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.

 

Population Flows from Cities and Villages to Towns

One of the great "truths" of demographics in the past 50 years has been the outflow of people from cities and villages to more rural settings. In a phrase, it's referred to as "urban flight".

Oneida County has seen considerable evidence of this in census data. The table below shows the change in population for cities, villages and remainders of towns (ROTs)from 1960 until the most recent census in 2010. ROTs are basically the town populations minus the village populations.

As you can see, since the 1960 census, the cities in Oneida County have experienced a decline of more than a third (36%) of their population. Villages, while not losing nearly as great a percentage, have lost more than a tenth (13%). ROTs on the other hand have seen their populations increase by about 34% ! This despite an over all loss of population for the county as a whole since 1970.

As a result, town populations (that is to say the populations in the parts of towns NOT in villages) now exceeds city populations in the county, and has done so since the year 2000. While approximately 99,000 people now live in one of the three cities in Oneida County, nearly 110,000 live in the non-village portions of its towns.

Interestingly, the number of people (population = 109,197) living in the ROTs has remained the same since the Census 2000. And by the same I mean EXACTLY the same ! Could this be a sign of a change in this trend ? With no real way to know, we will have to wait for another 8 years until the 2020 census to get a better view of where this trend is heading locally.