Market

YoY Market Overall

YoY

Altoona Blair 2.2% 0.8% $15.63 (0.4%) Bellefonte Centre 6.7% 3.3% $21.33 0.2% Carrolltown Cambria 12.8% (0.2%) $14.79 0.8% Donegal Westmoreland 4.2% 0.5% $14.75 1.8% Ebensburg Cambria 12.8% (0.2%) $14.79 0.8% Holidayburg Blair 5.5% 0.9% $13.60 1.3% Johnstown Cambria 12.8% (0.2%) $14.79 0.8% Lewistown Mifflin 4.8% (0.2%) $14.60 (1.7%) Ligonier Westmoreland 8.7% 0.9% $21.37 0.0% Philipsburg Centre 6.7% 3.3% $21.33 0.2% Somerset Somerset 7.0% 2.2% $17.23 (1.0%) State College Centre 6.7% 3.3% $21.33 0.2%

Source: CoStar Analytics, 2020

Broadband Availability Accommodating full and part-time telecommuters requires a broadband infrastructure that can allow workers to shift seamlessly from their headquarters to their remote offices. Within the Region, Centre, Cambria, and Blair have the strongest coverage, whereas Fulton, Huntingdon, and Bedford are weakest. By comparison with metro areas in the state, Allegheny and Philadelphia counties each have 90%+ broadband coverage.

Data presented in this section are from Broadband Now, an ISP comparison service that consolidates and presents data from sources such as the FCC and the Census Bureau. All broadband data generally face the same limitation of not keeping up with the pace of deployment by internet providers. These data face the same limitation but are generally considered as good as any other options on the market.

Table 15: Percent of Broadband Coverage by Level

County Coverage 25+MBPS 100+MBPS 1 GBPS Cambria 89.8% 90.0% 89.6% 0.0% Centre 89.5% 89.7% 89.3% 7.0% Blair 86.3% 87.7% 85.6% 0.0% Somerset 83.8% 83.9% 83.8% 6.9% Huntingdon 82.6% 85.8% 79.1% 0.1% Bedford 75.4% 77.5% 73.9% 0.0% Fulton 44.5% 49.9% 41.0% 0.0%

Source: Broadbandnow.com, Pennsylvania

Page | 24

Table 16: Population with Broadband Coverage

County Population (2019) # of Pop. w/ BB Coverage

% of Regional Pop w/ BB

Centre 162,385 145,335 28.6% Cambria 130,192 116,912 23.0% Blair 121,829 105,138 20.7% Somerset 73,447 61,549 12.1% Bedford 47,888 36,108 7.1% Huntingdon 45,144 37,289 7.3% Fulton 14,530 6,466 1.3%

Source: Broadbandnow.com, Pennsylvania

Vacation Rental Trends Urbanites escaping to rural areas to work-from-home has been a common trend over the course of 2020. Cost and vacancy data short-term rentals (e.g. AirBnB) are a good indicator of these activities. Some communities report short-term renters later becoming full-time residents so these data can also serve as a leading indicator of such relocation trends. Accounting for both daily cost and occupancy, vendors in Bedford, Huntingdon and Somerset have performed very well in the spring and summer of 2020.

Figure 9: Short-term Rentals Cost & Vacancy Rate Trends

Source: AirDNA Short-Term Rental Data & Analytics

Page | 25

Cost of Living Index Cost of living is relatively affordable in the Region, owing particularly to low cost of housing. Centre County sticks out as an outlier due to above average costs on items such as groceries, health and housing. It is also worth noting that Allegheny County is relatively affordable and comparable to counties such as Centre and Fulton. Philadelphia County, by comparison, exceeds the Region in cost of living on nearly all fronts.

Table 17: Cost of Living Index, Region Compared to Benchmarks

Region Overall Grocery Health Housing Median Home Cost

Utilities Trans-portation

Misc.

Bedford 81.1 99 82.8 55.7 $128.9k 96.6 87.3 96.8 Blair 78.3 99.5 83.6 48.1 $111.2k 96.9 85.2 95.9 Cambria 74.5 96 91 29.7 $68.6k 94.7 91.4 97.8 Centre 97.3 103.6 106.3 103 $238.2k 94.4 79.7 99.2 Huntingdon 81.8 99.2 91.9 53.5 $123.7k 98.1 90.4 95.1 Fulton 89.5 104.3 108.4 69 $159.5k 95.9 94.5 96 Somerset 76.6 97.1 91.4 42.4 $98.1k 92.2 83.6 96.9 Allegheny County (Pittsburgh)

89.7 99.8 85.7 64.9 $150.1k 100.2 109.1 100.8

Philadelphia County (Philadelphia)

100.6 103.5 98.4 66.5 $153.8 107.7 141.9 108.7

Pennsylvania 92.5 100.3 97.0 751. $173.7k 100.2 109.1 99.0 Source: Sperlings Best Places

Page | 26

Airport Service Airport service, like broadband, is a characteristic that many hybrid workers require to stay connected to their places of employment and clients. Table 18 presents passenger enplanements in 2018 and 2019 for all of Pennsylvania’s commercial airports.

The University Park airport rates very well within the state based on two key factors: growth in air service, and the ratio of enplaments to population. The number of enplanements expanded by 26.0% between 2018 and 2019. At 208.5 the population ratio is forth in the state and outranks several larger airports, namely Leigh Valley and Wilkes-Barre/Scranton.

Table 18: Passenger Enplanements, (Thousands)

City Airport Name 2018 Enplane-

ments

2019 Enplane-

ments

% Change Pop w/in 25 Miles

Persons per

Enplane-ment

Philadelphia Philadelphia International

15,292.7 16,007.5 4.7% 4,853.5 0.3

Pittsburgh Pittsburgh International

4,670.0 4,715.9 1.0% 1,935.7 0.4

Harrisburg Harrisburg International

636.8 746.4 17.2% 719.7 1.0

State College

University Park 153.6 193.5 26.0% 208.5 1.1

Allentown Lehigh Valley International

376.5 434.0 15.3% 738.8 1.7

Avoca Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International

258.6 289.0 11.7% 553.9 1.9

Erie Erie International/Tom Ridge Field

95.3 106.7 11.9% 269.7 2.5

Williamsport Williamsport Regional

22.5 20.4 (9.3%) 158.2 7.7

Latrobe Arnold Palmer Regional

151.4 158.3 4.5% 1,564.9 9.9

Bradford Bradford Regional 4.2 4.3 2.4% 116.7 27.2

Brookville Dubois Regional 5.4 5.8 7.1% 161.1 27.6 Johnstown John Murtha

Johnstown-Cambria County

4.4 6.3 44.0% 336.1 53.3

Altoona Altoona-Blair County

4.1 3.7 (10.9%) 297.2 81.3

Lititz Lancaster 6.0 5.8 (4.2%) 687.5 119.4 Source: Federal Aviation Administration, Passenger Boardings 2018-2019

Page | 27

Lifestyle Factors The desire for hybrid workers to relocate extends beyond purely practical considerations such as office space and housing also encompassing quality-of-life issues. The data presented in Figure 10 is an effort to quantify the desirability of the counties in the Region. Factors used to develop the index include the following: concentration of boutique drinking places,22 restaurants, winter sunlight, amount of public lands and lands bordering water, and percentage of population who regularly engage in outdoor activities.23

The index indicates that Centre County is the most desirable location in the Region, owing to high scores on restaurants, boutique drinking places, and outdoor activities. Huntingdon and Bedford also score above average in the index. Blair County, the default commercial capital is slightly below average. Notably, all regional counties score better than the most densely populated areas of the state, including Philadelphia, Allegheny and Montgomery counties (on the right side of the chart).

Figure 10: Natural & Recreational Amenities Index

Source: Headlight Data

22 This group includes breweries, wineries, and distillers and excludes bars and pubs. 23 Specific outdoor activities include canoeing/kayaking, hunting with a shotgun, and freshwater fishing.

CENTRE

HUNTINGDONBEDFORD

FULTON

BLAIRSOMERSET

CAMBRIA

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600

Amen

itie

s In

dex

2019 Population (Thousands)

MONTGOMERY

ALLEGHENY

MONTGOMERY

PHILADELPHIA

Page | 28

V. Hybrid Worker Opportunities Relocator Shed The potential for working adults to relocate to the Region is dependent upon many factors. Among the most significant are geographic distance, the size of the workforce, and familiarity with the WFH model. Additionally, a worker’s occupational classification is a strong determinant of their long-term likelihood to be a remote worker. Using these factors Headlight Data produced a Potential Relocator Shed model that estimates the number of individuals within a 200-mile radius who could be relocator candidates. Figure 11 displays these locations along with three concentric rings of 100-miles, 150-miles, and 200-miles. Accompanying these data, Table 19 displays some key statistics for the top 15 counties according to the model. Table A6 in Appendix A display data for all 250 counties within the 200-mile radius area.

Figure 11: Potential Relocator Shed

Source: Headlight Data, using data from Esri Business Analyst

Page | 29

There are several regions of potential relocators within the 200-mile radius including the Greater Philadelphia metro, the Washington DC metro, the Pittsburgh metro and even the Harrisburg metro. There are also a handful of smaller metro and micropolitan areas that are home to a modest number of potential relocators, including Scranton, Williamsport, Morgantown (WV), Youngstown (OH), and Cleveland (OH). Though many counties in Pennsylvania are geographically closer than these locations, few have an adequately sized workforce, or a pertinent blend of occupational sectors.

The top fifteen counties with greatest eligibility of relocators include seven from Maryland and Washington DC, four from Pennsylvania, three from Virginia, and one from New York. Fairfax (VA) ranks first overall, owing to the large workforce and concentration of professional workers. The percentage of workers who work-from-home is also a noteworthy metric for estimating relocator locations, particularly since these statistics reflect 2018 behaviors prior to the COVID pandemic. Counties with higher WFH proportions include Loudoun (VA), Chester (PA) and Fairfax (VA).

Table 19: Key Metrics for Top 15 Relocator Locations

County 2020 Civilian Employed Population

2018 WFH Proportion

Miles from Blair County

Est. Number of Potential

Relocators Fairfax, VA 610,644 3.5% 127 153,463 Montgomery, MD 549,810 3.3% 111 149,504 Allegheny, PA 542,111 2.6% 88 149,093 Baltimore, MD 428,282 2.0% 116 95,702 District of Columbia, DC

365,576 3.3% 130 90,594

Prince George's, MD 472,918 1.6% 139 79,945 Loudoun, VA 212,307 4.0% 104 67,273 Montgomery, PA 386,627 3.4% 156 58,973 Baltimore city, MD 280,856 1.9% 122 58,778 Anne Arundel, MD 299,337 2.9% 139 56,052 Philadelphia, PA 594,293 1.6% 171 55,574 Erie, NY 423,321 1.5% 158 53,356 Howard, MD 175,394 3.1% 113 50,600

Source: Headlight Data, using data from Esri Business Analyst

Page | 30

Hybrid Worker Office Space Locations The map in Figure 12 shows the density of regional “hybrid worker” office space locations in the Pittsburgh metro area and the Region. Expressly, the areas represent locations of shared office space or co-working space, accelerators, and business incubators. The Pittsburgh metro area has a high density of shared office spaces, hosting 41 such spaces. The Region hosts 11 shared offices with the highest density in State College (Centre County) and Johnstown (Cambria County), with four facilities each. Shared spaces are sparse in certain populated areas such as Altoona and Ebensburg.

Figure 12: Locations of Co-Working Offices, Accelerators & Business Incubators

Source: Research by Headlight Data

N

Page | 31

Potential Hybrid Worker Target Businesses

The Region is mostly rural, offering those who work in larger metro regions an escape for recreational amenities not found in city life. To this end, Figure 13 examines the density and proximity of businesses in the Pittsburgh metro area and the Region that are likely to accommodate remote working in the long-term. The selection is based on larger companies or corporations classified as Information Technology (IT), Professional Services, and Finance (FinTech), all of which use or rely on IT foundations and agile networks.

Within the Pittsburgh metro area there are numerous clusters of eligible businesses including downtown Pittsburgh, Beechcliff, Bradford Woods, and even extending into Westmoreland County locations such as Greensburg and Leechburg. Despite the lower density in the Region there are a small number of tech-oriented businesses specific to Cambria County (Johnstown) and Centre County (State College).

Figure 13: Locations of Businesses Employing Potential Hybrid Workers


N

Page | 32

Appendix A: Detailed Data

Table A1: 2020 Occupational Location Quotients, Regional Counties

Occupation Bedford Blair Cambria Centre Fulton Huntingdon Somerset Region Community and Social Service

1.27 1.47 1.49 1.27 0.99 1.72 1.60 1.42

Educational Instruction and Library

0.90 0.81 1.10 2.03 0.72 1.33 0.93 1.27

Healthcare Support 0.82 1.40 1.70 0.93 0.63 1.44 0.99 1.22 Healthcare Practitioners and Technical

0.60 1.36 1.39 1.06 1.03 0.86 1.03 1.16

Protective Service 0.64 0.74 1.09 1.19 0.52 2.46 1.72 1.13 Architecture and Engineering 0.79 1.07 0.97 1.13 2.91 0.63 1.01 1.06

Production 1.45 1.24 0.87 0.65 3.62 1.19 1.17 1.06 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair

1.19 1.13 1.05 0.86 1.35 0.97 1.28 1.05

Construction and Extraction

1.38 0.83 0.91 1.00 1.21 1.19 1.48 1.03

Transportation and Material Moving

1.76 1.24 1.00 0.72 0.75 0.81 1.13 1.03

Food Preparation and Serving Related

1.00 1.03 1.00 1.06 0.55 0.92 0.97 1.00

Sales and Related 1.04 1.14 1.03 0.89 0.67 0.90 0.85 0.98 Office and Administrative Support

0.85 0.96 1.02 1.04 0.79 0.90 0.95 0.98

Life, Physical, and Social Science

0.38 0.69 0.74 1.61 0.52 0.72 0.78 0.95

Personal Care and Service

0.78 0.96 1.02 0.94 0.50 1.03 0.87 0.93

Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance

1.05 0.77 0.80 1.04 0.57 0.91 1.20 0.92

Management 1.09 0.78 0.78 0.93 1.36 1.05 0.96 0.89 Farming, Fishing, and Forestry

2.10 0.64 0.35 0.50 2.29 2.15 0.86 0.79

Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media

0.53 0.68 0.70 0.97 0.50 0.59 0.59 0.74

Business and Financial Operations

0.53 0.61 0.73 0.80 0.65 0.64 0.61 0.69

Computer and Mathematical

0.38 0.54 0.62 0.93 0.45 0.38 0.39 0.63

Legal 0.31 0.46 0.53 0.59 0.33 0.82 0.69 0.54 Source: Jobs EQ, Q12020

Page | 33

Table A2: 2020 Industry Location Quotients, Regional Counties

Industry Bedford Blair Cambria Centre Fulton Huntingdon Somerset Region Educational Services 0.78 0.71 1.03 2.86 0.66 1.36 0.77 1.44 Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction

0.57 0.36 0.54 0.58 1.81 2.13 7.21 1.34

Utilities 1.37 0.88 1.67 1.07 2.42 1.67 1.20 1.25 Manufacturing 1.65 1.45 1.00 0.75 5.06 1.27 1.30 1.23 Health Care and Social Assistance

0.79 1.53 1.57 0.94 0.82 1.19 1.05 1.23

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting

3.50 0.67 0.44 0.78 4.41 3.34 1.75 1.21

Retail Trade 1.28 1.39 1.26 1.06 0.62 1.14 0.96 1.18 Other Services (except Public Administration) 1.08 1.07 1.30 1.01 1.05 1.01 1.40 1.13

Transportation and Warehousing 2.86 1.35 1.04 0.65 0.46 0.61 1.31 1.12

Public Administration 0.62 0.52 0.99 0.94 0.69 2.53 1.67 0.99 Accommodation and Food Services

1.05 0.90 0.86 1.00 0.47 0.76 1.26 0.95

Construction 1.37 0.80 0.82 0.92 1.27 1.10 1.04 0.93 Wholesale Trade 0.55 0.92 0.73 0.27 0.52 0.41 1.02 0.64 Management of Companies and Enterprises

0.57 1.08 0.50 0.63 0.00 0.14 0.25 0.62

Real Estate and Rental and Leasing

0.33 0.52 0.50 0.97 0.16 0.38 0.48 0.61

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation

0.46 0.58 0.48 0.82 0.28 0.54 0.50 0.60

Finance and Insurance 0.48 0.41 0.88 0.47 0.31 0.82 0.70 0.58 Information 0.38 0.69 0.67 0.72 0.19 0.22 0.20 0.58 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services

0.25 0.61 0.54 0.76 0.10 0.32 0.44 0.57

Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services

0.52 0.61 0.67 0.55 0.13 0.29 0.40 0.55

Source: Jobs EQ, Q12020

Table A3: Amenities Index, Detailed Data

County Amenities Index Population

Sullivan 1.00 6,066 Pike 0.92 55,809

Mifflin 0.88 46,138 Forest 0.87 7,247

Clinton 0.86 38,632 Centre 0.86 162,385

Northumberland 0.85 90,843

Page | 34

Columbia 0.82 64,964

Wayne 0.80 51,361 Carbon 0.79 64,182

Lycoming 0.78 113,299 Snyder 0.76 40,372

Adams 0.72 103,009 Lebanon 0.70 141,793

Huntingdon 0.69 45,144 Juniata 0.69 24,763

Elk 0.67 29,910 Armstrong 0.67 64,735

Mercer 0.65 109,424 Cameron 0.65 4,447

Bedford 0.63 47,888 Union 0.62 44,923

Lancaster 0.62 545,724 Fayette 0.62 129,274

Indiana 0.61 84,073 Wyoming 0.60 26,794

Clarion 0.59 38,438 Westmoreland 0.59 348,899

Delaware 0.59 566,747 Monroe 0.57 170,271

Perry 0.57 46,272 Tioga 0.56 40,591

Susquehanna 0.56 40,328 Dauphin 0.53 278,299

Greene 0.52 36,233 Fulton 0.51 14,530

Potter 0.50 16,526 Cumberland 0.49 253,370

Schuylkill 0.47 141,359 York 0.47 449,058

Chester 0.47 524,989 Butler 0.46 187,853

Bucks 0.44 628,270 Franklin 0.43 155,027

Berks 0.42 421,164 Bradford 0.42 60,323

Page | 35

Jefferson 0.41 43,425

Blair 0.40 121,829 Warren 0.38 39,191

Clearfield 0.38 79,255 Somerset 0.38 73,447

Lackawanna 0.37 209,674 Beaver 0.35 163,929

Erie 0.33 269,728 Lawrence 0.33 85,512

Northampton 0.30 305,285 Crawford 0.29 84,629

Venango 0.28 50,668 Luzerne 0.26 317,417

Washington 0.25 206,865 Cambria 0.24 130,192

Allegheny 0.21 1,216,045 Philadelphia 0.20 1,584,064

Montour 0.17 18,230 Montgomery 0.17 830,915

Lehigh 0.06 369,318 McKean 0.00 40,625

Source: Headlight Data

Table A4: Detailed Data on Hybrid Office Space Locations

Site Name Address City ZIP Type Catalyst Space 1331, 12th Ave. Altoona 16601 Shared Office

Hess Business Center 1 Corporate Dr. Bedford 15522 Shared Office Pittsburgh Equity Partners 700 Bursca Dr. Bridgeville 15017 Accelerator

The Bob & Eileen Sill Business Education Center

419, 14th St. Huntingdon 16652 Shared Office

814 Worx 647 Main St Johnstown 15901 Shared Office Bottle Works 411, 3rd Ave. Johnstown 15906 Shared Office

Center for Metal Arts 106, Iron St. Johnstown 15906 Shared Office JARI Center for Business Development

245 Market St. Johnstown 15901 Shared Office

The Corner 701 5th Ave. Kensington 15068 Shared Office Industrious Liberty Centre 1001 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh 15222 Shared Office

Spaces Bakery Square 6425 Living Place Suite 200 Pittsburgh 15206 Shared Office Regus 651 Holiday Drive Pittsburgh 15220 Shared Office

Page | 36

Regus 500 Grant Street Suite 2900 Pittsburgh 15219 Shared Office

Regus 322 North Shore Drive Building 1B

Pittsburgh 15212 Shared Office

Office Space 301 Grant Street Suite 4300 Pittsburgh 15219 Shared Office Regus 201 Penn Center Boulevard

Suite 400 Pittsburgh 15235 Shared Office

Industrious One PPG Place Pittsburgh 15222 Shared Office Club Level CoWorking 239 Fourth Ave Pittsburgh 15222 Shared Office

Alloy 26 100 S. Commons Pittsburgh 15212 Shared Office Stack 5740 Baum Blvd. Pittsburgh 15206 Shared Office

Level Office Golden Triangle

606 Liberty Ave. Pittsburgh 15222 Shared Office

The Beauty Shoppe 6401 Penn Ave. Pittsburgh 15206 Shared Office The X Factory 6901 Lynn Way Pittsburgh 15208 Shared Office

Bruno Works 945 Liberty Ave. Pittsburgh 15219 Shared Office Looking For Group 924 Brookline Blvd Pittsburgh 15226 Shared Office

Avenu 1936 Fifth Ave. Pittsburgh 15219 Shared Office Catapult 4327 Butler St Pittsburgh 15201 Shared Office

The Global Switchboard 305 34th St. Pittsburgh 15201 Shared Office ProSuites2 600 Grant St. Pittsburgh 15219 Shared Office

Work Hard Pittsburgh 744 E. Warrington Ave. Pittsburgh 15210 Shared Office AlphaLab 6024 Broad St. Pittsburgh 15206 Incubator

Olympus Incubator Program

4620 Henry St. Pittsburgh 15213 Incubator

Institute for Entrepreneurial Excellence (IEE)

3520 Forbes Ave. Pittsburgh 15261 Accelerator

Riverside Center for Innovation

700 River Ave. Pittsburgh 15212 Incubator

Innovation Works 2 Allegheny Center Pittsburgh 15212 Accelerator

Idea Foundry 4551 Forbes Ave. Pittsburgh 15213 Accelerator Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse

2425 Sidney St. Pittsburgh 15203 Accelerator

Ascender 6401 Penn Ave. Pittsburgh 15206 Incubator

Serendipity Labs 2545 Railroad St. Pittsburgh 15222 Shared Office BusinessWise 429 Fourth Ave. Pittsburgh 15219 Shared Office

Americus Club 213 Smithfield St. Pittsburgh 15222 Shared Office Floor 3 1 Drv Dr Pittsburgh 15221 Shared Office

5th Ave Studio 1936 Fifth Ave. Pittsburgh 15219 Shared Office Community Forge 1256 Franklin Ave. Pittsburgh 15221 Shared Office

Workspace Factory LLC. 3229 W. Liberty Ave. Pittsburgh 15216 Shared Office Jane Street Studios 1721 Jane St. Pittsburgh 15203 Shared Office

Bridge Coworking 4141 Brownsville Rd. Pittsburgh, 15227 Shared Office

Page | 37

Fulton Commons 1546 Fulton St. Pittsburgh, 15233 Shared Office

CKV Suites 528 N. Homewood Ave. Pittsburgh, 15208 Shared Office Branch Pattern 100 S Commons Pittsburgh, 15212 Shared Office

Uptown Works 109 E Main St Somerset 15501 Shared Office New Leaf Initiative 243 S Allen St #337 State

College 16801 Shared Office

Fraser Street Commons 115 S Fraser St State College

16801 Shared Office

Happy Valley Launchbox 224 S Allen St State College

16801 Shared Office

Innovation Park 200 Innovation Blvd. State College

16803 Incubator

PerryWorks Co working Office Space

454 Perry Hwy Westview 15229 Shared Office

Ingnite headquarters 4 S 4th St Youngwood 15697 Shared Office

Looking For Group 924 Brookline Blvd Pittsburgh 15226 Shared Office Avenu 1936 Fifth Ave. Pittsburgh 15219 Shared Office

Catapult 4327 Butler St Pittsburgh 15201 Shared Office The Global Switchboard 305 34th St. Pittsburgh 15201 Shared Office

ProSuites2 600 Grant St. Pittsburgh 15219 Shared Office Work Hard Pittsburgh 744 E. Warrington Ave. Pittsburgh 15210 Shared Office

AlphaLab 6024 Broad St. Pittsburgh 15206 Incubator Olympus Incubator Program

4620 Henry St. Pittsburgh 15213 Incubator

Institute for Entrepreneurial Excellence (IEE)

3520 Forbes Ave. Pittsburgh 15261 Accelerator

Riverside Center for Innovation

700 River Ave. Pittsburgh 15212 Incubator

Innovation Works 2 Allegheny Center Pittsburgh 15212 Accelerator Idea Foundry 4551 Forbes Ave. Pittsburgh 15213 Accelerator

Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse

2425 Sidney St. Pittsburgh 15203 Accelerator

Ascender 6401 Penn Ave. Pittsburgh 15206 Incubator Uptown Works 109 E Main St Somerset 15501 Shared Office

New Leaf Initiative 243 S Allen St #337 State College

16801 Shared Office

Fraser Street Commons 115 S Fraser St State College

16801 Shared Office

Happy Valley Launchbox 224 S Allen St State College

16801 Shared Office

Innovation Park 200 Innovation Blvd. State College

16803 Incubator

Ignite headquarters 4 S 4th St Youngwood 15697 Shared Office

Serendipity Labs 2545 Railroad St. Pittsburgh 15222 Shared Office

Page | 38

Businesswise 429 Fourth Ave. Pittsburgh 15219 Shared Office

Americus Club 213 Smithfield St. Pittsburgh 15222 Shared Office Floor 3 1 Drv Dr Pittsburgh 15221 Shared Office

5th Ave Studio 1936 Fifth Ave. Pittsburgh 15219 Shared Office Bridge Co-working 4141 Brownsville Rd. Pittsburgh, 15227 Shared Office

Fulton Commons 1546 Fulton St. Pittsburgh, 15233 Shared Office CKV Suites 528 N. Homewood Ave. Pittsburgh, 15208 Shared Office

Branch Pattern 100 S Commons Pittsburgh, 15212 Shared Office PerryWorks Co working Office Space

454 Perry Hwy Westview 15229 Shared Office

Community Forge 1256 Franklin Ave. Pittsburgh 15221 Shared Office

Workspace Factory LLC. 3229 W. Liberty Ave. Pittsburgh 15216 Shared Office Jane Street Studios 1721 Jane St. Pittsburgh 15203 Shared Office

The Corner 701 5th Ave. Kensington 15068 Shared Office Source: Research by Headlight Data Table A5: Detailed Data on Potential Remote Worker Target Businesses

Business City Employees NAICS Business Type PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP Pittsburgh 50,358 551111 FinTech ARCONIC Pittsburgh 41,500

Prof. Services

DICK'S SPORTING GOODS Coraopolis 30,000 451110 Prof. Services WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Wilmerding 18,000 336510 Prof. Services

EDUCATION MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

Pittsburgh 11,000

Prof. Services

CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY - CMU AI

Pittsburgh 7,500

AI_Tech

ACCESS DATA Pittsburgh 7,500

FinTech

BITARMOR SYSTEMS Pittsburgh 7,500 541511 Prof. Services BDO USA Pittsburgh 5,387 541618 Prof. Services

TECHNOSYSTEMS CONSOLIDATED CORPORATION

Pittsburgh 3,792 541611 Prof. Services

MASTEC SOLUTIONS Pittsburgh 3,500 517911 Prof. Services

ACCION LABS Pittsburgh 3,000

AI_Tech BECHTEL BETTIS West Mifflin 3,000 541720 Prof. Services

DAVID A GURWIN Pittsburgh 2,582

Prof. Services PIKE ENERGY SOLUTIONS Pittsburgh 2,511 541618 Prof. Services

ARCONIC DOMESTIC Pittsburgh 2,098 331318 Prof. Services DREAM CENTER EDUCATION Pittsburgh 1,551 541611 Prof. Services

MASTECH DIGITAL Coraopolis 1,530 561311 Prof. Services THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC Pittsburgh 1,505

Prof. Services

Page | 39

DQE COMMUNICATIONS Pittsburgh 1,500 454310 Prof. Services

L.B. FOSTER Pittsburgh 1,475 339999 Prof. Services FEDERATED INVESTORS Pittsburgh 1,441 523920 Prof. Services

CONEMAUGH PHYSICAN GROUP Johnstown 1,285 621112 Prof. Services DEVELOPMENT DIMENSIONS INTERNATIONAL

Bridgeville 1,200 541612 Prof. Services

AFFILIATED COMPUTER SERVICES Pittsburgh 1,161

Prof. Services

CONCURRENT TECHNOLOGIES Johnstown 1,100 541910 Prof. Services HIGHMARK Pittsburgh 1,000 621399 Prof. Services

ARIBA Pittsburgh 967 541511 Prof. Services MEDCO HEALTH SOLUTIONS North

Versailles 880 325412 Prof. Services

FEDERATED INVESTORS Pittsburgh 800 551112 Prof. Services CERT Pittsburgh 750

AI_Tech

MED3000 GROUP Pittsburgh 732 511210 Prof. Services ATLAS RESOURCE PARTNERS GP Pittsburgh 640 523920 FinTech

DELOITTE Pittsburgh 607 541219 Prof. Services RAYTHEON SYSTEMS State

College 600 443142 FinTech

DEVELOPMENT DIMENSIONS INTERNATIONAL

Bridgeville 550 541611 Prof. Services

GENCO I Pittsburgh 498 541611 Prof. Services

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS Pittsburgh 468 541219 Prof. Services WESTMORELAND MECHANICAL TESTING & RESEARCH

Latrobe 440 541715 Prof. Services

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE Pittsburgh 436 541715 FinTech HILL BARTH & KING LLC: SPEARS ROBERT D CPA

Warrendale 424 541219 Prof. Services

ITXM DIAGNOSTICS Pittsburgh 407 621511 Prof. Services

W C MCQUAIDE Johnstown 404 484121 Prof. Services ACCU WEATHER State

College 400

Prof. Services

COMPUTER ENTERPRISES Pittsburgh 400 541611 Prof. Services

DUOLINGO Pittsburgh 375 611630 AI_Tech MACHINE LEARNING DEPARTMENT | CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY

Pittsburgh 375

AI_Tech

YORK GROUP Pittsburgh 349 812220 AI_Tech ACCION LABS Pittsburgh 130 541511 AI_Tech


Page | 40

Table A6: Detailed Data on Potential Relocators

County 2020 Civilian Employed Population

2018 WFH Proportion

Miles from Blair County

Est. Number of Potential

Relocators Fairfax, VA 610,644 3.5% 127 153,463 Montgomery, MD 549,810 3.3% 111 149,504 Allegheny, PA 542,111 2.6% 88 149,093 Baltimore, MD 428,282 2.0% 116 95,702 District of Columbia, DC

365,576 3.3% 130 90,594

Prince George's, MD 472,918 1.6% 139 79,945 Loudoun, VA 212,307 4.0% 104 67,273 Montgomery, PA 386,627 3.4% 156 58,973 Baltimore city, MD 280,856 1.9% 122 58,778 Anne Arundel, MD 299,337 2.9% 139 56,052 Philadelphia, PA 594,293 1.6% 171 55,574 Erie, NY 423,321 1.5% 158 53,356 Howard, MD 175,394 3.1% 113 50,600 Prince William, VA 234,189 2.2% 132 46,227 Chester, PA 241,558 3.9% 140 45,651 Lancaster, PA 240,691 2.5% 113 44,970 York, PA 195,423 1.8% 92 42,348 Arlington, VA 146,284 4.5% 129 40,012 Westmoreland, PA 152,445 1.9% 62 38,814 Frederick, MD 132,259 3.3% 86 36,385 New Castle, DE 246,419 2.2% 155 36,366 Cumberland, PA 112,633 2.3% 60 34,206 Dauphin, PA 119,100 2.5% 80 31,538 Delaware, PA 242,257 2.3% 159 31,321 Bucks, PA 291,236 2.9% 169 30,957 Berks, PA 178,467 1.9% 125 30,019 Harford, MD 132,848 2.4% 125 27,997 Lehigh, PA 154,696 2.2% 143 22,955 Carroll, MD 89,892 3.0% 94 22,558 Centre, PA 65,599 2.2% 37 21,555 Alexandria city, VA 93,842 3.4% 133 21,442 Butler, PA 82,817 2.3% 89 20,223 Luzerne, PA 126,409 1.8% 131 19,798 Summit, OH 236,237 1.9% 174 19,461 Washington, PA 88,310 2.1% 104 18,965 Cuyahoga, OH 551,313 1.9% 198 16,849 Washington, MD 67,746 2.2% 67 16,325 Stark, OH 163,848 1.8% 162 16,186 Camden, NJ 232,393 1.7% 183 16,099 Franklin, PA 66,875 2.0% 50 15,538 Northampton, PA 131,548 2.2% 158 15,225

Page | 41

Beaver, PA 71,415 2.0% 108 14,904 Erie, PA 108,766 1.7% 145 14,415 Berkeley, WV 57,848 1.8% 73 13,970 Mahoning, OH 89,064 1.5% 134 12,756 Stafford, VA 73,201 3.1% 151 12,337 Blair, PA 49,053 1.4% 0 12,332 Cambria, PA 48,992 1.4% 21 11,939 Charles, MD 81,355 2.0% 156 11,814 Lebanon, PA 59,631 1.9% 98 11,744 Monongalia, WV 49,007 2.1% 110 11,136 Gloucester, NJ 137,360 1.9% 176 11,100 Lackawanna, PA 84,136 1.9% 155 10,708 Mercer, NJ 174,187 2.4% 190 10,268 Schuylkill, PA 57,344 1.3% 111 9,924 Lycoming, PA 46,470 1.4% 88 9,886 Frederick, VA 43,884 2.5% 89 9,736 Fayette, PA 48,376 1.4% 81 9,703 Adams, PA 44,271 1.9% 72 9,575 Trumbull, OH 76,148 1.3% 140 9,328 Morris, NJ 250,695 3.0% 199 9,068 Somerset, NJ 167,026 3.1% 194 9,054 Portage, OH 73,804 2.6% 158 8,123 Indiana, PA 32,442 1.3% 42 7,832 Spotsylvania, VA 66,188 2.3% 164 7,760 Fauquier, VA 36,956 3.9% 124 7,666 Jefferson, WV 29,460 2.5% 86 7,608 Chautauqua, NY 54,839 1.6% 137 7,499 Broome, NY 81,476 1.4% 173 7,380 Mercer, PA 41,904 2.2% 116 7,355 Burlington, NJ 211,142 2.0% 197 7,353 Cecil, MD 51,922 2.2% 141 7,309 Northumberland, PA 36,662 1.8% 87 7,173 Monroe, PA 68,399 2.2% 161 7,077 Lawrence, PA 35,202 1.6% 111 6,624 Tompkins, NY 48,417 3.1% 165 6,397 Allegany, MD 27,602 0.8% 65 6,351 Clearfield, PA 29,985 1.2% 36 6,330 Steuben, NY 41,112 1.5% 131 6,259 Somerset, PA 28,821 2.5% 52 6,214 Lake, OH 111,928 1.9% 188 6,011 Armstrong, PA 26,639 1.4% 64 5,607 Cattaraugus, NY 32,165 1.3% 122 5,545 Hunterdon, NJ 63,421 4.8% 179 5,496 Monroe, NY 351,365 2.0% 208 5,423 Rockingham, VA 39,651 2.4% 141 5,208 Columbiana, OH 41,078 1.2% 131 5,197 Crawford, PA 33,597 2.0% 125 5,173

Page | 42

Calvert, MD 46,799 2.4% 166 5,071 Albemarle, VA 51,548 3.7% 171 5,060 Chemung, NY 34,983 1.0% 140 4,969 Ontario, NY 53,224 2.3% 171 4,898 Perry, PA 20,531 2.6% 55 4,893 Columbia, PA 25,608 1.8% 107 4,797 Harrison, WV 33,021 1.4% 139 4,776 Kent, DE 71,415 1.8% 178 4,638 Geauga, OH 44,649 3.8% 165 4,624 St. Mary's, MD 55,766 1.5% 184 4,343 Warren, NJ 52,115 2.4% 175 4,273 Onondaga, NY 217,413 2.0% 205 4,083 Medina, OH 87,819 2.4% 192 4,013 Huntingdon, PA 16,763 1.5% 19 3,971 Manassas city, VA 22,240 1.6% 129 3,965 Marion, WV 24,697 1.9% 123 3,951 Mifflin, PA 19,288 2.1% 37 3,944 Venango, PA 19,561 1.4% 98 3,767 Union, PA 15,703 3.4% 73 3,728 Warren, VA 19,244 3.0% 110 3,726 Ohio, WV 21,333 1.8% 125 3,719 Bedford, PA 18,446 1.9% 36 3,594 Jefferson, OH 25,113 1.6% 129 3,574 Snyder, PA 16,935 3.3% 67 3,574 Queen Anne's, MD 26,285 3.7% 155 3,536 Clinton, PA 15,333 1.5% 62 3,444 Culpeper, VA 24,432 1.8% 140 3,369 Carbon, PA 26,016 2.0% 139 3,362 Augusta, VA 36,870 2.4% 167 3,321 Shenandoah, VA 20,336 2.1% 114 3,313 Bradford, PA 24,064 2.1% 130 3,300 Jefferson, PA 17,336 1.3% 57 3,230 Fairfax city, VA 13,497 3.5% 126 3,230 Harrisonburg city, VA 24,341 1.6% 146 3,224 Livingston, NY 28,537 1.7% 157 3,222 Belmont, OH 27,866 0.9% 144 3,113 Sussex, NJ 72,423 2.9% 194 3,111 Ashtabula, OH 36,825 1.2% 160 3,104 Garrett, MD 14,791 2.5% 84 3,087 Allegany, NY 18,318 1.3% 122 3,043 Warren, PA 16,301 1.4% 107 2,987 Tuscarawas, OH 40,072 1.4% 166 2,980 McKean, PA 16,346 1.7% 92 2,931 Winchester city, VA 13,358 3.8% 92 2,778 Tioga, PA 15,327 2.0% 103 2,676 Clarion, PA 13,985 1.9% 76 2,675 Cumberland, NJ 59,504 0.9% 187 2,664

Page | 43

Hanover, VA 56,765 3.5% 194 2,643 Elk, PA 13,384 1.6% 67 2,607 Tioga, NY 21,691 1.3% 156 2,585 Charlottesville city, VA

23,877 3.3% 170 2,541

Salem, NJ 28,514 1.3% 169 2,502 Preston, WV 14,005 1.9% 101 2,443 Wayne, OH 51,205 2.3% 189 2,307 Falls Church city, VA 8,036 4.2% 127 2,288 Mineral, WV 11,816 0.8% 83 2,228 Hancock, WV 13,690 1.1% 119 2,192 Fredericksburg city, VA

14,891 4.2% 158 2,162

Greene, PA 12,593 1.4% 111 2,162 Sussex, DE 94,907 2.9% 202 2,070 Wyoming, NY 18,580 1.6% 152 1,964 Genesee, NY 27,974 1.3% 173 1,948 Talbot, MD 17,626 3.0% 166 1,941 Juniata, PA 10,009 2.8% 48 1,940 Marshall, WV 14,027 1.1% 132 1,879 Orange, VA 16,502 2.3% 156 1,834 Brooke, WV 10,641 1.3% 120 1,805 Hampshire, WV 10,175 1.2% 83 1,739 Lorain, OH 133,735 1.5% 212 1,682 Wood, WV 37,420 1.2% 192 1,597 King George, VA 12,752 2.0% 165 1,597 Atlantic, NJ 121,146 1.3% 207 1,567 Clarke, VA 7,269 3.9% 97 1,562 Montour, PA 7,743 2.5% 94 1,499 Page, VA 10,756 2.3% 130 1,435 Wyoming, PA 11,178 2.7% 139 1,407 Manassas Park city, VA 7,783 3.1% 128 1,381

Morgan, WV 7,524 0.7% 65 1,378 Randolph, WV 11,798 1.3% 145 1,366 Susquehanna, PA 16,024 2.1% 159 1,359 Washington, OH 24,147 1.6% 183 1,340 Pike, PA 21,246 2.2% 181 1,333 Greene, VA 9,521 2.5% 152 1,331 Kent, MD 9,696 5.2% 145 1,330 Cortland, NY 22,656 2.0% 185 1,273 Fulton, PA 6,362 1.9% 42 1,268 Niagara, NY 95,141 1.3% 206 1,268 Staunton city, VA 12,153 1.8% 167 1,244 Caroline, MD 16,503 1.0% 173 1,168 Cayuga, NY 36,251 1.6% 195 1,155 Carroll, OH 11,552 1.9% 146 1,135

Page | 44

Louisa, VA 16,341 2.8% 176 1,128 Wayne, PA 19,508 2.8% 176 1,126 Guernsey, OH 14,805 1.2% 171 1,091 Taylor, WV 7,061 0.7% 122 1,090 Upshur, WV 9,765 1.5% 150 1,071 Muskingum, OH 34,370 0.9% 195 1,069 Yates, NY 11,406 4.8% 160 1,050 Seneca, NY 15,187 2.0% 175 1,019 Potter, PA 5,807 2.1% 89 987 Schuyler, NY 8,346 2.8% 151 975 Caroline, VA 14,635 1.6% 178 914 Madison, VA 6,142 3.5% 144 860 Barbour, WV 6,406 1.6% 130 847 Hardy, WV 6,304 1.1% 107 782 Waynesboro city, VA 9,963 0.9% 171 777 Wicomico, MD 53,138 1.7% 205 774 Dorchester, MD 15,279 1.4% 187 763 Fluvanna, VA 12,061 3.3% 184 733 Grant, WV 4,935 1.2% 107 710 Sullivan, NY 37,981 2.2% 203 709 Rappahannock, VA 3,778 3.4% 126 665 Chenango, NY 22,299 2.2% 196 661 Lewis, WV 6,397 1.3% 156 619 Wetzel, WV 5,344 1.3% 138 579 Harrison, OH 5,805 1.5% 147 578 Wayne, NY 41,765 1.7% 214 542 Holmes, OH 18,349 3.6% 190 536 Goochland, VA 11,031 3.0% 193 512 Monroe, OH 5,408 0.5% 156 468 Westmoreland, VA 7,615 3.8% 184 447 Coshocton, OH 13,869 2.1% 191 435 Tucker, WV 2,666 1.6% 117 355 Rockbridge, VA 10,334 3.1% 195 340 Pendleton, WV 2,864 3.0% 136 337 Tyler, WV 3,173 0.9% 154 334 Sullivan, PA 2,346 4.0% 114 331 Nelson, VA 7,276 4.3% 190 320 Braxton, WV 5,202 1.7% 179 311 Cameron, PA 1,683 0.6% 65 307 Athens, OH 21,402 1.7% 214 306 Amherst, VA 14,542 1.1% 203 268 Forest, PA 1,324 1.1% 86 256 Ashland, OH 23,555 1.7% 209 254 Doddridge, WV 2,820 1.5% 153 253 Noble, OH 3,836 1.2% 173 240 Delaware, NY 19,853 3.0% 209 227 Essex, VA 5,250 0.9% 191 225

Page | 45

Jackson, WV 17,391 0.8% 213 206 Pleasants, WV 3,028 1.2% 170 203 Ritchie, WV 3,634 1.2% 172 198 Orleans, NY 17,439 1.5% 208 196 Pocahontas, WV 3,316 2.8% 175 191 Nicholas, WV 9,640 0.8% 202 187 Gilmer, WV 2,412 2.7% 174 168 King William, VA 8,746 2.6% 204 165 Greenbrier, WV 14,576 0.9% 212 162 Webster, WV 2,906 1.2% 179 146 Morgan, OH 5,504 1.1% 197 128 Calhoun, WV 2,162 0.3% 188 115 Buckingham, VA 6,595 1.9% 202 103 Roane, WV 4,654 1.7% 202 90 Richmond, VA 3,312 6.2% 196 83 Lexington city, VA 2,330 2.6% 197 82 Wirt, WV 2,172 2.0% 192 79 Bath, VA 2,086 1.5% 184 73 Highland, VA 863 1.8% 162 73 Alleghany, VA 6,011 0.9% 208 63 Cumberland, VA 4,922 3.2% 206 61 Buena Vista city, VA 2,831 0.9% 199 47 King and Queen, VA 3,404 2.2% 206 41 Clay, WV 2,594 0.7% 204 36 Warren, PA 16,301 1.4% 107 2,987 Tuscarawas, OH 40,072 1.4% 166 2,980 McKean, PA 16,346 1.7% 92 2,931 Winchester city, VA 13,358 3.8% 92 2,778 Tioga, PA 15,327 2.0% 103 2,676 Clarion, PA 13,985 1.9% 76 2,675 Cumberland, NJ 59,504 0.9% 187 2,664 Hanover, VA 56,765 3.5% 194 2,643 Elk, PA 13,384 1.6% 67 2,607 Tioga, NY 21,691 1.3% 156 2,585 Charlottesville city, VA 23,877 3.3% 170 2,541

Salem, NJ 28,514 1.3% 169 2,502 Preston, WV 14,005 1.9% 101 2,443 Wayne, OH 51,205 2.3% 189 2,307 Falls Church city, VA 8,036 4.2% 127 2,288 Mineral, WV 11,816 0.8% 83 2,228 Hancock, WV 13,690 1.1% 119 2,192 Fredericksburg city, VA 14,891 4.2% 158 2,162

Greene, PA 12,593 1.4% 111 2,162 Sussex, DE 94,907 2.9% 202 2,070 Wyoming, NY 18,580 1.6% 152 1,964

Page | 46

Genesee, NY 27,974 1.3% 173 1,948 Talbot, MD 17,626 3.0% 166 1,941 Juniata, PA 10,009 2.8% 48 1,940 Marshall, WV 14,027 1.1% 132 1,879 Orange, VA 16,502 2.3% 156 1,834 Brooke, WV 10,641 1.3% 120 1,805 Hampshire, WV 10,175 1.2% 83 1,739 Lorain, OH 133,735 1.5% 212 1,682 Wood, WV 37,420 1.2% 192 1,597 King George, VA 12,752 2.0% 165 1,597 Atlantic, NJ 121,146 1.3% 207 1,567 Clarke, VA 7,269 3.9% 97 1,562 Montour, PA 7,743 2.5% 94 1,499 Page, VA 10,756 2.3% 130 1,435 Wyoming, PA 11,178 2.7% 139 1,407 Manassas Park city, VA 7,783 3.1% 128 1,381

Morgan, WV 7,524 0.7% 65 1,378 Randolph, WV 11,798 1.3% 145 1,366 Susquehanna, PA 16,024 2.1% 159 1,359 Washington, OH 24,147 1.6% 183 1,340 Pike, PA 21,246 2.2% 181 1,333 Greene, VA 9,521 2.5% 152 1,331 Kent, MD 9,696 5.2% 145 1,330 Cortland, NY 22,656 2.0% 185 1,273 Fulton, PA 6,362 1.9% 42 1,268 Niagara, NY 95,141 1.3% 206 1,268 Staunton city, VA 12,153 1.8% 167 1,244 Caroline, MD 16,503 1.0% 173 1,168 Cayuga, NY 36,251 1.6% 195 1,155 Carroll, OH 11,552 1.9% 146 1,135 Louisa, VA 16,341 2.8% 176 1,128 Wayne, PA 19,508 2.8% 176 1,126 Guernsey, OH 14,805 1.2% 171 1,091 Taylor, WV 7,061 0.7% 122 1,090 Upshur, WV 9,765 1.5% 150 1,071 Muskingum, OH 34,370 0.9% 195 1,069 Yates, NY 11,406 4.8% 160 1,050 Seneca, NY 15,187 2.0% 175 1,019 Potter, PA 5,807 2.1% 89 987 Schuyler, NY 8,346 2.8% 151 975 Caroline, VA 14,635 1.6% 178 914 Madison, VA 6,142 3.5% 144 860 Barbour, WV 6,406 1.6% 130 847 Hardy, WV 6,304 1.1% 107 782 Waynesboro city, VA 9,963 0.9% 171 777 Wicomico, MD 53,138 1.7% 205 774

Page | 47

Dorchester, MD 15,279 1.4% 187 763 Fluvanna, VA 12,061 3.3% 184 733 Grant, WV 4,935 1.2% 107 710 Sullivan, NY 37,981 2.2% 203 709 Rappahannock, VA 3,778 3.4% 126 665 Chenango, NY 22,299 2.2% 196 661 Lewis, WV 6,397 1.3% 156 619 Wetzel, WV 5,344 1.3% 138 579 Harrison, OH 5,805 1.5% 147 578 Wayne, NY 41,765 1.7% 214 542 Holmes, OH 18,349 3.6% 190 536 Goochland, VA 11,031 3.0% 193 512 Monroe, OH 5,408 0.5% 156 468 Westmoreland, VA 7,615 3.8% 184 447 Coshocton, OH 13,869 2.1% 191 435 Tucker, WV 2,666 1.6% 117 355 Rockbridge, VA 10,334 3.1% 195 340 Pendleton, WV 2,864 3.0% 136 337 Tyler, WV 3,173 0.9% 154 334 Sullivan, PA 2,346 4.0% 114 331 Nelson, VA 7,276 4.3% 190 320 Braxton, WV 5,202 1.7% 179 311 Cameron, PA 1,683 0.6% 65 307 Athens, OH 21,402 1.7% 214 306 Amherst, VA 14,542 1.1% 203 268 Forest, PA 1,324 1.1% 86 256 Ashland, OH 23,555 1.7% 209 254 Doddridge, WV 2,820 1.5% 153 253 Noble, OH 3,836 1.2% 173 240 Delaware, NY 19,853 3.0% 209 227 Essex, VA 5,250 0.9% 191 225 Jackson, WV 17,391 0.8% 213 206 Pleasants, WV 3,028 1.2% 170 203 Ritchie, WV 3,634 1.2% 172 198 Orleans, NY 17,439 1.5% 208 196 Pocahontas, WV 3,316 2.8% 175 191 Nicholas, WV 9,640 0.8% 202 187 Gilmer, WV 2,412 2.7% 174 168 King William, VA 8,746 2.6% 204 165 Greenbrier, WV 14,576 0.9% 212 162 Webster, WV 2,906 1.2% 179 146 Morgan, OH 5,504 1.1% 197 128 Calhoun, WV 2,162 0.3% 188 115 Buckingham, VA 6,595 1.9% 202 103 Roane, WV 4,654 1.7% 202 90 Richmond, VA 3,312 6.2% 196 83 Lexington city, VA 2,330 2.6% 197 82

Page | 48

Wirt, WV 2,172 2.0% 192 79 Bath, VA 2,086 1.5% 184 73 Highland, VA 863 1.8% 162 73 Alleghany, VA 6,011 0.9% 208 63 Cumberland, VA 4,922 3.2% 206 61 Buena Vista city, VA 2,831 0.9% 199 47 King and Queen, VA 3,404 2.2% 206 41 Clay, WV 2,594 0.7% 204 36

Source: Research by Headlight Data using data from ArcGIS Business Analyst

Date post:	06-Jan-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Headlight Data to SAP&DC - FINAL VERSION 10-29-20

Documents