Demographic Changes and Implications for Virginia - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Demographic Changes and Implications for Virginia PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 6ed66f-ODU1Y



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Demographic Changes and Implications for Virginia

Description:

The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program Robert Puentes, Fellow Demographic Changes and Implications for Virginia s Cities, Towns and Suburban Counties – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:64
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 71
Provided by: Robert1955
Learn more at: http://www.vatransit.com
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Demographic Changes and Implications for Virginia


1
Demographic Changes and Implications for
Virginias Cities, Towns and Suburban Counties
The Brookings Institution
Metropolitan Policy ProgramRobert Puentes,
Fellow
Presented at the Virginia Transit Association
Annual Meeting Williamsburg, VA May 9, 2005
2
Demographic Changes and Implications for
Virginias Cities, Towns and Suburban Counties
How are these trends affecting cities and
suburban counties?
II
What are the implications for mobility and
transitservices? 
III
IV
What is the new competitive cities agenda?
3
Demographic Changes and Implications for
Virginias Cities, Towns and Suburban Counties
4
Share of state population depends on these
geographic definitions.
Central cities (31.1)
Urbanized areas (73.0)
Metropolitan areas (78.2)
5
New definitions increase the metropolitan
geography of Virginia
Metropolitan areas (84.7) New definition
Micropolitan areas (3.21)
Metropolitan plus Micropolitan areas (87.9)
6
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 Virginias demographics
are changing in central cities and on the
suburban fringe Education and income levels were
much higher in the neighboring counties compared
to Virginias central cities
7
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 Virginias demographics
are changing in central cities and on the
suburban fringe Education and income levels were
much higher in the neighboring counties compared
to Virginias central cities
8
Virginia was the 16th fastest growing state, with
an increase from 6.2 to 7.1 million in the1990s
Challenging Growth
Source U.S. Census Bureau
9
Since 2000, Virginia grew at the 12th fastest rate
Challenging Growth
Source U.S. Census Bureau
10
Challenging Growth
Several Virginia counties experienced rapid
population growth.
191.0 123.2 106.0 103.2 102.4 96.9 96.3 9
1.6 90.1 90.0
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
Douglas County, CO Forsyth County, GA Elbert
County, CO Henry County, GA Park County,
CO Loudoun County, VA Paulding County, GA Summit
County, UT Boise County, ID Eagle County, CO
Percent Population Change, 1990-2000
Source U.S. Census Bureau
61.3 57.5 52.8 51.0 48.0
Fluvanna County, VA Spotsylvania County,
VA Manassas Park, VA Stafford County, VA Green
County, VA
45. 55. 76. 80. 98.
11
Challenging Growth
Loudoun County is now the nations fastest
growing.
41.0 38.5 35.4 35.2 34.0 33.7 33.0 31.5
30.3 29.7
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
Loudoun County, VA Flagler County, FL Douglas
County, CO Rockwall County, TX Forsyth County,
GA Henry County, GA Kendall County, FL Newton
County, GA Lincoln County, SD Paulding County, GA
Percent Population Change, 2000-July 2004
Source U.S. Census Bureau
29.5 24.2 23.7 20.3 19.9
Alleghany County, VA Stafford County,
VA Spotsylvania County, VA Suffolk City,
VA Prince William County, VA
12. 22. 25. 49. 52.
12
Challenging Growth
Over two-thirds of Virginias population growth
came from minority residents.
Share of Population Change by Race, 1990-2000
Source U.S. Census Bureau
13
Challenging Growth
Virginia saw the 7th largest increase in
residents age 65 and older during the 1990s.
Increase of residents 65 and older, 2000
Source U.S. Census Bureau
19.2 increase
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
14
Challenging Growth
During the 1990s, only two counties saw an
increase in the percentage of 25-34 year old
residents
Percent Change in Number of 25-34 Year Old
Residents, 1990-2000
Source U.S. Census Bureau
15
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 Virginias demographics
are changing in central cities and on the
suburban fringe Education and income levels were
much higher in the neighboring counties compared
to Virginias central cities
16
Decentralization
Virginia ranked relatively low in terms of change
in combined population of central cities
Population Change, 1990-2000
Virginias cities have grown by 0.5 since 2000
central cities include Arlington CDP, Bristol,
Charlottesville, Danville, Fredericksburg,
Hampton, Lynchburg, Newport News, Norfolk,
Petersburg, Portsmouth, Richmond, Roanoke,
Suffolk and Virginia Beach. For this exercise,
Alexandria was also included because it retains
the characteristics of a central place.
17
Decentralization
Since 1980, Virginias central cities have grown
slowly and failed to keep pace with statewide
growth rate
Population Share - central cities and Remainder
of State, 1980-2000
Source U.S. Census Bureau
central cities include Arlington CDP, Bristol,
Charlottesville, Danville, Fredericksburg,
Hampton, Lynchburg, Newport News, Norfolk,
Petersburg, Portsmouth, Richmond, Roanoke,
Suffolk and Virginia Beach. For this exercise,
Alexandria was also included because it retains
the characteristics of a central place.
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
18
Decentralization
In the 1990s, much of Virginia grew rapidly,
while most cities lost population
Population Growth, 1990-2000
Source U.S. Census Bureau
Staunton
Richmond
Hopewell
Lexington
Petersburg
Lynchburg
Roanoke
Radford
Portsmouth
Norfolk
Danville
Martinsville
Bristol
Norton
19
Decentralization
In the 1990s, growth was uneven among Virginias
central cities
Population Change, 1990-2000
Source U.S. Census Bureau
20
Decentralization
And more than two-thirds have declined since 2000.
Population Change, 2000-July 2004
Source U.S. Census Bureau
21
Decentralization
.and inconsistent with growth in neighboring
counties.
Population Change, 1990-2000
Source U.S. Census Bureau
Albemarle
Spotsylvania
James City
Hanover
Bedford
Chesapeake
Chesterfield
Pr George
Dinwiddie
Amherst
Washington
Pittsylvania
Roanoke
Stafford
York
22
Decentralization
.and inconsistent with growth in neighboring
counties.
Population Change, 2000-July 2004
Source U.S. Census Bureau
Albemarle
Spotsylvania
James City
Hanover
Bedford
Chesapeake
Chesterfield
Pr George
Dinwiddie
Amherst
Washington
Pittsylvania
Roanoke
Stafford
York
Source U.S. Census Bureau
23
Only about half of all jobs in the Norfolk and
Washington metros are within 10 miles of the city
center.
Decentralization
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
24
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 Virginias demographics
are changing in central cities and on the
suburban fringe Education and income levels were
much higher in the neighboring counties compared
to Virginias central cities
25
Virginias resident population became more
diverse throughout the 1990s
Race/Ethnic composition, 1990 2000
Source U.S. Census Bureau
1990
2000
26
In central cities, the white population share
declined relative to the increasing share of
blacks and Hispanics
Race/Ethnic composition, 1990 2000
Source U.S. Census Bureau
1990
2000
27
The white population declined in all but two of
Virginias central cities, despite a 6.7 growth
rate, statewide
Change in white population, 1990-2000
Source U.S. Census Bureau
28
All but one of the neighboring counties far
surpassed the statewide growth rate of white
residents
Change in white population, 1990-2000
Source U.S. Census Bureau
29
The black population lagged the state in every
central city outside Hampton Roads.
Change in black population, 1990-2000
Source U.S. Census Bureau
30
Many of the neighboring counties surpassed the
statewide growth rate of black residents
Change in black population, 1990-2000
Source U.S. Census Bureau
31
Few counties have significant percentages of
foreign born.
Increase in foreign born, 1990-2000
Source U.S. Census Bureau
gt 10
5 to 10
gt 5
32
In many metro areas, the locus of immigration is
shifting from the central city to the suburbs
Washington region, share foreign-born by census
tract, 2000
Source Singer, At Home in the Nations
Capital, June 2003
33
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 Virginias demographics
are changing in central cities and on the
suburban fringe Education and income levels were
much higher in the neighboring counties compared
to Virginias central cities
34
Educational attainment in central cities varied
widely, but on average was comparable to
Virginias
Share of population 25 years and older with at
least a BA, 2000
Source U.S. Census Bureau
35
Neighboring counties tended to have higher rates
than the statewide level and the central cities
average
Share of population 25 years and older with at
least a BA, 2000
Source U.S. Census Bureau
36
In the central cities, income levels across
racial groups were often lower than Virginias
levels
Median household Income by race and ethnic group,
2000
37
Regardless of race/ethnicity, the neighboring
counties income levels were often much higher
than Virginias
Median household Income by race and ethnic group,
2000
38
Demographic Changes and Implications for
Virginias Cities, Towns and Suburban Counties
How are these trends affecting cities and
suburban counties?
II
What are the implications for mobility and
transitservices? 
III
IV
What is the new competitive cities agenda?
39
Current Trends are Isolating Low-income Residents
Minorities From Opportunities
40
Virginias current pattern of growth is isolating
low-income residents minorities from
opportunities.
  • Decentralization
  • Exacerbates social isolation in the core.
  • Reduces educational opportunities in cities and
    older suburban counties.
  • Distances poor people from job opportunities.

41
Norfolk and Richmond have a disproportionate
amount of the states welfare cases.
Share of TANF cases, 1999
Share of population
Source Allen and Kirby. Unfinished Business
Why Cities Matter to Welfare Reform. Brookings,
2000.
42
EITC utilization is highest in Virginias largest
cities and in the rural portions of the
Commonwealth
Share of tax-filers using EITC, 2000
Source Berube and Forman, Rewarding Work The
Impact of the EITC Brookings, 2001
43
Poverty remains stubbornly concentrated in cities
and inner suburbs.
Poverty rate change, 1990-2000 Richmond metro
Source Paul Jargowsky, Windows on Urban
Poverty, University of Texas, 2003.
44
Poverty remains stubbornly concentrated in cities
and inner suburbs.
Poverty rate change, 1990-2000 Hampton Roads area
Source Paul Jargowsky, Windows on Urban
Poverty, University of Texas, 2003.
Source Paul Jargowsky, Windows on Urban
Poverty, University of Texas, 2003.
45
Poverty remains stubbornly concentrated in cities
and inner suburbs.
Poverty rate change, 1990-2000 Bristol metro
Source Paul Jargowsky, Windows on Urban
Poverty, University of Texas, 2003.
Source Paul Jargowsky, Windows on Urban
Poverty, University of Texas, 2003.
46
Current Trends are Contributing to the
Decentralization of Metropolitan Virginia
47
From 1982 1997 only ten other states urbanized
land at a higher rate than Virginia.
42.6 change
Average Annual Change in Developed Land,
1982-1992 and 1992-1997
Source USDA Natural Resources Inventory
32.4 change in population from 1980-2000
48
All of Virginias metropolitan areas are
decentralizing.
Change in Developed Land, 1982-1997
Source Fulton et al., Who Sprawls Most?
49
Densities in the core are decreasing throughout
the state.
Density change, 1990-2000 Roanoke metro
Source Paul Jargowsky, Windows on Urban
Poverty, University of Texas, 2003.
50
Densities in the core are decreasing throughout
the state.
Density change, 1990-2000 Norfolk metro
Source Paul Jargowsky, Windows on Urban
Poverty, University of Texas, 2003.
51
Densities in the core are decreasing throughout
the state.
Density change, 1990-2000 Lynchburg metro
Source Paul Jargowsky, Windows on Urban
Poverty, University of Texas, 2003.
52
The state is projected to continue to grow. Over
half of the built space on the ground in 2030
will be new.
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
HOUSING
- including replaced space
Source Chris Nelson, Rebuild America,
Brookings 2004
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
COMMERCIAL SPACE
53
Current Trends Increase Costs on Municipalities
Taxpayers
54
Low density development imposes greater costs on
state and localities.
  • Low density development increases demand for
  • New schools
  • New roads
  • New public facilities
  • Sewer and water extensions

Low density development increases the costs of
key services
  • Police
  • Fire
  • Emergency medical

55
Studies estimate the degree of capital cost
savings from denser development
Estimated cost savings by community prototype
Source Real Estate Research Corporation (1974)
56
...an idea substantiated by Florida case studies
Florida Growth Patterns Study Total Public
Facilities Costs by Development Type (Per
Dwelling Unit 1989 Dollars)
Source Duncan (1989)
57
Studies estimate the service delivery savings
from more compact development
Development Pattern Cost
Central city counties Central city counties Central city counties
Fayette (more concentrated) (1.08)
Jefferson (more spread out) 37.55
Suburban counties Suburban counties Suburban counties
Shelby (more concentrated) 88.27
Pendelton (more spread out) 1,222.39
Counties with small towns Counties with small towns Counties with small towns
Warren (more concentrated) 53.89
Pulaski (more spread out) 239.93
Outer ring and rural Outer ring and rural Outer ring and rural
Garrard (more concentrated) 454.51
McCracken (more spread out) 618.90
Dollar costs of new services (including police,
fire, highway, schools, and solid waste) per
1,000 new residents for a family of 4 in Kentucky
Source Bollinger, Berger, and Thompson (2001)
58
The density-related fiscal savings are estimated
to be substantial.
Nationwide, more compact development could save
governments 11 on capital outlays over the long
term.
More compact development could save governments
almost 4 on service provision.
Source Muro Puentes (2004)
59
Virginias current growth could cost taxpayers
nearly 3.7 billion in avoidable infrastructure.
  • Recent analysis by Burchell and Downs found that
  • Virginia could save 4,726 lane miles of roads and
    almost 225,000 more water and sewer laterals by
    compact growth over the next 25 years.
  • Would result in a savings of 3.06 billion in
    road construction costs and 654 million in water
    and sewer infrastructure

Source Robert Burchell and others, Costs of
Sprawl -2000.
60
Current Trends Diminish Economic Competitiveness
Quality of Life
61
Competitiveness
Virginias current pattern of growth is hampering
its competitiveness by eroding its quality of
life.
  • Decentralization
  • Is weakening the downtown cores that attract and
    retain young workers and employers.
  • Is reducing choice for different types of
    communities
  • Threatens the states best natural amenities and
    the tourism industry.

62
Competitiveness
In terms of job growth, Virginia was one of the
slowest growing states between 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
Percent Change in Full and Part-time Jobs,
1990-2000
Bureau of Labor Statistics Regional Economic
Information System
63
Competitiveness
And talent is concentrated in only a few areas
half of 25-34 year olds with BAs live in
northern Virginia.
Source U.S. Census (SF-4) PCT 65
Percent of 25-34 with Bachelors Degrees by
County, 2000
State Average 6.38
10 - 21
6 - 9.9
3 - 5.9
.7 - 2.9
64
Competitiveness
Recent research contends that economic growth
increasingly occurs in places that attract and
retain talented workers
Source Florida, The Rise of the Creative Class,
2002.
65
Demographic Changes and Implications for
Virginias Cities, Towns and Suburban Counties
How are these trends affecting cities and
suburban counties?
II
What are the implications for mobility and
transitservices? 
III
IV
What is the new competitive cities agenda?
66
What are the implications for mobility and
transitservices? 
III
Low and decentralized densities are difficult to
serve
Separated uses, edgeless office space is
difficult to serve
Decentralized metro areas affect state budget
which affects transit providers
Lack of quality transit could hinder city
revitalization efforts
67
Demographic Changes and Implications for
Virginias Cities, Towns and Suburban Counties
How are these trends affecting cities and
suburban counties?
II
What are the implications for mobility and
transitservices? 
III
IV
What is the new competitive cities agenda?
68
The New Competitive Cities Agenda
69
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
70
www.brookings.edu/metro
About PowerShow.com