The Capital District is a region at a critical crossroads. With the specter of increased development pressure, the region is being challenged to assess its ability to accommodate growth in a sustainable manner. The Capital District Transportation Committee (CDTC), as part of the “New Visions” plan update, has been examining the regional transportation/land use issues and policies that directly affect this sustainability. This report is part of that effort. Its primary purpose is to explore the population and land use patterns and implications of four different future development scenarios in the region.

The first development scenario is based on the Capital District Regional Planning Commission’s (CDRPC) 2040 regional population projections by Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ). This scenario is considered the baseline scenario, as it is what the CDRPC staff considers to be the most realistic scenario based on historic population and development trends and existing policies. This scenario will be called “Development Scenario 1 – Status Quo Trend.”

The second scenario uses the same regional growth rates as projected by CDRPC under Scenario 1, however the rates are applied to each TAZ in proportion to their existing population, which has the effect of constraining the spread of growth in outlying areas and increasing growth in the existing urbanized areas. This scenario is called “Development Scenario 2 – Concentrated Growth.”

The third scenario will explore the regional growth patterns that could result if the region grew at the same rate of growth as projected for the United Stated as a whole from 2000 to 2040. This scenario will distribute the growth within each county based on the proportional share of growth each county is projected to receive under CDRPC’s baseline projections. The spatial distribution will also be constrained by density caps and environmental limitations. The general effect of this scenario is an extensive spread of growth into currently undeveloped areas and minimal growth in older urban areas. This scenario will be called “ Development Scenario 3 – Trend Hyper-Growth.”

The fourth and final scenario, similar to Scenario 3, will explore the regional growth patterns that could result if the region grew at the same rate of growth as projected for the United Stated as a whole from 2000 to 2040. However, instead of distributing the growth within each county proportionate to CDRPC’s baseline projections, the growth in each TAZ would be scaled in proportion to the overall regional rates of projected growth. The distribution of growth would be constrained by environmental factors; however there would be no density caps. The general effect of this scenario is a large amount of the regional growth would be concentrated, at higher densities, in the already developed and the newly developed areas within the region. This scenario will be called “Development Scenario 4 – Concentrated Hyper-Growth.”

In addition, there are a number of trends taking shape in the U.S., which may be considered potential harbingers of future conditions that will affect land use patterns. These trends may already be taking place in some parts of the country and may eventually see more widespread manifestation in the Capital District. There are also several global trends that have the potential to greatly shape land use patterns in the future. These trends will be discussed following the discussion of the alternative scenarios

Capital District Population Projections & Trends

“Development Scenario 1 – Status Quo Trend”

In May of 2004, CDRPC completed revising its population and household projections for each of the Region's municipalities in ten-year increments to the year 2040. The Population Projection Model implemented involved two distinct stages: a quantitative first stage using a log-linear regression projection model on historic Census data and U.S. Census Bureau estimates, and a qualitative second stage using non-quantitative judgments of the likelihood and extent of future population change within particular jurisdictions.

The Log-Linear model - so-called because of its straight-line form when plotted on graph paper that has a logarithmic scale for X-axis measurements - uses historic population to forecast or project future population based on a logarithmic curve, which is the best general model for natural populations.

Log-Linear models when used for forecasts will project the historic rate of change of the actual data into the future at a steadily declining rate (i.e., historic growth or decline will continue, but at a lesser rate). Log-linear models are an excellent basis for population forecasts because they project average historic rates of change into the future in a manner consistent with the average changes in natural populations. While short-term population data will often exhibit some variety of a saw-tooth pattern when charted, long-term population data usually follow a log-linear trend.

Historic data by minor civil division (MCD) for the Region were fitted to individual log-linear models, and the results proportionally reduced or increased to force the sum of a county's MCDs to equal the county total.

The projections derived from the Log-Linear Model provided a basis from which to further analyze the forces that affect population change in each minor civil division. There are many historic trends other than simple population which may give an indication of the direction and extent of future population change, including, but not limited to, average persons per household, persons in group quarters, building permit issuances, new home and apartment unit construction, immigration and emigration patterns, journey-to-work data, and labor force data. In addition, there may be new development opportunities or constraints for particular jurisdictions embodied in zoning and subdivision regulations, environmental regulations, economic development programs, and capital budgets for transportation facilities and water and sewer service extensions, to name a few. This information was taken into account in consultation with county and municipal planners and the projections derived from the Log-Linear Model were adjusted accordingly.

CDRPC projects a net gain of 90,538 persons and 59,898 households by 2040. The map, “Projected Change in Population: 2000-2040,” shows this projected net population growth by minor civil division. This would bring the total population of the region by 2040 to 884,831 persons and the total households to 378,153.

CDRPC then developed a set of population projections for the Region's 925 Traffic Analysis Zones. The initial TAZ projections were based on a distribution of projected MCD populations to Traffic Analysis Zones based on 1990 and 2000 historic distributions of TAZ populations within each municipality.

Modifications were made to individual TAZ’s based on the best available TAZ data, including, historic and existing growth pressure, environmental constraints, available land, available or likely available public infrastructure, existing zoning, existing planning policies, average persons per household and persons in group quarters.

Spatial Distribution of Status Quo Trend

The resulting TAZ projections are shown on the “Development Scenario 1 – Status Quo Trend” map. This “dot density” map shows the distribution of the new population growth projected from 2000 to 2040 by TAZ (90,538 persons). One dot on the map equals 50 new persons. Areas without dots are either projected not to grow, or could be projected to loose population.

The “Development Scenario 1 – Status Quo Trend” map, along with the “Projected Change in Population: 2000-2040,” represents the most likely future population growth scenario of those considered in this report. It is what is projected to occur based on historical trends and future expectations including development policies presently in place.

The most salient characteristics of the distribution of growth projected in the Status Quo Trend are:

· Of a total projected population growth of 90,538 persons, 65% will be located in Saratoga County (58,850); 24% in Albany County (21,729); 9% in Rensselaer County (8,148); and 2% in Schenectady County (1,810);

· New development in Albany County will be primarily focused in Bethlehem, Guilderland and Colonie;

· New development in Rensselaer County will be primarily focused in East and North Greenbush, with some spread into Sand Lake;

· Schenectady County will grow the least of the four counties, with moderate growth in Niskayuna, Glenville, Princetown, Duanesburg and the western part of Rotterdam.

· The eastern, older parts of Rotterdam adjacent to the City of Schenectady show a loss of population;

· Saratoga County will experience the most growth of the four counties, with particularly large amounts of growth in Halfmoon, Clifton Park, Malta, Milton, Wilton, and the city of Saratoga Springs. The towns of Ballston, Stillwater and Moreau will experience comparatively moderate growth, though high by historic regional standards;

· The cities of Schenectady, Troy, Mechanicville, Cohoes, and Watervliet will continue to lose population, while the cities of Albany and Rensselaer will see little new population growth;

· The top ten municipalities in terms of net projected increase in population from 2000 to 2040 are: Halfmoon (11,581), Clifton Park (8,873), Saratoga Springs (8,675), Bethlehem (7,992), Guilderland (6,919), Colonie (6,144), Wilton (5,049), Malta (4,640), Milton (4,009), and East Greenbush (3,545). (Note: The net projected increase in the towns does not include any villages that may be located within the town).

Land Consumption

The average suburban residential development density in the Capital District in 2000 was approximately two persons per acre. This is derived by taking the urbanized area of the region (according to the U.S. census definition) and removing the high-density city and village areas, and then calculating the persons per acre of the remaining urbanized area.

According to CDRPC’s population projections, 90 percent of the projected population growth (81,097 persons) will take place in the suburban and rural areas of the region. If we assume that future suburban development will take place at an average density of 2 persons per acre, then approximately 40,549 acres of land would be developed under the status quo trend.

The distribution of new persons is based on historic population and land development trends. In order to better understand the issues associated with the status quo trend, in addition to potential issues associated with the other scenarios to be explored, it will be necessary to summarize the region’s historic development trends, and the resulting conditions and issues currently facing the region.

Historic Perspective on Status Quo Trend

Regional Population Growth

From 1950 to 2000, Capital District population grew from 589,359 persons to 794,293 persons, a net increase of 204,934 persons or 35%.

During this same period, the fastest growing county of the region’s four counties was Saratoga, which grew from 74,869 persons in 1950 to 200,635 persons in 2000, a net increase of 125,766 persons or 168 %. Since 1950, Saratoga County has accounted for 61 percent of the region’s population growth. During this period, Albany County’s population increased by 23% (55,179 persons); Rensselaer County’s population increased by 15% (19,931 persons); and Schenectady County’s population increased by 3% (4,058 persons).

Between 1980 to 2000, Saratoga County’s population increased by 31% (46,876 persons); Albany County’s population increased by 3% (8,656 new persons); Rensselaer County’s population increased by .4% (572 new persons); and Schenectady County’s population decreased by 2.3% (3,391 loss).

During the last census period – 1990 to 2000 – the Capital District population grew by 16,500 persons, or 2.1%. The U.S. population increased by 13% during this same period. The map “Net Population Change: 1990-2000” shows the distribution of growth by MCD during this period.

Urban Decline

One of the most significant features of the past half-century is the decline in population of the region’s cities. From 1950 to 2000, the city of Albany declined 29% from 134,995 persons to 95,658. The city of Schenectady declined by 33%, from 91,785 persons to 61,821. The city of Troy declined by 32%, from 72,311 to 49,170. The cities of Cohoes, Watervliet, Mechanicville and Rensselaer have lost 30% of their combined population since 1950. The only city to experience population gain in the region was Saratoga Springs, which grew by 69% since 1950, from 15,473 persons to 26,186.

The following map shows the net regional population growth from 1960 to 2000.

Suburban and Rural Growth

In 1950, 71 percent of the region’s residents lived in cities or villages. By the year 2000, that proportion had dropped to 42 percent.

Historic building permit activity further underscores this trend. Since 1980, 81 percent of the region’s residential building permits (per unit) were issued outside of the cities and villages. The map “Residential Building Permits: 1980-2004” shows the regional pattern and relative quantity of building permits by municipality. Overall, the market for new housing in the Region, as evidenced by residential building permit issuances, has been strong and stable over the last few years, and has shown significant increases in constant dollar value.

Within the Capital District, suburban and rural land is being developed at a faster rate than overall population increases. A study of land development undertaken by CDRPC in 1999, which analyzed satellite imagery from 1986 and 1997, indicated that during this period approximately 15,000 acres of land were developed on previously undeveloped land - a 15.8 percent increase in land consumption. There was approximately a 3.4 percent increase in population during the same period (~26,210 persons), which means that the region developed land at 4.65 times the rate of population growth during this period. As a result, the ratio of population per developed acre was 1.75 persons per acre of new development. A map of this growth, called “Capital District Suburban Growth 1986-1997” can be viewed at http://cdrpc.org/GrowthPatterns.html.

This trend has also been documented for upstate New York as a whole. A Brookings Institute study titled “Sprawl Without Growth: The Upstate Paradox”[1] analyzed the growth and development trends and population in Upstate New York and found that:

· Despite slow population growth, 425,000 acres of Upstate New York were urbanized between 1982 and 1997, resulting in urban sprawl in the form of declining density. The total amount of urbanized land in Upstate grew by 30 percent between 1982 and 1997, while its population grew by only 2.6 percent, reducing the density of the built environment by 21 percent.

· Compared with other Upstate regions, Western New York sprawled less between 1982 and 1997, and Central New York sprawled more. All Upstate regions have falling population density, but Western New York's density dropped only 16 percent between 1982 and 1997. Meanwhile, Central New York—which includes Syracuse, Utica/Rome, and surrounding counties—urbanized over 100,000 acres even though it lost 6,500 residents, resulting in a 32 percent decline in its density.

· People, jobs, and businesses are leaving cities and villages and moving to towns. Upstate cities lost over 40,000 households in the 1990s alone, while unincorporated town areas gained over 160,000 households. Businesses have also disappeared from cities while growing in towns.

· Sprawl hits Upstate cities hard. City tax bases fell in the 1990s, vacant housing increased, and home ownership slipped. Towns remained comparatively prosperous.

The report states that continued decentralization of people and jobs away from Upstate New York's cities and villages is undermining the economic health and quality of life of the region. The authors argue that State and local leaders need to understand that these trends are not inevitable. Explicit state reforms in fiscal policy, annexation laws, and planning can go a long way toward fostering a better future for Upstate New York.

The Patterns of Suburban Growth

The dominant pattern of suburban growth in the Capital District over the last half-century, much like the rest of the U.S., has overwhelmingly exhibited the following characteristics:

· Isolated/Unconnected – Most new suburban residential growth has been built as isolated single-family housing subdivisions dispersed throughout the urban fringe, in many cases at a considerable distance from existing developed areas and employment centers. The dominant street patterns of the new residential developments are curvilinear rather than gridded, and they do not usually connect to adjacent developments (if there are any); rather, they more often connect directly to collector roads or highways. This is often the case even when one subdivision is adjacent to another and/or when a retail store is adjacent to a residential development. It is more common to see specific provisions made to prohibit interconnections using dead-ends (cul-de-sacs), berms, tree buffers, and fences.

· Segregated by Use – Following the prevailing “modern” zoning implemented by many communities over the last half-century, which largely outlawed mixed-land uses, developments are rigidly segregated by use: single-family housing subdivisions are separated from apartments, which are separated from shopping areas, which are separated from offices and employment centers.

· Land Intensive – As noted by the Brookings Institute and the CDRPC studies previously cited, land development has been greatly outpacing population growth throughout upstate New York. And the developments themselves, housing, retail, manufacturing and warehousing in particular, take up much more land in both buildings and parking, than their traditional urban predecessors.

· Auto-dependant – Developments that are spread out, isolated by design, segregated by use, and land intensive result in auto-dependency: owning and driving a car for almost all trips becomes imperative.

Sprawl development patterns in the U.S. have come under criticism because this pattern of development is more costly to serve with infrastructure than traditional urbanism; is unnecessarily wasteful of land; despoils environmental resources, is socially alienating (separation by class and often race), and is inefficient for mass-transit service. Metropolitan regions that have experienced large amounts of sprawl development have suffered from traffic gridlock, air pollution, water quality degradation, urban fiscal distress, and concentrated poverty, and therefore, a decline in regional quality of life.

Demographic Patterns

The half-century urban exodus of a large portion of the region’s middle and upper income residents has resulted in a regional pattern of distinct racial and income segregation. The region’s minority population, particularly blacks and Hispanics, are highly concentrated within the region’s central cities. The percent minority population within the region is12.4%, however within the cities of Albany, Schenectady and Troy combined the minority population is 31%. While the central cities of Albany, Schenectady and Troy contain only 26% of the Capital District’s overall population, these three cities contain 64.4% of the region’s minority population. 79.4% of the region’s black population resided in these three central cities, with 52% in the city of Albany.

The concentration of black and Hispanic residents in the region’s cities is increasing at a higher rate than the overall regional increase in minority residents. And the exodus of whites from the central cities is increasing faster than the overall population decline. From 1990 to 2000, the city of Albany’s overall population dropped by 4,373 persons, yet the city lost 16,041 (-22%) white residents during the same period. A total of 35,526 white non-Hispanics (17.5%) left the four central cities from 1990 to 2000, while minority residents in these cities increased by 17,129 persons (49%).

Moreover, these same areas of racial segregation closely correspond with the region’s highest concentrations of poverty, and with the region’s oldest housing, highest concentration of vacant housing, and highest percentage of rental housing. For example, the overall poverty rate of the Capital District is 9%, while the combined poverty rate within the cities of Albany, Schenectady and Troy is 22%. The region’s owner occupied housing rate is 64%; within the city of Albany it is 38%, in the city of Schenectady it is 45%, and in Troy it is 40%. See maps below and http://cdrpc.org/GIS/2K-Thematic-Maps.html for more detailed regional thematic maps.

Household Size and Make up

Since 1970 there have been significant changes in household size and composition in the region that has and will continue to impact development patterns and alternative housing types. In 1979, there were 3.04 persons per household in the Capital Region. By the year 2000, the persons per household declined to 2.40. Though following the same trend, the reduction in the number of persons per household in the region has been much more dramatic than experienced at the national and state levels. In New York State, there were 3.01 persons per household in 1970; by the year 2000 there were 2.62. At the national level, in 1970, there were 3.14 persons per household; by the year 2000, the ratio was nearly comparable to the State, at 2.61 persons per household. CDRPC projects that the persons per household in the region will continue to decline during the next 40 years, though at a more modest rate, to 2.25 persons by 2040.

Another critical factor is household composition. In 1970, 78.4% of the households in the Capital Region were considered family households, that is, households that had two or more related persons living in the same housing unit. The remaining 21.6% consisted of non-family households, which include either persons living alone or two or more unrelated persons living in the same housing unit. By the year 2000, only 63.4% of the households in the Capital Region were identified as family households. Disaggregating the Family Households by Type further reinforces the diversification of the family unit that has occurred during the last thirty years in the region. In 1970, almost one out of every two family households (47.8%) were Married couple with children under 18. By 2000, only one out of every three (33.6%) was a married couple with children. At the same time, the percent of married couples without children increased from 38.5% to 42.5% and the percent of family households composed of a single parent nearly tripled going from 5.4% in 1970 to 14.2% of all family households by 2000. The number of family households in these types of arrangements is further magnified by the fact that during the last 30 years there was an increase in the total number of family households in the region going from 180,600 in 1970 to 201,800 in 2000.

Economic Changes

Demographic Change and Structural Unemployment

The region’s central cities and other older communities were hard hit by demographic and economic shifts accompanying the suburbanization process of the post-World War II period, and the economic recessions of the past two decades. The changing demographic patterns in central cities have resulted in an older, less skilled, and relatively more immobile labor force. Combined with a steadily diminishing supply of well-paying blue-collar jobs, these changes have created serious long-term unemployment problems, especially among minority youth. The cities of Albany, Troy, and Schenectady have all exhibited significantly higher unemployment rates than those of their corresponding counties. The Central City unemployment rates run 2-3% higher than the respective county levels.

Industrial Restructuring

While the economy of the Capital District Region has been and remains reasonably well diversified, certain important industries have continued to decline beyond the last economic downturn and into the present one as part of an overall restructuring of the region's economic base. During the last dozen years, the four-county area lost almost 12,000 manufacturing jobs. The continued loss of manufacturing employment has been concentrated in the County of Schenectady, while increases in private non-manufacturing employment were predominantly found in Albany, Saratoga, and Rensselaer counties. In examining the shifts in manufacturing establishment totals by average numbers of employees per establishment, it is obvious that most losses in employment can be attributed to the contraction of large facilities.

Another aspect of regional economic restructuring can be found in examining pay scales across industries. Though expansions in other sectors such as construction, services, wholesale and retail trade, and finance have usually outweighed the employment losses in the manufacturing sector, the majority of the jobs in these sectors pay significantly less than manufacturing.

Shifting employment from manufacturing industries towards service, retail, and construction sectors, along with associated differences in salary have added a strong causal element for a growing labor force. Disparities among pay scales, coupled with increases in the cost of living (e.g., increasing housing prices, health care costs, etc.) have, in part, fueled a significant increase in labor force participation, especially among women (although many women, by choice, want to be part of the labor force). The region's female labor force expanded at twice the rate of the labor force as a whole between 1990 and 2000.

Technological Change and Manufacturing Obsolescence

Since the economy of the Northeast developed earlier than most other regional economies in the nation, key elements of its physical and economic infrastructure were developed around an industrial, transportation, communications, and energy technology different from that preferred or considered necessary today. In many ways, the old technological base of the Northeast has been deemed unsuitable for the needs of modern business and industry. The result has been a marked shift in industrial location away from the Northeast, with the Capital District Region being no exception

Changes in preference for product types and material resources have also caused a continuing obsolescence of machinery at established plants. Such changes, coupled with prospects of relatively lower wage scales, less stringent regulations, newer infrastructure, and locational incentives in other regions, have provided common opportunities for plant closings and relocations.

In addition, many of the industries, which had historically maintained a strong regional presence due to past locational advantages, have matured and declined because of a deteriorating comparative advantage in production relative to other countries. In a number of cases, market saturation and an ultimate deterioration in demand for certain durable manufactured products have resulted in the decline of those manufacturing sectors. The ripple effects throughout the economy have been amplified by deteriorating backward and forward linkages to what were once considered "core" industries: a negative multiplier effect.