Measuring Urban S p r a w l

A recent article in Governing examined measuring the impact of urban sprawl. They reviewed a new report conducted by the University of Utah’s Metropolitan Research Center, and Smart Growth America, an organization that advocates for sustainable growth.

Smart Growth America and the Metropolitan Research Center analyzed development in 193 census defined Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), or metro areas, as well as 28 census defined Metropolitan Divisions in the largest 11 MSAs. All of the analyzed areas had at least 200,000 people in 2010. MSAs with populations less than 200,000 people were not included in the study. This study also analyzed development in the 994 metropolitan counties which comprised the MSAs. Development in both MSAs and metropolitan counties was evaluated using four main factors: development density; land use mix; activity centering; and street accessibility.

A composite score was then created and each area, or county, was measured in terms of its sprawl. The higher the composite score the less the sprawl and the more compact and connected the area is thought to be. According to the authors, individuals in compact, connected metro areas have greater economic mobility. Individuals in these areas spend less on the combined cost of housing and transportation, and have greater options for the type of transportation to take. In addition, individuals in compact, connected metro areas tend to live longer, safer, healthier lives than their peers in metro areas with sprawl. Obesity is less prevalent in compact counties, and fatal car crashes are less common. 

Below you can find the scores, including the overall composite scores for all of the metropolitan counties in New York. Because researchers weighed the four factors equally, producing an index with an average of 100, that means that metro areas that had scores above 100 tend to be more compact, while those scoring below 100 are more sprawling.

 

The New Yuppies? Millennials Returning to Urban Life

A recent article on bettercities.net was written about the inflow of millennials to more urban settings. The article claims this is for a variety of reasons.

For example, they posit that two-thirds of this cohort believes it is important to live in walkable neighborhoods. They also cite a Washington post article which pointed out that the nation’s "Driving Boom", which lasted six decades, is over — largely because Millennials are driving less. “Between 2001 and 2009, the average yearly number of miles driven by 16- to 34-year-olds dropped a staggering 23 percent,” wrote Brad Plumer in The Washington Post. Rising costs of driving, barriers to teenagers getting licenses, technology that makes car-free living easier, and preference toward urban living are reasons for the trend, the article explained.

Whether or not that is true nationally, it doesn't seem to be the case for us regionally. Generally speaking, our cities and villages have been losing population while our towns have grown. This isn't an absolute, but it does seem to be generally true.

Below are the populations for each twon and county in the region from 1980 to 2010. Very few show increasing populations since the Census 2000. On the other hand, the City of Utica, our largest regional urban municipality, does show and increase of more than 2% ! So maybe the jury is still out on this issue ! We'll see in 2020 !

Click to Enlarge OC Data

Click to Enlarge HC Data