Density and Access to Public Transportation Support Economic Stability

US Metropolitan Area Growth Patterns in the 2000s

During the 2000s… America grows, but not unilaterally*

Suburbs 12% population growth

Central cities7% population growthSome begin to see economic revitalization

Twice as many people live in suburbs vs. central cities

Mid-decade economic boom driven by housingGov’t policies (low interest rates)Banks eager to loan to all types of customers

*Sources: Brookings Institute, State of Metropolitan America Map and New York Times, Mapping America: Every City, Every Block

Escalating Gas Prices

During the 2000s…By 2007, housing industry runs out of steam

Properties begin to de-value, foreclosures riseGreatest impact felt in

Several of the fastest growing metro areas“Exurbs” – areas relatively far from central cities

“Drive ‘til You Qualify”

Lower-income families pinchedGas prices drive up transportation costs (among other

things)Declining property values and ballooning mortgage interest

rates (especially sub-prime loans)

Poverty rate grows faster in suburbs*Real wages of suburban households fall

*Source: Brookings Institute, State of Metropolitan America Map

Metro Area TrendsBoom and bust in fast growing, lower-density areas

Highly-auto dependent

Dense, established regions seemed more economically stableMany have multi-modal public transportation networks

What are the economic differences between dense metro areas with public transit systems and fast growing, lower-density regions?

What are the county-level trends among these two sets of metro areas?

54 Metro Areas with 1 Million People or Greater*Metro Areas

Atlanta Cleveland-Akron Indianapolis Minneapolis-St. Paul Pittsburgh San Antonio

Austin Columbus Jacksonville Nashville Portland, OR San Diego

Baltimore (Part of Washington, DC - 1999

MSA)Dallas-Fort Worth Kansas City New Orleans Providence

San Francisco-Oakland (1999 MSA includes

San Jose)

Birmingham Denver-Boulder Las Vegas New York City Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill

San Jose (Part of San Francisco-Oakland -

1999 MSA)

Boston-Worcester Detroit-Ann Arbor-FlintLos Angeles (1999 MSA includes Riverside-San

Bernardino)

Norfolk-Virginia Beach Richmond Seattle-Tacoma

Buffalo Grand Rapids-Muskegon Louisville Oklahoma CityRiverside-San

Bernardino (Part of Los Angeles - 1999 MSA)

St. Louis

Charlotte Greensboro-High Point-Winston Salem Memphis Orlando Rochester, NY Tampa-St. Petersburg

Chicago Hartford

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach (West

Palm Beach separate MSA in 1999)

Philadelphia Sacramento Tucson

Cincinnati Houston Milwaukee Phoenix Salt Lake CityWashington, DC (1999

MSA includes Baltimore)

*2000 Census based on 1999 MSA definitions, or 2007-2009 American Community Survey based on 2003 CBSA definitions

Change in Metro Area DefinitionFederal Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

defines Metro Areas Revised standard in 2003*

Previously – Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Commuting relationship between central city and outlying counties Density of outlying counties

New – Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) Examine commuting patterns between counties # of metropolitan areas grew from 280 to 362

Suburbs of large metro areas split offAreas are smaller, but likely more densePop density figures in 2012 when metro area data for 2010 Census

is released*Source - Office of Management and Budget, Standards for Defining Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas; Notice, Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 249, 12/27/00

1999 and 2003 Metro Areas

Utilized 2000 Census and 2007-2009 ACS 2000 Census

Entire population 1/6 of households – longer-form survey – housing and

economic status (discontinued for 2010 in favor of ACS)Metro Area statistics

CBSA - population count MSA - characteristics

American Community Survey (ACS) Surveys 2 million households each year, official since 2005

Similar to longer-form census survey3-year average reduces margin of error

Info on geographic areas with pop. of 20K or greater (annual info for areas with pop. of 65K or greater)

Limitation - economic and social change during time periodCBSA for all metro area data

Isolating Opportunity?Denser metro areas appear to be on stronger economic footing

Extensive transportation networkEconomic base

Higher per-capita incomeFewer residents living below poverty line

Many of the fastest growing areas during the 2000sLower economic baseAuto-dependent transportation “Drive ‘til You Qualify”Growing suburban poverty

Thankfully, some of the fast-growing cities and regions are taking action

Some cities built transit systems in 2000s

Metro AreaLight Rail (lower

capacity and speed)*

Heavy Rail (heavy volume, high speeds, i.e.

Subway)*

Commuter Rail (between central city and outlying

suburbs)*

AustinOpened in 2010, in development

Dallas-Fort Worth

Yes, in development

Yes

HoustonOpened in 2004, in development

Nashville Opened in 2006

Phoenix Opened in 2009

Systems are small, not more than 2-3 linesReach smaller portion of population

*Source: Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Database, Glossary; Websites of transportation agencies in above-mentioned cities and regions

Great Recession ImpactRail is expensive to build and maintain

Lengthy development processWill government budget crises stall development?

Every city has a bus transportation networkPerception-based challengesRequires less capital to start-upBuses lose effectiveness in lower-density environmentsInterest in Bus Rapid Transit

NYC – Select Bus Service

Time will tell how successful these initiatives are

Fed Gov’t PolicyHUD, DOT and EPA Partnership for Sustainable

CommunitiesAwards grants to 45 regions in December, 2010Development of joint sustainability, affordable housing and

transit plansGrantees include agencies in Austin, Houston, Sacramento

“Smart Growth”Promoted by EPADecrease distance between residential and commercial centers

Other grass-roots initiatives – “Livable Communities”, “Complete Streets”

Thank You!