Effects of Alternative Development Scenarios in the Capital
District
A discussion document prepared
for the Capital District Transportation Committee’s Quality Region Task Force
Working Group A
Capital District Population
Projections & Trends
“Development Scenario 1 –
Status Quo Trend”
Spatial Distribution of
Status Quo Trend
Historic Perspective on Status
Quo Trend
“Development Scenario 2 –
Concentrated Growth”
“Development Scenario 3 – Trend
Hyper-Growth”
“Development Scenario 4 –
Concentrated Hyper-Growth”
Interpreting the Development
Scenarios
Development Scenario 2 –
Concentrated Growth
Development Scenario 3 – Trend
Hyper-Growth
Development Scenario 4 –
Concentrated Hyper-Growth
Future Trends and their
Potential Affect on Development Patterns
Immigration and the
Latinization of the U.S.
Basic Infrastructure
Reinvestment Expenses
The future is already
here; its just not evenly distributed.
- William Gibson
Scenario planning is
intended to prod people to think more broadly and view events with a new
perspective.
- Joel Garreau
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On the upside, a rebirth in
manufacturing activity has been taking place with the increasing formation of
smaller establishments. Unfortunately, many smaller manufacturers find it more
difficult to keep up with research and development costs, technological change,
capital investment, and labor training. Moreover, they often fall prey to
larger firms in terms of heavy competition or contractual dependency. The
relative flexibility and improved organization of smaller establishments cannot
outweigh the economies of scale for transportation costs and production when
high technology, labor training, and capital cannot be acquired as easily.
After the 1990-91 recession, the
Capital Region economy experienced a recovery in 1992 and 1993 and a strong
growth phase in 1994, with all-time high employment and low unemployment. But
in 1995, regional employment was down, unemployment up, and the region entered
into a local recession, which persisted through 1996. In 1997, the regional
economy entered a modest recovery phase, which strengthened in 1998, and in
1999 the transition was made to a growth phase, which has continued to the
present time, with slight interruptions in 2001 (national recession running
from March through November) and 2004. In the monthly employment reports over
the past few years, the Capital Region has typically had the lowest
unemployment rate in New York State, and the highest rate of job growth. The
Capital Region has the highest labor force participation rate of any region in
New York State.
The Capital Region has a highly
educated population and workforce, with 86.2% graduating from high school and
29.6% with a Bachelor's degree, second only to the Nassau-Suffolk Region in New
York State.
The Capital Region as the seat of
State government has by far the largest proportion of government workers in New
York State. While on rare occasions this is a disadvantage — in 1995 and 1996
the reduction in the state's workforce was primarily responsible for a local
recession — generally the high number and proportion of government workers acts
as a very significant stabilizing force for the region's economy. While the
Capital District economy will never achieve the highs of, say, a booming
Silicon Valley economy, it will also be spared the corresponding lows of
periodic bust cycles.
After ten consecutive years of net
out-migration of taxpayers and their dependents (based on IRS data), the region
has shown significant and increasing net in-migration over the past couple of
years. Together with a net natural (births less deaths) increase in population
of about 1,700 per year, the region is on track to post a 5.5% total increase
in population between 2000 and 2010.
Although the region experienced a
significant in-migration of taxpayers and their dependents for 2001 and 2002,
the out-migration of aggregate constant-dollar income continued, indicating
that, on average, the households moving into the region had smaller incomes
than those moving out.
The following graphic portrays the
region’s county-to-county commuting patterns.
Albany County continues to be the
principal place of work for the region's residents. With only 36.9% of the
Region's employed residents, it provides 54.6% of the Region's jobs.
The
land-intensive nature of suburban development puts pressure on environmentally
sensitive areas, wildlife resources, forest resources, and existing open space.
Pressure on farmland along the urban fringe has been particularly great.
According the USDA Census of Agriculture, the Capital District has lost 21,357
acres of farmland from 1987 to 2002, which is an 8% loss. Much of this land has
been converted to new housing developments, and much of this lost farmland is
prime – having the most productive characteristics for farming. However, the
land characteristics that make for productive farmland - well drained soils on
relatively level terrain – are some of the same characteristics that make this
land well suited for development.
Suburban
development pressure has served to expedite the demise of struggling farms
along the urban fringe since the temptation to sell to a developer is often too
great to resist given the financial challenges, in particular to the region’s
small dairy farms. Suburban development often creates addition financial
pressure on already struggling farmers. For example, new development often
creates the need for additional municipal services, which in turn causes an
increase in the property tax rate. Farmland in areas under development pressure
often becomes assessed and taxed based on its development potential rather than
its potential for farming. Additional pressure also comes in the way of
conflicts between new suburban residents and existing farms. Many suburban
residents are unprepared for the smells, sounds and activities that are normal
occurrences in rural farming areas, although right-to-farm laws protect these
activities. Farmland located within an
agricultural district provides farmers with protections and safeguards from
these outside intrusions. Landowners may
also be eligible for agricultural assessments for farmland (in and outside agricultural districts) that
reduces their property tax burden since the value of the land, for tax
purposes, is based on its use and not market potential.
The following growth scenarios are
“what-if” conceptual explorations that will allow Capital District policy
makers to consider the regional growth implications of three alternative
development scenarios. These are not predictions or recommendations; only
what-if scenarios that evaluate the various effects of low, concentrated
growth; high, dispersed growth; and high, concentrated growth. The following
section will quantify the growth of the different development scenarios.
A special set of TAZ projections has
been prepared for this scenario, which apply the regional growth rates derived
from CDRPC's original MCD Projections for each growth year to the 2000 Census
populations of each TAZ. These are the
same regional growth rates as projected under Scenario 1, with the same net
population gain of 90,538 persons projected by 2040, however the rates are
applied to each TAZ in proportion to their existing population. The growth
rates applied sequentially were: for 2000-2010, 3.934%; for 2010-2020, 2.6684%;
for 2020-2030, 2.2315%; and for 2030-2040, 2.0597%. This projection methodology has the effect of
directing most of the growth, at higher densities, to existing urbanized areas.
The resulting distribution is shown on
the “Development Scenario 2 – Concentrated Growth” map.
The characteristics of the distribution
of growth projected in the Concentrated Growth scenario are as follows (Note:
town totals do not include villages):
·
76% of the projected population growth would be
concentrated in the region’s existing urbanized area;
·
26%of the projected growth would be in Albany, Schenectady,
and Troy;
·
41% of the projected growth would be in the region’s cities
and villages;
·
The top ten municipalities in terms of net projected new
growth from 2000 to 2040 would be: Albany (10,674); Colonie (7,649);
Schenectady (7,002); Troy (5,576); Clifton Park (3,736); Guilderland (3,659);
Bethlehem (3,548); Glenville (2,291); Halfmoon (2,093); East Greenbush (1,764);
·
Total population by 2040: Albany (104,975); Colonie
(75,081); Schenectady (68,823); Troy (54,746).
Land Consumption
If 41% of the regional growth (36,743
persons) were to take place in the region’s existing cities and villages at the
urban density of 10 persons per acre (which is the current density, for
example, of the city of Schenectady), and if we assume that the remaining
growth (53,795 persons) would occur at traditional suburban densities of 2
persons per acre, then approximately 26,898 acres of previously undeveloped land would be developed under this scenario versus 40,549
developed acres projected under the status quo trend.
Moreover, if policies were implemented
to achieve a modest increase in the development density – to 4 persons per acre
– for half of the population growth that would occur outside the existing
cities and villages (26,898 people), then an additional 6,724 acres of land
could be saved from development, which, overall amounts to 20,375 acres of undeveloped
land preserved compared to the status quo trend.
Using population projections for
the United States to the year 2040, Capital Region Target Populations were developed for
each projection year, which represented the application of the growth rates
expected for the U.S. to the Region's 2000 Census population. The growth rates applied sequentially were: for 2000-2010, 9.50%; for 2010-2020, 8.70%;
for 2020-2030, 8.27%; and for 2030-2040, 7.80%.
Each TAZ was assigned to a
classification from 1 to 4, where 1 represents highly developed urban areas (population density of
3000 persons or greater per sq. mile by census block group); 2 represents TAZ’s
within the existing census-designated “urbanized area” boundary (except those
classified as 1); 3 represents TAZ’s outside the urbanized area boundary but
adjacent to TAZ’s classified 3; and 4 represents the remaining rural areas.
A number of TAZs in the #2 classification
were identified which appeared to be fully developed, based on existing land
use, and their average density was calculated as the average number of (2000
Census) persons per developable acre (i.e., land area less government-owed land
and land undevelopable because of environmental constraints). The resulting average density, 2.84 persons
per developable acre, was established as a development constraint for this
scenario.
Developable land within each TAZ
was calculated based on the existing area of each TAZ minus environmental
constraints areas. These constraints were determined by developing a composite
map of the following: state regulated wetlands, 100-year flood zones, slopes
greater than 15 percent, hydrography (streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, etc.), and
public preserves and parks. Once this composite constraints map was created,
these areas were removed from each TAZ.
Using CDRPC's county-level
population projections, the distribution of county population change as a
percent of total Regional population change was derived for each projection
year, and those distributions applied to the Regional Target Population changes
to produce County target populations for each projection year.
For each projection year, a factor was derived which, when
applied equally to CDRPC's County TAZ projections for that projection year,
yielded a TAZ sum equal to the County target population for that projection
year. For any TAZ in any projection
year, if the product of the County factor and CDRPC's projection exceeded the
density constraint, the assigned population projection was determined to be the
higher of 1) the original CDRPC projection or 2) the population implied by the
density constraint (i.e., 2.84 × the TAZs developable area).
There is a total population growth of
309,190 persons and 154,948 households projected under this Growth Scenario 3.
This would bring the total population in the region by 2040 to 1,103,483
persons and the total households to 473,203. The resulting distribution is
shown on the “Development Scenario 3 – Trend Hyper-Growth” map.
The characteristics of the distribution of growth projected
in the Concentrated Growth scenario are as follows:
·
Out of a total projected population growth of 309,190
persons, 199,540 persons would be located in Saratoga County (65%); 74,109 in
Albany County (24%); 28,534 in Rensselaer County (9%); and 7,007 in Schenectady
County (2%);
·
95.2% of the future population growth would be located
outside the region’s existing cities and villages;
·
The cities of Albany, Schenectady and Troy would decline
in population by a combined total of 2,226 persons;
·
33% of the projected
growth would occur in the region’s existing urbanized area.
·
The top ten municipalities
in terms of net projected new growth from 2000 to 2040 are: Clifton Park
(29,026), Halfmoon (21,497), Bethlehem (19,255), Colonie (16,928), Wilton
(16,786), Milton (16,357), Guilderland (16,107), Saratoga Springs (15,889),
Malta (14,435), and Moreau (13,489).
Land Consumption
As with the previous scenarios, if 4.8%
of the regional growth (14,815 persons) were to take place in the existing
urban areas (cities and villages) at the density of 10 persons per acre, and
76,667 persons were to live at suburban densities of 2.84 persons per acre
(this number is the total persons in urban level 2 built-out TAZ’s that met the
density cap discussed above) and 2 persons per acre for the remainder of the
suburban and rural TAZ’s, then approximately 146,855 acres of previously undeveloped land would be developed under this scenario
The fourth and final scenario, similar
to Scenario 3, is based on Capital Region Target Populations that were developed for each projection year
based on the growth rates expected for the U.S. population as whole between
2000 and 2040. However, what is different from Scenario 3 is that 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, in some instances at
higher densities, in the already developed and the newly developed areas within
the region.
The resulting distribution is shown on
the “Development Scenario 4 – Concentrated Growth Hyper Growth” map.
The characteristics of the distribution
of growth projected in the Concentrated Hyper-Growth scenario are as follows:
·
Out of a total projected population growth of 309,190
persons, 121,506 persons would be located in Saratoga County (39%); 99,766 in
Albany County (32%); 48,720 in Rensselaer County (16%); and 39,198 in
Schenectady County (13%);
·
64% of the projected population growth would be
concentrated in the region’s existing urbanized area;
·
15% of the population growth would be located in the cities
of Albany, Schenectady and Troy (44,942 persons);
·
26% of the population growth would be located in the
region’s cities and villages (81,656);
·
The top ten municipalities in terms of net projected new
growth from 2000 to 2040 are: Colonie (24,226); Albany (24,071); Clifton Park
(19,362); Halfmoon (18,865); Bethlehem (17,704); Saratoga Springs (17,2914);
Guilderland (16,769); Schenectady (11,488); Wilton (9,394); Troy (9,383).
·
Total population by 2040: Albany (118,372); Colonie – w/o
villages (91,658); Schenectady (73,309); Troy (58,553).
Land Consumption
Quantifying land consumption under this
scenario is problematic because the method used to create this distribution
involved scaling up areas where development already exists, without any caps in
density, in proportion to U.S. growth rates. One of the results of this method
is that in suburban areas where residential growth has already occurred in
relatively high quantities, such as Delmar or Latham, densities would increase
beyond the “suburban” type densities that currently exist. In addition, growth
would be minimal and at very low densities in areas that have so far not
experienced much residential growth. The rate of land consumption per person
would be much harder to generalize in terms of “existing cities and villages”
and “suburban” since the development densities of new development within
suburban towns would not be nearly as uniform as it has historically.
Therefore, as a rough guide to land
consumption under Scenario 4, the “Urban Level 2” overall density was
calculated for 2040. Urban Level 2 includes the TAZ’s within the existing
census urbanized area boundary, excluding the Level 1 TAZ’s (which are the
highest density areas in the cities and villages). The 2040 overall population
density of the Level 2 TAZ’s under this scenario is 2.93 persons per acre. If
this figure is used as an approximation of land consumption per person outside
the existing cities and villages, and 227,534 persons are projected to live
outside these areas in 2040 under this scenario, then approximately 77,657 acres of land will be developed under Scenario 4,
which is 69,518 acres less developed land than what is projected to occur under
Scenario 3.
Table 1
Population
Growth and Land Development
|
Scenario 1 |
Scenario 2 |
Scenario 3 |
Scenario 4 |
Population |
90,538 |
90,538 |
309,190 |
309,190 |
Acres of Land Developed |
40,549 |
26,898 |
146,855 |
77,657 |
Interpreting the future is inherently an
inexact task. Nevertheless, planning is partly about anticipating future
outcomes. Therefore, with due caution, we will attempt to identify what these
growth scenarios could mean for the future development of the Capital District
if they were to occur, and to consider the kinds of policies and conditions
that would bring about these outcomes.
Whereas only 10 percent of regional growth
is projected to occur within existing cities and villages under the Status Quo
Trend, 41 percent of the region’s future growth would be located in the
existing cities and villages under Scenario 2. However, while the population of
the region’s traditional central cities (Albany, Schenectady, and Troy) would
see population increases, they would still be well below historic population
peeks. The town of Colonie, on the other hand, would see its population
increase to an historic high of 75,081 (not including the villages). The town
would see some areas redeveloped at slightly higher densities than previously
experienced, but most areas within the region’s other suburban towns would not
see an increase in population density under this scenario.
When we compare the land developed in
the Statues Quo Trend (Scenario 1) to the land developed in Scenario 2, the
result would be the conservation of approximately 20,375 acres of land that
would otherwise be developed under the Status Quo Trend. There would be a number
of benefits associated with this scenario. These include: a reduction in the
pressure to develop farmland; the preservation of wetlands and wildlife
habitats; a reduction in the impact of erosion, sedimentation and stormwater
runoff; the preservation of natural and scenic landscapes, and the likely
reduction in the overall cost of providing services.
Since the majority of the projected
development takes place within the existing urbanized area, and 41 percent of
the projected growth occurs in existing cities and villages, very little new
public investment to expand infrastructure will be needed. Though investments
may be needed to maintain and improve existing infrastructure, the expanded tax
base resulting from the new growth would help provide the means for funding
these improvements.
Moreover, with the addition of 36,743
people in the region’s cities and villages, the issue of vacant and decaying
buildings would be greatly ameliorated due to the residential and business
improvements and investments made by the new population. There will also be
additional opportunities for “brownfield” and “greyfield” redevelopment.
Small business development would be
aided by the infusion of new customers and an enhanced urban vibrancy would
result from the close proximity of many more people within walking distances of
services, employment, and mass transit, thereby helping to improve regional air
quality and reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
Major land use policy changes at the
local and regional levels would be necessary in order for this scenario to
materialize. For example, rural and semi-rural communities on the fringe of the
region’s urbanized area would have to strictly limit expansion into their
communities. Land use tools such as large-lot zoning, farmland preservation
zones, open spaces purchases and easements, and transfer of development rights
programs would need to be implemented. In addition, in order to maintain their
rural character, these outlying communities would have to limit or disallow the
creation or extension of municipal services such as public sewer and water
systems into their municipalities. In order to achieve the concentrated growth
depicted in this scenario, communities would also need to endorse the adoption
of growth boundaries. These boundaries would need to be designed at both the
local and regional scale so as to concentrate rural growth in villages and
hamlets and major regional growth within the already urbanized areas.
Under this scenario, some suburban and
rural communities that are presently seeking to grow in population and tax base
would not be able to achieve these goals until the existing urbanized areas are
more highly developed and until there is high enough regional population growth
to create a demand for additional outward expansion. Landowners and developers
in outlying areas that are hoping to capitalize on the development of
green-field properties would likely see their anticipated profits reduced or
eliminated if the demand for green-fields is attenuated.
Under Growth Scenario 3 – Trend
Hyper-Growth, the region would develop in a low-density, centrifugal pattern,
similar to the pattern of regional development over the last half-century,
however at a much accelerated growth rate. Whereas the regional population is
projected by CDRPC to increase by 90,538 persons by 2040 (Scenario 1 – Status
Quo Trend), under Scenario 3, the regional population would increase by 309,190
during this same period. This amount of population growth at low-densities
could result in nearly 150,000 additional acres of land being developed. This
represents an approximate doubling of the overall developed land area of the
region, with 65% of this development occurring in Saratoga County, 24% in
Albany County, and only 11% of the growth occurring in Schenectady and
Rensselaer Counties combined.
In order to realize this large
population increase, there would need to be major successes in the various
economic development efforts to attract and nurture new employers. For a
population increase of 309,190 persons, approximately 160,000 new jobs would
have to be created and/or attracted to the region (this figure is based on
region’s current population to labor force ratio). This amount of new job
activity would attract an in migration of population from other parts of the
country, and, depending on U.S. immigration policies, would attract new
immigrants from outside the U.S.
The regional development patterns under
Scenario 3 would be characterized by growth patterns similar to those that have
occurred in the region in recent decades. This includes growth that is in large
part low-density (2 persons/acre on average) single-family housing developments
in separate, disconnected subdivisions. This separation will be the result of
land use policies that continue to prohibit (or don’t require) interconnected
streets and require buffers between subdivisions. The road patterns will be
predominately dendritic, with dead-end cul-de-sac streets discharging at
collector roads. Moreover, similar to trends seen in other parts of the
country, a portion of the new residential developments will likely be private
gated communities governed by “common-interest development” (CID) regulations.
The predominance of gates will further add to the isolated character of these
areas. The CID fees for private road and amenity maintenance within these
developments will be viewed as duplicative of municipal taxes, creating new
pressures for succession from the wider municipal community outside the gates.
Because of the isolated, disconnected
nature of these residential areas, most of these subdivisions will lack both
sidewalks and destinations/services within walking distance. Recreational paths
will be created, but they won’t serve as viable alternatives for commuting.
The overall pattern of suburban land use
will continue to be represented by developments mostly segregated by use, as
required by zoning codes. Commercial big-box retail will be located along
high-traffic highway corridors. These commercial landscapes will be dominated
by signs, parking and buildings made of low-grade materials with short-term
life cycles and commercially standardized designs.
Much of the job activity will be located
in industrial/office parks scattered throughout the region.
Many senior citizens, who will become an
increasingly large percentage of the total population, will likely downsize
their single-family suburban homes for segregated senior housing, rather than
relocate to the region’s cities, which will be viewed as dangerous and
crime-ridden.
The overall development pattern
described above will require most people to own and use a car to go about their
daily business. The spread-out pattern of development will make mass-transit
services impractical for much of the population. This auto-dependence will lead
to a dysfunctional transportation system, where highway gridlock and extended
peak hour(s) daily traffic congestion become the norm. The demand for
highway/road building and maintenance will most likely outstrip the public’s
ability to fund these improvements.
Regional natural resources and working
landscapes will be degraded by the nearly 150,000 acres of land consumption.
Prime farmland will be lost to subdivisions. There will be increasing pressure
to develop environmentally sensitive lands that may impact water quality and
increase downstream flooding due to the additional impervious surfaces.
With the developed land area of the
region nearly doubling, the overall character of the region will change
dramatically. Many areas that are currently rural will be developed creating
the need to invest in new public infrastructure such as sewer, water and roads,
and expanding municipal services such as police and fire protection, municipal
planning, code enforcement, property assessment, and other services.
Ninety-five percent of the population
growth under Scenario 3 will occur outside the region’s cities and villages.
The cities of Albany, Schenectady and Troy would decline in population
by a combined total of 2,226 persons, which would be a continuation of a trend
that began in the late 1940’s. Although the rate of urban decline will slow
significantly compared to the past fifty years, the lack of overall population
growth will also mean a general lack of tax resources to maintain city
services. Sewer, water and road systems will fall into a state of major
disrepair with more frequent breakdowns as maintenance and upgrades are
continually deferred due to lack of municipal resources. State and federal
subsidies will become more difficult to secure as cities compete for help with
expanding suburban areas where most of the new growth is occurring (and where a
majority of voters would now reside).
The general abandonment of decaying
and/or obsolete structures in cities will continue, and the abandonment of
structures in the inner-ring suburbs will become more common place.
Similar to today, but to a higher
degree, the cities will continue to be the home of the majority of the region’s
poorest residents and residents needing social services.
The cities will also continue to be the
home for the region’s minority residents, particularly blacks and Hispanics,
which will make up the majority of theses cities populations. Although this
will create opportunities for minority political power within these areas, this
situation will most likely exacerbate regional political divisions between
these cities and the outlying areas.
Compared to Scenario 3 – Trend
Hyper-Growth, where the cities of Albany, Schenectady and Troy would decline
in population by a combined total of 2,226 persons, under Scenario 4 –
Concentrated Hyper-Growth, these three cities would increase in population by a
total of 44,942 persons. And as with the urban concentration in Scenario 2, the
population of the cities and villages would see significant population
increases, though they would still be below historic population peeks.
What would also be significantly
different from the concentrated growth of Scenario 2, is that there would be a
much higher concentration of growth under Scenario 4 – Concentrated
Hyper-Growth, which would result in much higher population increases to the
more-developed suburban towns such as Colonie, Clifton Park, Guilderland,
Bethlehem and Halfmoon. For this high growth to occur in these suburban areas,
the growth would have to occur at significantly higher densities than have
historically transpired.
In order for this high-density growth to
occur, the suburban communities that have low density patterns of development
would need to revise their land use regulations to accommodate higher
density/mixed-use development alternatives. This could include adopting transect
zoning, utilizing official maps to layout public right-of-ways, creating town
centers, permitting higher concentrations of town houses and apartments, and
providing both pedestrian and mass transit amenities.
In addition, similar to Scenario 2,
major land use policy changes at the local and regional levels would be
necessary in order for this scenario to materialize. For example, rural and
semi-rural communities on the fringe of the region’s urbanized area would have
to strictly limit expansion into their communities. Land use tools such as
large-lot zoning, farmland preservation zones, open spaces purchases and
easements, and transfer of development rights programs would need to be
implemented. In addition, in order to maintain rural character and limit
urbanization, many of these outlying communities would have to limit or
disallow the creation or extension of municipal services such as public sewer
and water systems into their municipalities. In order to achieve the
concentrated growth depicted in this scenario, communities would also need to
endorse the adoption of growth boundaries. These boundaries would need to be
designed at both the local and regional scale so as to concentrate rural growth
in villages and hamlets and major regional growth within the already urbanized
areas. However, these growth boundaries,
if not sufficiently large enough to accommodate the anticipated increase in
growth thereby limiting the supply of developable land, will drive up the demand
for land in the urbanized area, which will escalate regional land and housing
prices.
Similar to Scenario 2, with the infusion
of 81,656 people back into the region’s cities and villages, the issue of
vacant and decaying buildings would be greatly ameliorated and there would be
opportunities for “brownfield” and “greyfield” redevelopment. Moreover, the
added tax base would provide the revenue necessary to fund maintenance and
upgrades to public sewer, water and road systems.
A factor that would differ from Scenario
2 is that because of the much higher population growth under Scenario 4, at
much higher densities, growth in the more developed suburban towns would
require new public investments in sewer, water and road infrastructure, as well
as, the expansion of municipal service delivery capabilities such as police and
fire protection, municipal planning, code enforcement, property assessment, and
other municipal services.
Compared to the spread of land
development under Scenario 3 – Trend Hyper-Growth, where nearly 150,000 acres
of land would be developed, Scenario 4 – Concentrated Hyper-Growth, with growth
concentrated in already built-up areas, would result in the development of
77,657 acres. And as with the concentration in Scenario 2, this would help
minimize the pressure to develop farmland; help preserve wetlands and wildlife
habitats; reduce the impact of erosion, sedimentation and stormwater runoff;
and help preserve natural and scenic landscapes.
Small business development would be
aided by the infusion of new customers and an enhanced urban vibrancy would
result from the close proximity of many more people within walking distances of
services, employment, and mass transit, thereby helping to improve regional air
quality and reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
Even though the majority of the growth
in Scenario 4 will be in the existing urbanized area, there will still be a
relatively large amount of low-density growth outside the region’s existing
urban area in municipalities that are largely rural today, which will result in
many of the same conditions in these areas describe above for Scenario 3,
though of smaller magnitude.
The scenarios described above are
partly based on the assumption that many of the same economic, social, and
political trends in evidence today will continue, and will condition land use
patterns in a similar fashion throughout the next 35 to 40 years. This may or
may not be the case. A global war or global economic depression may knock the
future course of history off it linearly projected track. In addition,
technological inventions may enable paradigm shifts in behavior (and
development patterns), as they have in the past, which may be impossible to
predict today.
However, there are a number of
trends taking shape, 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 U.S. 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.
Following is a summary of these trends and associated issues.
The
aging of the population has the potential to alter both the pattern and the
politics of land use in the United States. The
U.S. population of persons 65 years or older numbered 35.9 million in 2003 (the
latest year for which data is available), representing approximately 12% of the
U.S. population. The Capital District population of persons 65 or older in 2000
was 110,658 persons, which is 14% of the total population.
By 2030, there will be
approximately 71.5 million people 65 and up in the U.S., more than twice their
number in 2000. Whereas people 65+ represented approximately 12% of the U.S.
population in the year 2000, they are expected to grow to be 20% of the
population by 2030. In the Capital District by 2030, there will be
approximately 163,464 persons 65+, which will be 19% of the regional
population.
The aging of the U.S. population
is the result of several related factors. Perhaps one of the greatest
achievements of twentieth-century medicine in the U.S. was the raising of life
expectancies at birth from 48.3 years for men and 46.3 for women in 1900 to
74.2 for men and 79.9 for women in 2000. And longer life expectancies have been
accompanied by declining birth rates in much of the developed world. In the
U.S. this decline in fertility rates along with longer life expectancies has
shifted the median U.S. age from 19 in 1850 to 34 in the 1990s. It is projected
that by 2050, the median U.S. age will be 40 years old.
The “baby boom” generation – the
large number of people born in the U.S. from 1946 to 1964 – is also
contributing to the growing increase in the elderly population in the US as
this group ages. In 2005, baby boomers were between 41 and 59 years old. There
are about 76 million boomers in the U.S., representing approximately 29% of the
population.
There are several ways in which
the aging of the U.S. population may affect regional land use patterns.
Traditionally, upon retirement, many seniors have migrated from the Northeast
to warmer climates, such as Florida. Many other have become “snowbirds,” living
in warmer climate second homes for the winter months. For this second group and
for those who live in the region all year long, most will want to continue to
live in the same community were they have been living. Many of these seniors
will downsize by selling their high maintenance single-family houses and buying
into low maintenance (for them) condominiums or senior apartments.
There have been a number of senior
housing complexes built in the Capital District in the last twenty years; and
there will be many more built in the future to accommodate the growing elderly
population. To meet the demand of seniors who wish to continue living in the
same community, many of these senior developments have been built in suburban
towns. However, many of these developments are isolated from nearby amenities
and services, requiring auto or shuttle travel for all trips. These isolated
settings tend to reduce the independence of those seniors who could otherwise
still walk to services if they were in close proximity.
The question then becomes, are
there ways to better integrate senior housing with amenities and services so
that complete auto-dependence is avoided? This will be difficult in many
suburban settings because of the isolated nature of development patterns. In
order to better integrate senior housing, the urbanizing areas will need to
become more spatially integrated overall.
A second option will be for
seniors to move into older cities where integrated environments already exist.
However, the unresolved question at this stage is how most seniors,
particularly aging baby boomers, will view cities, even with their many
amenities. Will the positive features of cities be great enough for seniors to
overcome their other concerns about cities, especially urban crime?
A final observation about an aging
population is how seniors will view the political choices related to land use.
Will seniors generally support or reject public expenditures for public
amenities? And more broadly, will seniors support land use changes that are
contrary to the status quo? To the first question, there is some evidence that
seniors, many of whom are on fixed incomes, may be adverse to new public
expenditures that are viewed as benefits to others but a new tax burden for
themselves. As for the support seniors will give to changes in the status quo,
such as changes in the way growth is designed and regulated, Professor Francis
Fukuyama has suggested that the continuation of a basic paradigm depends not
just on the empirical evidence supporting or rejecting it, but also on the
physical survival of the people who created that paradigm. As long as the
elderly sit on the top of age-graded hierarchies (such as peer review boards,
foundation boards of trusties, planning boards, town boards), the status quo
will remain unshakable. According to Fukuyama, “It stands to reason, then, that
political, social, and intellectual change will occur much more slowly in
societies with substantially longer average live spans.”[2]
According
to the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, the United States admits
approximately 900,000 legal immigrants every year. In addition, approximately 5
million illegal aliens currently reside in the United States, with
approximately 300,000 entering illegally each year.
The U.S.
Census Bureau projects that approximately 46,692,000 new immigrants will be
added to the U.S. population by 2050, which is 36% of the total projected
population increase.
In the Capital
District, the number of foreign-born persons in 2000 that entered the U.S.
between 1990 and 2000 was 14,044, which represents 84% of the region’s total
population growth from 1990 to 2000. Thirty-nine percent of these new residents
live in one of the region’s four central cities. A map showing the distribution
of the region’s recent immigrants can be accessed at: http://cdrpc.org/GIS/2K-Theme-foreign%20born90-00-P.jpg.
Hispanics account for almost 50%
of legal immigrants in the U.S. and all but a small portion of illegal
immigrants. The majority of Hispanic immigrants are from Mexico, comprising
approximately two-thirds of the U.S. Hispanic population.
Hispanic
(or Latino) is not a racial class; it is an ethnicity. Hispanics can be of any
race or mix of races (i.e., Hispanics can be white, black, Asian, Indian, or a
combination.) And not all Hispanics are immigrants, because Puerto Ricans are
both Hispanics and U.S. citizens. Moreover, Hispanics are not a homogeneous
group. While the unifying factor is the Spanish language and Spanish imperial
history, there are considerable cultural differences between and within the
countries of South America, Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean.
The U.S. Census Bureau estimates
that as of 2004 there were approximately 41.3 million Hispanics in the U.S.,
approximately one of every seven people. According to population projections by
the U.S. Census Bureau, the nation’s Hispanic population would triple over the
next half century. This would mean that nearly 67 million people of Hispanic
origin would be added to the nation’s population between 2000 and 2050. Their
numbers are projected to grow from 35.6 million to 102.6 million, an increase
of 188 percent. Their share of the nation’s population would nearly double,
from 12.6 percent to 24.4 percent. At this point, non-Hispanic whites would
represent only one-half of the total population by 2050, verses a 69%
share in 2000.
The
exponential growth of the Hispanic population in the U.S. represents an epochal
demographic transformation with extraordinary cultural and political
implications, particularly for U.S. cities.
In six of
the ten biggest U.S. cities, New York, Los Angeles, Houston, San Diego,
Phoenix, and San Antonio respectively (with the exception of Phoenix, all in
states with large electoral votes), Hispanics outnumber blacks; and in Los
Angeles, Houston and San Antonio, non-Hispanic whites as well. Los Angeles and
New York City account for nearly one-third of the total U.S. Spanish-surname
population. One of the outcomes of these demographic transformations, which is
likely to eventually be repeated elsewhere, is that in 2005, Los Angeles
elected its first Hispanic mayor.
In the
Capital District there are 19,777 Hispanics (2000 census), which is 2.5% of the
total population. Fifty-seven percent of these residents live in one of the
region’s four central cities. And while this number is small compared to many
other U.S. cities, the regional Hispanic population increased by 72% from 1990
to 2000, which is the fastest rate of increase of any racial or ethnic group.
Moreover, in 2000 there were 2,982 Hispanics living in the nearby city of
Amsterdam, which is 16% of the city’s population (City of Amsterdam figures are
not included in the Capital District totals, though the commuting time from
Amsterdam to Albany (1/2 hour) is less than many municipalities included in the
Capital District).
The influx and growth of Hispanics
and other immigrants in the U.S. has caused a public backlash where some people
have expressed resentment toward immigrants (particularly illegal), believing
that they are taking jobs from U.S. citizens, overcrowding public schools and
draining public welfare resources that they shouldn’t be entitled to.
Part of this resentment is related
to overcrowded classrooms, failing public schools, and shrinking public
resources at a time of growing demand.
However,
as long as the disparity of wealth and
opportunity exists between the United States and other countries, people will
try to find a better life elsewhere, even if it means risking your life to do
so. Moreover, the
views of opponents to immigration conflict with the goals of many employers who prefer illegal labor because these people
will work for low wages, will take undesirable jobs, and are easy to exploit.
Needless to say, the nation built
by immigrants may not be a welcoming place for immigrants in the future,
regardless of the necessity of their labor. And with climate of job insecurity,
threats of foreign terrorists, and escalating taxes, future battles over
immigration are likely to continue.
Regardless of future U.S.
immigration policies, however, the growth of Hispanic immigrants will continue
to increase. According to Mike Davis, “the total fertility rate for women born
in Mexico is more than double that of Anglo women. Even if all immigration were
ended tomorrow, the dramatically younger Latino population (median age
twenty-six) would continue to increase rapidly at the statistical expense of
aging, non-Hispanic whites (median age thirty-eight).” [3] This growth may lead to future social conflicts as a
large, increasingly elderly native-born population confronts the claims of an
even larger, culturally different and substantially younger immigrant
population. And one way of confronting these changes may simply be to leave: as
Sociologist Janet Abu-Lughod has noted, the growth of Mexicans in Los Angeles
“may be contributing to the further exodus of Anglos and the withdrawal of many
of the remaining into defensive gated communities in the outlying suburban and
exurban areas.” [4]
One of the more pronounced (and
troubling) patterns of land development in the U.S. is the geographic
polarization of regional populations by race and income. The term “uneven
development” has been used to describe this pattern. This is an important
factor to consider when evaluating the likelihood of concentrated or dispersed
regional settlement patterns. As indicated in the discussion of regional
demographics under the “Historic Perspective on Status Quo Trend” section
earlier in this report, the majority of both the Capital District’s poorest
residents and minority residents are concentrated in the region’s cities. They
are often one in the same. Conversely, the region’s growing suburbs are largely
made up of middle and upper income residents, mostly non-Hispanic whites.
Regional maps of household income and race display these conditions (see: http://cdrpc.org/GIS/2K-Thematic-Maps.html). And while uneven development has been a long-standing
feature of U.S. land development, the simultaneous hyper-spread of regional
population growth and urban abandonment over that last half-century has
exacerbated these patterns.
In ascertaining the future
implications of regional uneven development, it may be instructive to examine
the poles of this polarization: urban ghettos at one extreme, and suburban (and
exurban), gated developments at the other. As things presently stand, both of
these extremes may be poised to greatly expand in the future.
U.S. urban ghettos are the
poignant physical manifestation of racial segregation in America.[5]
There have been many hard-fought battles in the U.S. against discrimination
that ultimately were successful in removing institutionalized racism, however,
spatial segregation has stubbornly persisted. And while there have been many
social and welfare programs, such as urban renewal, the “war on poverty” and
the “great society” initiatives, which have attempted to ameliorate urban
poverty, they have had little lasting success, leading to the view by many that
urban (mainly minority) poverty is an intractable problem that the government
cannot (and to some, should not) solve. In turn, this view has led to the
attrition or elimination of most government-sponsored programs to aid urban
renewal and abate poverty. The result is a cycle of urban abandonment of U.S.
cities, where the physical conditions of many urban schools and neighborhoods,
and the fiscal conditions of many city governments, now militate against middle
class resettlement and toward further urban exodus.
However, for many of the people
that can’t find the financial means to escape the city, there is a simmering
bitterness and resentment. What this resentment has led to in the past is a
burst of pent up anger in the form of urban riots. In many urban areas,
tensions and resentments are still simmering just below the surface, which
could mean that if the conditions in these areas spread and worsen, there may
be more conflicts and uprisings in the future.
Urban crime (or the fear of crime)
has been a deterrent to urban revitalization and a force driving the demand for
high-security residential living on the urban periphery. Moreover, the 9/11
attacks along with the recent mass-transit bombings in London, have further
stigmatized cities as dangerous places. Cities, originally conceived as places
of refuge and protection, are now more and more seen as places to seek refuge from.
In the meantime, the
growth of gated communities in the U.S. has been rapidly increasing. According
to author Setha Low, “The number of people estimated to be living in gated
communities in the United States increased from four million in 1995, to eight
million in 1997 and to sixteen million in 1998.”[6] While the Capital
District has yet to see the development of gated communities, this form of
development is the dominant trend in residential development throughout the
growing metropolitan regions of the U.S., so it is reasonable to assume that
this region will see the proliferation of gated communities in the near future.
What’s more, the administrative form of gated communities raises other
important issues regarding municipal taxation, secession, and allegiance to
place.
Gated communities are
administered as privately governed “common interest developments” (CIDs). Common
interest developments are legal entities formed by contractual agreements
between developers and new homeowners. Author Edward Soja, notes that: “By the
1980s, there were more than 80,000 CIDs [in the U.S.], and today they have
probably become the principal form of new home ownership in almost every
metropolitan area in the country.”[7] According to the “
Within common interest
developments, residents usually own or control common areas and shared
amenities while having certain rights and obligations, which are enforced by a
private governing body or “community association.” These rights and obligations
are spelled out in the “Covenants, Contracts and Restrictions agreements
(CC&Rs), which every new homeowner must sign as part of the home sale.
The millions of
citizens that have joined CIDs have agreed in writing to restrictions such as
what colors they can paint their house, what plants they can plant, how long
their grass can grow, what size dog they can have, what color blinds and
awnings they can hang, what kind of vehicle can be parked in front of their
house, how many people can visit their home, and even what age their
co-habitants must be. As Setha Low notes, CID legal restrictions “may be far
more restrictive than any state statute or local ordinance.”
According to Gerald
Frug, professor of local government law at Harvard, “The privatization of government
in America is the most important thing that’s happening, but we’re not focused
on it. We haven’t thought of it as government yet.”[8] Authors Blakely and
Snyder have written that homeowner associations are a government growth
industry growing at a rate of over 10,000 per year. They note: “while at the
national and state levels the public is asking for less government, at the
local level, people are creating more governance institutions.”[9]
Moreover, the growth
of small, privately governed taxing jurisdictions has created a new impetus for
municipal secession. Homeowners in CID’s often resent having to pay both
municipal taxes and homeowner association fees. With the latter funding road
and common space maintenance within the development, homeowners often feel that
they are being taxed twice for services, and that the roads and parks outside
their developments are not their concern.
One of the results of these trends
is that the “public realm” –
public areas and buildings such as streets, schools, libraries, museums,
community centers and parks that knit together private property and
function as spaces of interaction open to all citizens in a democracy – are
slowly attenuating as the notion of a “greater public good” becomes
increasingly circumscribed by private interests, which are often motivated by
fear and a drive for personal safety.
For when the outside world
appears unstable and unpredictable, people are more likely to take interest in
the immediate needs and personal safety of their families, rather than in the
problems and long-term concerns of the wider community and region.
Perhaps this is part of the
explanation for the dramatic decline is civic participation documented by
Harvard Sociologist Robert Putnam in his groundbreaking book, “Bowling Alone.” [10]
Putnam has quantified the erosion over the last several decades in America of
what he calls “social capital,” which is our level of social connectedness and
community involvement. He examines trends in U.S. political participation,
civic participation, religious participation, connections in the workplace,
informal social connections, as well as trends in altruism, volunteering, and
philanthropy, and concludes that over the last third of the century there has
been a large decline of public involvement in all these areas.
Putnam concludes that there are a
number of concurrent factors causing the decline in social capital, including
pressures of time and money, especially with two-career families (10%
contribution to the decline); suburbanization, commuting and sprawl (another
10%); electronic entertainment, particularly television viewing, which is the
single most consistent predictor of civic disengagement, with every hour of TV
viewing causing a 10% decline in civic participation (25% total contribution to
the decline); and lastly, generational change – the replacement of an engaged
civic generation by their less involved children and grandchildren (50% of the
total decline).
What the trends in this section
indicate overall is the strong social and political pull away from concentrated
urban development and toward a further dispersion and balkanization of regional
population patterns in the future.
Predicting the types of future
innovations and their social outcomes is fraught with uncertainty.
Technological breakthroughs in genetics, robotics, information technology and
nanotechnology will likely alter our future world in ways that are usually
imagined by writers of science fiction.[11]
There are, however, several recent technological trends related specifically to
digital technology that are worth considering because they are already
beginning to influence the spatial pattern of land development in the U.S.
Historically, technological
innovations have been inseparable from the process of urbanization. The
industrial revolution in the 19th and 20th centuries
proceeded in a dialectical relationship with the process of urbanization
characteristic of these same periods. New manufacturing and building processes,
for example, both enabled and inspired mass urbanization on an unprecedented
scale. Fast transportation; from the railroads in the 19th century
to the automobiles of the 20th century, have enabled long-distance
traveling and commuting. In addition, the evolution of mass media, particularly
television, has played an important role in influencing people’s patterns of
consumption and shaping feelings and choices on how and where people want to
live.
Computers, and digital technology
in general, are now central to the present and near-future phase of
urbanization, though the influence of this technology on regional settlement
patterns is only beginning to be realized. Urbanist Lewis Mumford noted some of
the potential influence of recent technologies as long ago as 1960 when he
wrote that metropolitan over-congestion, for example, is unnecessary since the
change in the mode of human settlement brought about by fast transportation and
instantaneous communication means that physical congestion is no longer the
sole possible way of bringing a large population into intimate contact and
cooperation.[12]
This observation has even more practicality now that more and more of the U.S.
workforce is shifting toward occupations that manipulate digital data, while at
the same time the Internet has enabled instantaneous digital communication,
which means that an actual physical office presence for many employees is
unnecessary to carry out many workday functions.
While the full potential of
“telecommuting” hasn’t nearly been realized – according to the 2000 census only
3% of the U.S. workforce telecommutes –
the potential for telecommuting to provide a low- to no-cost means of reducing
metropolitan traffic congestion offers great promise. In addition,
telecommuting may increase productivity. A survey of American Express
telecommuters found that they produced 43 percent more business than regular
office workers. In addition, telecommuters save companies in real estate costs
by reducing the need for office space. For example AT&T telecommuters save
the company approximately $25 million per year. And as states and localities
are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain and expand highways under the
status quo commuter model, people are likely to have little choice but to
embrace telecommuting on a much broader basis in the future.
While digital communication allows
the “dematerialization” of the workforce, enabling data-manipulators to work
wherever they have an Internet hookup, digital communication has also enabled
employers a much greater freedom to locate wherever labor and regulatory costs
are cheapest (what geographer David Harvey calls a “spatial fix”), which have
turned out to be mostly outside the boundaries of the U.S. The effects of this
trend can be observed regionally in the many vacant and underutilized
industrial sites in cities such as Schenectady, Cohoes, Watervliet,
Mechanicville and Amsterdam.
Digital technology has also begun
to play an important role in helping urban planners and decision makers
envision alterative future growth scenarios. Geographic Information Systems,
which allow the integration and analysis of multiple layers of “geo-referenced”
data, have come into widespread use. Three-dimensional animation and
visualization software, which is currently used for both military training and
movie-making, will likely also come into more widespread future use, allowing
building proposals to be visualized and modified before they are approved and
built. Web-based services will also greatly improve communication between
citizens and their local governments.
Finally, and perhaps most
importantly, from land use and transportation perspective, the success or
failure of technological innovations related to the development and
implementation of alternative fuels will greatly influence whether the statues
quo of regional land development patterns in the U.S. can continue, or whether
a fundamental reorganization of the existing order will ensue.
Of all the future trends discussed
in this report, the trend in the price and availability of oil and gas has the
potential to have the biggest impact on future land development patterns in the
U.S. Each of the trends discussed so far appears to support a further
continuation of the spread out, isolated, auto-dependent development patterns
that have characterized the last half-century of U.S. land development. This
would mean that the general dispersal of growth portrayed by “Growth Scenario 1
– Statues Quo Trend” and the “Growth Scenario 3 – Trend Hyper-Growth” in the
first part of this report would likely be closest in portraying the future
growth pattern of the region. The magnitude of future growth would drive which
one specifically.
If oil and gas remain widely
available and relatively inexpensive, this would also support the likelihood of
one of these two scenarios. However, if oil becomes scarce, and its price
subsequently skyrockets, then we will have no choice but to significantly alter
the manner in which we build and travel. Non-motor travel, such as walking and
biking, will become more common. We will be need to live close to where we
work, while the kind of work we do will likely change dramatically. We will
need to assemble our entire built environment much closer together, at higher
densities, to try and eliminate long distance travel for everyday tasks. We
will also be forced to localize our economy, including producing much of our
food from within the local region. Under these conditions, “Growth Scenario 2 –
Concentrated Growth” would likely be closest to representing the kind of land
development pattern that would result.
The evidence emerging from the
world’s leading geologists and oil analysts strongly suggests that oil and gas
will not remain widely available or inexpensive, and that our future
building and traveling patterns will need to be fundamentally altered. For
example, the world currently consumes approximately 84 million barrels of oil
per day, with the U.S. using 21 million gallons alone. Most oil experts believe
that oil-producing nations have only 1.5 million gallons per day of currently
unused production capacity. Moreover, global demand for oil grows daily,
particularly from the industrializing, fast-growing populations of China and
India.
The problem with oil is not only
one of production capacity, but also one of overall supply. Global discovery of
oil sources peaked in the 1960’s. The world’s leading geologists, are largely
in agreement that the world is either at, or quickly approaching “peak oil
production,” which is the point at which the highest rate of global annual oil
production occurs. After this point, global oil production will continually
decline, at about 4% per year, because at this point the world will have
extracted and used approximately half of the two trillion barrels of oil that
experts estimate the world holds. What’s more, the half that already been used
was the easiest to extract and of the highest quality. The remaining half will
be more difficult and costly to remove and refine. Experts estimate that if all
the world’s remaining oil could be extracted, which is unlikely given the
quality and difficulty of extracting what’s left, that the world’s oil reserves
will be completely depleted in the next thirty-seven years (which is near the
out-year, 2040, of this study’s growth scenarios). In the meantime, there will
likely be wild fluctuations in price and much political and social turmoil as
protracted fuel shortages become common.
The available data on global oil
use, availability and production points to a future that may be much different
from the present. Some people hold out hope for technological salvation – that
new energy technologies will emerge that provide an alternative to fossil
fuels. However, this outcome is far from guaranteed. Most of the technologies
that are being researched, such as hydrogen, ethanol and bio-fuels are proving,
so far, to require more energy to produce than they will actually provide in
fuel. And even if new replacements to oil can be invented, the transition will
likely be rough, and the replacement fuel(s) will most likely fall far short of
the price and productivity of fossil fuels, which will mean that even with
fossil fuel alternatives, we will still need to alter our present patterns of
spread out building and long distance traveling.
An important part of the analysis
of the of alternative growth and development scenarios for the Capital District
is an assessment of the transportation impacts.
The CDTC STEP Model was used to evaluate the impacts of each scenario to
the transportation system. In addition
to this quantitative analysis, qualitative assessment was made of some
performance measures, such as quality of life.
The work of Working Group C was included to consider the impacts of Big
Ticket Initiatives on transportation performance. The Big Ticket Initiatives are not funded in
the existing Plan. However, the
likelihood of implementation of these initiatives is affected by the
alternative growth scenarios.
Cost is currently a critical
transportation issue. Projected costs
for maintenance, operations, and reconstruction are staggering. Preliminary budget estimates for system
rehabilitation indicate that the cost to maintain the region’s highways has
increased 40% in the past six years.
Funding support is not keeping pace.
As part of the development of the
New Visions 2030 Plan, CDTC convened the Finance Task Force to assess
transportation costs and potential revenue sources in the region for the next
thirty years. Cost for the highway
rehabilitation and reconstruction were updated from the original New Visions
Plan using the following steps:
System preservation numbers
indicate the cost to maintain the system in its present condition while full
implementation refers to the costs necessary to achieve New Visions goals for
pavement condition. The range in costs
for full implementation is based on the strategies used to maintain the
expressway system. The higher number in
the range is based on more extensive use of reconstruction assumed in the
Working Group B report. Expanding these
costs for the period 2005 to 2030 results in total costs of $2.3 billion for
system preservation, and between $3.9 billion and $4.6 billion for full
implementation of pavement condition goals.
The CDTC Infrastructure task force found that pavement rehabilitation
costs are affected by the traffic levels; that is, higher vehicles miles of
travel will result in more rapid deterioration of pavements and higher costs to
maintain pavement quality.
The New Visions Plan highlighted a
concern that funding available for maintenance, operation and capital
improvements varies widely by community and level of government. One important example of this is that many
urban arterials outside the cities (such as Route 5, Route 20, Route 146) are
owned and maintained by the state, while the same facilities in the cities are
owned by the cities, who have full responsibility for maintaining these roads. This has resulted in higher percentages of
pavement in poor condition in the region’s cities and higher financial burdens
on the cities than the suburban towns.
CDTC has identified the need for investment in city arterials. Increased federal funding or funding from
other sources for city arterials would represent a significant tool for urban
reinvestment that would benefit all travelers in the region.
Table 2 presents estimates of
annual budgets for 17 project categories based on commitments in the CDTC New
Vision s Plan. These have been updated
from previous plan estimates based on inflation and updated information based
on implementation experience. These
costs include programs that are funded by federal, state and local fund
sources.
Table
2: New Visions 2030
Regional
Transportation Plan Budget By Element
Annual Costs, in
Millions of 2006 Dollars
REGIONAL PROGRAMS |
2030 Full Implementation Annual Cost |
Intermodal Facilities |
50.0 |
Transit Infrastructure |
15.8 |
Transit Service |
63.0 |
ITS (Technology) and
Traffic Infrastructure |
10.3 |
ITS (Technology) and
Traffic Operations |
5.0 |
Highway Rehab,
Reconstruction and Redesign --
Priority Network |
164.9 |
Highway Rehabilitation
& Reconstruction – Other |
20.7 |
Bridge Rehab & Reconstruction |
82.1 |
Highway and Bridge
Maintenance |
217.9 |
Strategic Highway and
Bridge Actions -- |
12.0 |
Strategic Highway and
Bridge Actions – Economic Development /Community Compatibility |
10.0 |
Supplemental Goods Movement
Accommodations |
5.1 |
Supplemental Bike
& Pedestrian Accommodations |
3.7 |
Supplemental Access
Management Actions |
0.7 |
Supplemental Safety
Actions |
5.3 |
Demand Management |
2.0 |
Integrated Planning & Outreach |
4.5 |
SUBTOTAL |
673.0 |
Values in italics
are being further refined and updated in the development of the New Visions
2030 Plan.
As part of the development of the
New Visions 2030 Plan, a list of candidate “big ticket” and “big idea”
initiatives was developed. These
initiatives are ambitious in scope and are not funded in the current plan. Rather they are being presented for public
review and consideration as “big idea” initiatives that could be undertaken if
future funding is available and other conditions are met. They would be a stretch for the Capital
District, and public support, in addition to funding, would have to be
established as a prerequisite. Yet they
also represent a significant opportunity for the Capital District to invest in
high quality transportation and communities.
The big initiatives generally would be more feasible under higher growth
scenarios, and in many cases would provide the opportunity to manage the growth
in a way that protects and enhances the region’s quality of life.
CDTC’s New Visions 2025 Plan puts
92% of available resources into system operations, maintenance, preservation
and facility and service improvement and into intermodal facilities. The existing plan is cautious regarding major
highway expansion, and commits to progressive bus oriented transit projects
(Bus Rapid Transit) while reserving rail for further consideration. Through this approach, the plan expects to
achieve steady improvements in pavement and bridge conditions, bike and
pedestrian accommodations and street/ streetscape design while enhancing
traffic operations and traveler information and redesigning transit service
delivery.
This appears reasonable given the
generally effective regional transportation system and the pace of population
growth. Urgency for system expansion is
not present and past events such as the local failure of the 2000 and 2005
State Transportation Bond referenda indicate that locally there is no clear
willingness to pay for major highway or transit expansions.
However, a shift in the pace of
growth from the current 2,500 – 3,000 new residents per year to a 10,000 person
per year or higher pace would create pressure for transportation system
enhancements and expansions. In this
context, it makes sense to evaluate the big initiatives to determine under what
conditions they will be feasible and how they can help to manage the region’s
growth in order for the region to maintain quality of life and quality transportation.
CDTC conducted studies of a number
of metropolitan areas and their regional transportation plans. Funding supports the levels of spending on
big initiatives in other areas and based on the study’s findings, a number of
metro areas are planning higher levels of spending for expansion and
enhancement than the Albany area. Table
3 shows annual long-term per capita budget for: expansion and enhancement
(highway widenings; new highways; intelligent transportation systems (ITS)
deployment; innovative land use – transportation initiatives; demand
management; additional buses; rail transit construction or expansion). CDTC’s fiscal reach is comparable to
Buffalo’s; the two New York areas are the most restrained in committing to
system expansion.
Table 3
Regional Transportation Plan
Expansion / Enhancement Budgets “Fiscal Reach”
|
|
|
Future Population (thousands) |
Cost per year per capita for expansion and
enhancement |
|
Albany |
832 |
$ 50 |
Atlanta |
4,814 |
217 |
Austin |
2,071 |
158 |
Baltimore |
2,741 |
79 |
Buffalo |
1,252 |
51 |
Columbus |
1,645 |
81 |
Nashville |
1,471 |
100 |
Phoenix |
6,140 |
76 |
Pittsburgh |
2,687 |
156 |
Portland |
1,667 |
128 |
Raleigh-Durham |
1,534 |
117 |
San Diego |
3,855 |
226 |
Seattle |
4,536 |
364 |
Tucson |
1,400 |
85 |
These
studies of regional transportation plans in selected metropolitan areas have
revealed common themes about what is required to implement big initiatives.
These themes or conditions are listed below
1. A sense of urgency is typically present.
This sense of urgency may be related to long-standing issues of great
magnitude (such as the congestion present in London prior to areawide pricing)
or to an experience and atmosphere of rapid growth. Congestion pricing on SR91 in California is
justified on the basis of rapid declines in service quality and projections of
gridlock. Raleigh’s rail initiative is
justified not on the basis of current development but on the basis of the
region’s #6 rank in population growth in the nation. This
sense of urgency may not be present in the Capital District for many of the
initiatives under current growth trends, but it could emerge strongly under
higher growth scenarios.
2. A champion is typically a critical element
as catalyst and sustainer of the initiative. Elected officials or, occasionally, planning
professionals are often directly associated with marshalling the support and
forging the necessary partnerships to make an initiative a reality. The champion is often essential to
shepherding the initiative through difficult implementation phases of
environmental analysis, NIMBY opposition and cost increases. Without a visible champion, an initiative
could die easily in the face of such obstacles.
The big initiatives for the
Capital District will require champions.
3. The initiative reflects the sensibilities
and community values of the region, producing a strong community consensus. For example, Portland’s and Minneapolis’
initiatives in the areas of growth management, environmental stewardship and
livability both draw from and reflect the personal priorities of the local
residents and business leaders. Big
initiatives today are not likely to succeed simply because they fall within the
purview of a powerful government agency; they require broad public
support. The feasible big initiatives presented in this paper have been selected
because they are consistent with New Visions planning principles, which have
enjoyed strong and growing support among Capital District communities.
4. Commitment to a major initiative is as much
related to a subjective rationale as
to objective analysis. This does not
mean that a decision to reconstruct the Central Artery in Boston or a regional
rail system in Raleigh-Durban is unfounded.
Rather, it means that regions pursue major initiatives as much because
they want to as because they believe the initiative is economically efficient
in achieving results. The “look and
feel” of the completed project; the desire to make a public statement of the
region’s priorities; the hope of lasting positive benefits are at least equal
to calculations of user savings, transit Ridership, emissions reductions or
cost effectiveness in the decision process.
The subjective rationale for the
big ticket items in the Capital District is compelling.
5. Funding
is achieved through a combination of local sources and state or federal funds –
reflecting a willingness to pay. The funding paradox (“We can’t plan
something big because we don’t have money and we can’t get money because we
haven’t planned anything big”) is resolved in successful initiatives by (1)
securing local financial support for a popular initiative with public support
by promising external funds to vastly subsidize the local cost; and (2)
leveraging the local enthusiasm and local funding commitment to obtain external
(state or federal) funds from discretionary pots.
The question of the willingness to pay for big ticket items
has an uncertain answer in the Capital District under existing conditions. Growth pressures brought about by the high
growth scenarios may influence the public on this, especially if investments
are viewed as tools to manage the growth and protect and enhance community
quality. Further, higher growth
scenarios may lead to increases in regional transportation revenues, for
example, an increase in mortgages related to higher population growth will
create more revenue for funding public transit; and higher population growth
will result in increasing shares of federal funds. This type of funding
increase would present opportunities that would influence the public’s
thinking. More concentrated development
patterns with urban reinvestment would support premium transit service and
reduce costs per vehicle mile traveled, creating opportunities for public
support of increasing revenue.
Finally, forecasts of
future levels of State and federal funding are uncertain; but if those
funding levels were to increase, the region would be well positioned to take
advantage of those funds if a consensus has been developed about the types of
big initiatives that should be pursued.
The recent state investments and incentives for Nanotech and chip fab
industries in the Upstate communities raises the possibility that the external
funding needed to help support big transportation initiatives in the Capital
District may be from the state budget as much or more than from the federal
budget.
6. In the absence of the conditions to support
big initiatives, it is difficult to attain comparable impact through
incremental changes. Incremental
actions, such as those contained in CDTC’s existing New Visions plan and funded
in the 2005-10 Transportation Improvement Program, are different in kind as well
as in scale from big initiatives that derive from a sense of urgency. For example, in the absence of expectations
of rapid growth in the region, in 2000 CDTC chose a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
option for the NY 5 corridor and full implementation will not be completed
until 2015. Over that same timeframe,
other metropolitan areas will have built substantial regional rail systems,
undertaking the difficult and expensive actions because of urgency caused by
growth. The substantial commitment to
rail transit in those metropolitan areas will produce a land use impact (with
development more oriented to station locations) that the slow rollout of BRT in
the Capital District cannot. Forty years from now Capital District
residents may wonder why their region lacks the transportation infrastructure
evident in other areas and conclude that planners and elected officials at the
beginning of the 21st century lacked foresight. For that reason, it is important to at least
consider big initiatives for the Capital District.
The big
initiatives identified for the Capital District are listed on the following
pages, along with cost estimates and an assessment of how good a fit each
initiative is with each of the four growth scenarios. The capital costs of the big initiatives
range from the hundreds of millions to the billions. In addition to capital costs, annual
operating costs are identified for several projects.
Finally,
the implementation feasibility of each initiative is indicated, using the
following scale:
* plausible but unlikely.
A “heavy lift” relative to rate and location of growth.
** plausible,
with a good chance of implementation if transportation policy remains
progressive.
*** the growth and development scenario will create a strong
interest and demand for the initiative and provide the political and financial
clout to make implementation quite possible, even probable.
**** implementation very likely because the initiative is part
of the package of actions that would be necessary to achieve the growth
scenario.
Two of
the initiatives presented have been determined to be inconsistent with
community values and public policy, and they will not be recommended in the New
Visions 2030 Plan: major highway system construction and the “take a lane”
program. Any of the other initiatives
are plausible under the base scenario, since they are consistent with community
values and with the New Visions Plan. It
is possible that after further public discussion, one or more champions could
emerge and public willingness to come up with pay for a given initiative could
secure additional funding. However,
under the status quo trend scenario, funding levels are expected to remain
limited, and in many cases, demand for the new services would be marginal with
existing growth levels and patterns.
Under
the second scenario, with existing trends of growth, increased urban investment
and more concentrated patterns of development, all of the feasible alternatives
would become more plausible, with a better chance of implementation, because
more concentrated development patterns would provide increased efficiencies and
greater levels of demand in corridors that can better support transit and other
modes. One initiative, Bus Rapid
Transit, could be expected to have strong interest and demand and feasibility.
The
third scenario, with hyper growth occurring in highly dispersed patterns, would
in some cases increase the feasibility of big initiatives compared to the
second scenario, primarily because of increased levels of demand and
potentially higher levels of revenue resulting from that demand. However, in other cases, even with increased
demand, the feasibility would be no greater than the second growth scenario
because of reduced efficiencies.
In most
cases, the fourth growth scenario, hyper growth with increased urban investment
and more concentrated development patterns, provides the best opportunity to
support the big initiatives. This is
because this scenario would provide higher levels of demand and correspondingly
higher revenues; and smarter growth patterns would also result in increased
efficiencies for service, increased transit usage, increased walking and
bicycling, shorter auto trips, and more opportunities for travel.
Table 4: Maximum Twenty-Year Scale of
Hypothetical “Big Initiatives”
In the Capital District (Implementation
between 2010 and 2030)
and Implementation Feasibility in Alternative
Growth Scenarios
|
Hypothetical “Big
Initiative” |
Approximate Maximum Twenty- year scale in the
Capital District |
Twenty-year cost estimate Comments |
Status Quo Trend |
Concen-trated Growth |
Trend Hyper- Growth |
Concen-trated Hyper Growth |
|
Regional greenway program |
10 miles per year; 280 total including existing |
$150 M Scale reference is Seattle’s plan for 800 miles of paths. Cost
at approximately $500 K/mile based on local experience. |
* |
** |
** |
*** |
|
Riverfront access and
urban development program |
Implementation of a majority of existing plans |
$1,000 M Could draw from multiple fund sources, not just
transportation. If significant
Interstate redesign is included, could approach $3 B - $4 B based on Boston’s
Central Artery precedent. |
* |
** |
** |
**** |
|
Street Reconstruction and
Reconfiguration |
40 lane miles per year; 800 total |
$2,400 M New Visions intended to address 25 lane miles per year; this is
50% more aggressive. Cost at
approximately $3 M per lane mile. |
* |
** |
** |
*** |
|
Roadway widening and
connections program |
10-15 lane miles per year; 200 total |
$1,000 M Scale comparable to double the intended ten-year implementation
in New Visions 2021 plan. Mix of
modest ($2.5 M per lane mile) and costly ($7 M per lane mile) projects. |
* |
** |
**** |
*** |
Table 4, continued
|
Hypothetical “Big
Initiative” |
Approximate Maximum Twenty- year scale in the
Capital District |
Twenty-year cost estimate Comments |
Status Quo Trend |
Concen-trated Growth |
Trend Hyper- Growth |
Concen-trated Hyper Growth |
|
Major highway system
construction |
Approx. 20-25 arterial and 5-10 lane miles of expressway annual |
$3,000 M to $5,000 M Not consistent with community values or public policy (such as
the State Energy Plan, State Transportation Plan and the New Visions Plan). |
|
|
|
|
|
Suburban town center
development |
5-10 lane miles per year; 150 total |
$175 M Cost at approx. $1 M+ per lane mile as mix of access and
collector roads. Developer-built or
financed connections not included in the total. |
* |
** |
** |
*** |
|
Bus service expansion, BRT
program with transit oriented development |
100 route miles total including NY 5 |
$200 M capital $400 M add’l oper. Scale and cost estimated at 5-10 times that for NY 5 BRT. |
* |
*** |
** |
**** |
|
Guideway transit system
with transit-oriented development |
50 route miles guideway with 50 route miles of non-guideway BRT. |
$2,100 M capital $1,450 M add’l oper. Scale comparable to planned expansion in Portland over 20 years;
capital cost of $40 M/mile derived from Portland, Phoenix, and Columbus
plans. Operating cost estimated at
$1.25 M/year per linear mile. Includes
˝ of |
* |
** |
** |
*** |
Table 4,
continued
|
Hypothetical “Big
Initiative” |
Approximate Maximum Twenty- year scale in the
Capital District |
Twenty-year cost estimate Comments |
Status Quo Trend |
Concen-trated Growth |
Trend Hyper- Growth |
Concen-trated Hyper Growth |
|
Managed lane program |
50 route miles total with approx. 75 lane miles |
$750 M $10 M operating Scale at one or two lanes per center-line mile where physically
feasible in Interstate system in Albany County, extensions north, east,
west. Cost at $10 M per lane mile |
* |
** |
**** |
*** |
|
Take-a-lane program |
No feasible implementation for contra-flow lanes. Tolling existing toll-free facilities in
theory could reach 100 route miles |
more than supported with toll
revenue- Not supported by traffic dynamics; no excess capacity in
off-peak to yield a lane. Tolling existing
toll-free facilities not yet politically plausible. |
|
|
|
|
|
Highway noise program |
40 locations on expressway system |
$40 M Scale addresses all existing warrants; noise mitigation costs
for widenings are included in guideway and managed lane budgets above. |
* |
** |
*** |
*** |
|
Demand management program |
40,000 participants |
$50 M (public) Scale at 10% of regional workforce; Cost estimated at $20/month
for Ľ of participants, self-financed by employers for remaining
participants. $20/month is derived
from CDTC experience. |
* |
** |
** |
*** |
Table 4,
continued
|
Hypothetical “Big
Initiative” |
Approximate Maximum Twenty- year scale in the
Capital District |
Twenty-year cost estimate Comment |
Status Quo Trend |
Concen-trated Growth |
Trend Hyper- Growth |
Concen-trated Hyper Growth |
|
Clean, efficient vehicle
program |
public transit fleets, private vehicle incentive to double
hybrid sales (2010), declining incentive to 2030 |
$550 M Scale at 30% purchase price incentive in 2010 to double hybrid
sales to 2,800; incentive declines as hybrid market expands. Estimated $100,000 price increase for 300
transit vehicles of varied sizes |
* |
** |
** |
*** |
|
Intelligent traffic
management program |
Full ITS deployment on priority network; including real-time
traffic info on entire system |
$135 M Working Group B estimates as continuation of current $6.7 M/yr;
purchases more as costs decrease. Cost
does not include rapidly-expanding private investment (vehicles, services) |
* |
** |
*** |
*** |
|
Video surveillance and
enforcement program |
Full deployment on priority ITS network |
Supported by fines Red light running cameras and possibly, speed enforcement
cameras |
* |
** |
** |
** |
|
Comprehensive Traffic
Safety program |
Capital investment at several times the set aside in SAFETEA-LU,
plus other features |
$200 M Capital improvements, driver education, traffic enforcement,
improved community and site design. |
* |
** |
** |
** |
Table 4, continued
* plausible but
unlikely. A “heavy lift” relative to
rate and location of growth.
**
plausible, with a good chance
of implementation if transportation policy remains progressive.
*** the
growth and development scenario will create a strong interest and demand for
the initiative and provide the political and financial clout to make
implementation quite possible, even probable.
**** implementation
very likely because the initiative is part of the package of actions that would
be necessary to achieve the growth scenario.
Each of the four growth scenarios
will have different impacts on the Capital Region’s transportation system. The CDTC New Visions Plan evaluates the
impacts of transportation investments using multiple performance measures
including congestion; accessibility; transit, pedestrian, and bicycle access;
arterial function; environmental impacts; travel flexibility and reliability;
quality of life; economic impacts; and others.
This section will assess the performance of the transportation system
under the different growth scenarios.
Quantitative measures have been developed, but in many cases where more
detailed analysis is beyond the scope of this study, qualitative descriptions
are useful for describing real impacts of the scenarios.
The CDTC STEP Model was run in the
year 2030 for each of the four scenarios.
Trip generation was calculated for each scenario using the estimates of
household growth by 950 traffic analysis zone developed by CDRPC. Higher transit ridership and a higher number
of trips by walking were assumed under
the two concentrated scenarios. The CDTC
gravity model is used to predict origins and destinations for all vehicle trips
in the PM peak hour, including work trips, shopping trips, and other
trips. The model calculates the best
path for each trip along the network, after considering the impacts of traffic
congestion and delay, and then estimates traffic volumes for each link of the
network. The results are summarized in
Table 5.
Table 5
Population, Households, Vehicle Miles of Travel, Vehicle
Hours of Travel Time,
Vehicle Operating Costs, Excess Vehicle Hours of Delay and
Average Speed,
PM Peak Hour For Alternative Future Growth Scenarios
Travel Results From the CDTC STEP Model
|
|
Population |
Households |
Vehicle
Miles Traveled |
Vehicle
Hours of Travel |
Excess
Vehicle Hours of Delay |
Excess
Vehicle Hours of Delay per person x 1000 |
Vehicle
Operating Cost |
Average
Speed (mph) |
|
Year 2000 |
794,293 |
318,255 |
1,791,978 |
53,655 |
5,504 |
6.9 |
$ 659,723 |
33.4 |
Status Quo |
Base 2030 |
867,000 |
366,081 |
2,029,573 |
65,195 |
9,065 |
10.5 |
$ 749,580 |
31.1 |
Trend |
Growth 2000-30 |
9% |
15% |
13% |
22% |
65% |
51% |
14% |
-7% |
Concen- |
2030 Value |
867,000 |
368,537 |
1,888,404 |
57,958 |
6,531 |
7.5 |
$ 695,175 |
32.6 |
trated Growth |
Growth 2000-30 |
9% |
16% |
5% |
8% |
19% |
9% |
5% |
-2% |
|
From Base |
0% |
1% |
-7% |
-11% |
-28% |
-28% |
-7% |
5% |
Trend
|
2030 Value |
1,023,634 |
430,008 |
2,390,310 |
85,303 |
16,722 |
16.3 |
$ 892,284 |
28.0 |
Hyper
Growth |
Growth 2000-30 |
29% |
35% |
33% |
59% |
204% |
136% |
35% |
-16% |
|
From Base |
18% |
17% |
18% |
31% |
84% |
56% |
19% |
-10% |
Concen- |
2030 Value |
1,023,633 |
433,385 |
2,164,419 |
74,954 |
13,649 |
13.3 |
$ 803,045 |
28.9 |
trated Hyper |
Growth 2000-30 |
29% |
36% |
21% |
40% |
148% |
92% |
22% |
-14% |
Growth |
From Base |
18% |
18% |
7% |
15% |
51% |
28% |
7% |
-7% |
1.
“Excess
vehicle hours of delay” represents hours of congested travel time, specifically
travel time beyond the travel time that would be needed at level of service
“D”.
2.
Operating
costs are calculated in 2006 dollars assuming current fleet fuel economies and
are based on congested driving conditions represented in the model. The future cost of gasoline and future levels
of fuel economy are highly speculative, yet the operating costs shown here
provide a comparison between growth scenarios.
Higher operating costs would correspond to higher fuel consumption and
higher greenhouse gas emissions.
Status Quo Trend—This
scenario is the status quo scenario, with continued steady but moderate growth
in the economy and employment, and with employment growth in some sectors
outpacing employment losses in other sectors.
Compared with year 2000, by 2030, population will grow by 9%, and
households will grow by 15%. Development
patterns will continue to be dispersed, and travel modeling indicates vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) will increase by 13%.
Although travel growth will be modest, travel time will increase by 22%
and hours of congested travel (excess vehicle hours of delay) will increase by
65%. Congestion in existing critical
corridors such as the Northway corridor will worsen significantly. At the same
time, travel on rural roads and outer suburban roads will increase at a faster
pace than in congested corridors, while travel times increase for residents in
outlying areas.
Transit service will continue at
comparable levels as today, while a larger proportion of the region’s residents
will not have reasonable access to transit.
This is because there will be continued development beyond walking
distance to arterials with transit service.
The difficulty for those without cars having access to jobs will
increase. An increasing population of
the elderly will have difficulty traveling to daily activities. Steady continued progress is expected in
building sidewalks and multi-use trails and improving street crossings for
pedestrians, yet opportunities for walking instead of driving for work and
shopping will remain limited.
Maintaining quality of life, walkable streets, and liveable communities
will be a challenge as urban areas decline and traffic congestion
increases.
Concentrated Growth—This
scenario, with more urban reinvestment and suburban containment, will result in
the same growth in population and households as the baseline scenario, but with
7% less vehicle miles of travel than the baseline scenario. Hours of travel would be 11% less than the
baseline, while hours of congested travel would be 28% less than the
baseline. Transit service will be more
frequent, and ridership would be higher, given the higher number of riders
within walking distance to arterials with transit, and the higher number of
activities along transit corridors. It
is likely that additional corridors beyond the Route 5 corridor will have Bus
Rapid Transit service, increasing the number of residents and communities
benefiting from this premium service. It
can be expected that segments of a regional greenway program could be built,
with increased opportunities for walking and bicycling; and the higher number
of people living near existing sidewalks and paths will significantly increase
walking access and the ability to make more work and shopping trips by transit,
walking, or bicycling. The feasibility
for a managed lane on the Northway or in other corridors would be higher than
in the baseline, and therefore the potential for better commuting options to
avoid the high levels of congestion that will still be found in critical
corridors.
Further progress can be expected
in implementing suburban town centers, riverfront access and urban development,
resulting in tangible improvements in quality of life and attractiveness of the
region. Because of lower VMT levels,
less investment will be necessary for work to maintain pavement conditions,
freeing funds for greater investment in street reconfiguration, enhancement and
streetscaping. At the local level, due
to smarter growth patterns, there will be less mileage of new residential
streets (compared with the base scenario) and therefore lower maintenance costs
for local municipalities. Greater
protection of open space and environmentally valuable lands will result from
this growth scenario.
Trend Hyper Growth—This
scenario represents high growth occurring in current trend dispersed patterns
with low density development occurring in currently undeveloped lands. Compared with year 2000, by 2030 population
would grow by 29% and households would grow by 35%. While vehicle miles traveled would increase
by 33%, congested travel time (“excess delay”) would more than triple in the
Capital District.
On a per capita basis, congestion
would increase by 136% under this scenario.
Based on analysis of the 85 largest urban areas by the Texas
Transportation Institute, the Capital District was ranked 66th out of 85 urban areas for delay per traveler
(in 2003; #1 being the worst). If delay
per traveler increased by 136%, compared with the 2003 levels of delay in urban
areas, the Capital District rank would increase to 30th out of 85 urban
areas. Based on the
Travel on roads that are currently
rural collectors would increase by 65% to 95% under this scenario. Of the scenarios tested, this scenario
represents the highest vehicle operating costs, which would also correspond to
the highest fuel consumption and the highest greenhouse gas emissions.
Transit service frequency and
ridership would be comparable to the base scenario, and since much of the new
housing would be inaccessible to transit, a smaller percentage of the residents
of the region would have transit access.
Problems related to the lack of transit and walking access to activities
for those without automobiles, including the elderly, will be significantly
more pervasive than the baseline scenario.
Loss of open space, lack of investment in urban areas, and levels of
congestion would be the worst under this scenario than any of the other
scenarios, significantly reducing quality of life. Expansion of existing suburban towns, as well
as towns that are presently rural, with low density suburban development will
increase local highway maintenance costs, in addition to other,
non-transportation costs.
The sharp increase in population
and households could present opportunities for increased funding levels from
greater generation of user fees (for example, gas taxes) and other revenues
such as mortgage recording fees. The
severe levels of congestion could create a sense of crisis that would provide
public support for other local revenues.
For these reasons, there would likely be opportunities to fund some of
the big ticket initiatives. Bus Rapid
Transit investments would be possible, although reduced densities and higher
congestion levels would reduce the efficiencies and benefits of such
service. Roadway widenings might be
supported in some suburban corridors that would not be needed in the other
scenarios, trading off walkability and attractiveness for arterial development
and higher traffic conflicts in a number of communities.
While investments in big ticket
investments could encourage concentrated development, lack of investment and
planning would encourage the dispersed settlement patterns. Once high growth occurs in dispersed patterns,
a significant opportunity will have been lost.
Lower density development, in turn, will make transit investments much
more difficult.
Concentrated Hyper Growth—This scenario represents high growth occurring in concentrated patterns
corresponding to urban investment and high quality suburban planning. Population and household growth would be
roughly the same as in the Trend Hyper-Growth Scenario. But while households would grow 18% more than
the base scenario, VMT growth would only be 7% higher than the base. While congested hours of travel (“excess
delay”) would still be 51% higher than the base, this measure would be 18% less
than the Trend Hyper-Growth scenario.
On a per capita basis, congestion
would increase by 92% under this scenario.
Based on analysis of the 85 largest urban areas by the Texas
Transportation Institute (
Transit service frequency and
ridership would be highest under this scenario.
Because of the potential funding increases related to higher growth, as
well as the opportunities for greater efficiencies, this scenario has the
strongest potential for Bus Rapid Transit and fixed guideway transit. Smart development patterns will increase the
number of residents within walking distance of high quality transit corridors. A significant percentage of residents would
have access to transit and walking for work, shopping and other
activities. This would provide a great
benefit for those without cars, including the elderly, but also will provide
opportunities for those with cars to use transit when convenient as an
alternative to driving under congested conditions and searching for
parking. This transportation and land
use system would provide the best overall ability for the region to deal with
any future fuel availability issues.
Most of the big ticket initiatives
would have the highest feasibility under this scenario, as well as the highest
level of success. The opportunity would
be provided to make this region famous for its system of greenways and urban
riverfront development, a region known for its high quality transit service and
walkable, attractive cities and suburbs.
Managed lanes would have the highest potential for success under this
scenario and would provide options for commuters to avoid congestion and
provide for better conditions for goods movement and vacation travel. The largest budget for street reconfiguration
and streetscaping would be available under this scenario, while the need to
widen suburban arterials would be minimized.
Under a high growth scenario, a
concentrated pattern of development is not likely to evolve unless strong
regional policies and investments are implemented in advance of growth. Many of the big ticket transportation
initiatives discussed in this paper would encourage urban reinvestment and concentrated
development, but strategic investments and policies related to water, sewer,
schools, and other infrastructure and services would also be necessary to
encourage a concentrated development pattern.
Strong community planning will be required to encourage smart growth
development. Early and continuing
investments in transit, greenways, urban development, and other initiatives can
support and protect future quality of life for the whole region.
The big ticket initiatives
represent an investment tool that will help manage growth in a way that will
sustain the Capital District as a quality region. Investments in the big ticket initiatives can
catalyze a more concentrated development pattern under any growth scenario. The caveat is that the big ticket initiatives
are currently unfunded, and by themselves will not induce high growth. However, if the region does experience high
growth, these investments provide an opportunity to protect the quality of the
region’s transportation system, while at the same time encouraging urban
investment and concentrated growth. In
the event that higher growth does not materialize, partial implementation of
the big ticket items, to the extent feasible, can be pursued.
Failure to invest in
transportation initiatives will result in lost opportunities to provide
mobility and quality of life, and to shape the future of the region.
The New Visions Plan already calls
for transportation investments that support urban reinvestment and high quality
suburban planning. The public dialogue
that has occurred in the development of the 2030 Plan—New Visions for a Quality
Region has reaffirmed and broadened the support for policies that lead to
healthy economic growth while sustaining quality walkable communities. Groups such as the Center for Economic
Growth, the Business – Higher Education Roundtable and ARISE have also engaged
extensively in the subject of regional transportation system needs and wants,
with CEG producing a collaborative “regional development strategy” and the
roundtable authoring a white paper on transportation. The regional urban empowerment group ARISE
has also engaged extensively in the regional development agenda
discussion. These groups are both
supportive of and engaged in CDTC’s processes.
The result is a consensus that
seeks to use transportation policy (and other public policy) in the region to:
Such a community consensus
provides a powerful “subjective rationale” regarding the vision of the region,
its urban and environmental sensibilities in support of big initiatives that
help achieve the stated consensus goals.
The plausibility of big initiatives is certainly increased by the recent
Luther Forest Technology Campus actions, the catalytic effect of ongoing
investment by Metroplex in Schenectady and the commitment of state funding for
a convention center in Albany. If over one
billion dollars of public incentives in Malta alone is able to leverage many
times that amount in private investment, the public is able to see the
potential gain from major public investments – such as transit systems or
riverfront development, technology or urban revitalization.
Community values and broad
consensus are evident not only through the discussions of the various community
leaders but also through the public surveys.
In the recent Siena survey, 83% of Capital District respondents favored
the use of public funds to create parkland and protect farmland; 64% supported
greater funding for sidewalks, bike lanes, paths and crosswalks over building
new highways; and 68% supported greater funding for trains, buses and light
rail over building new highways. Such a
community consensus is also evident through the products of recent Linkage
planning studies and through the local response to transportation project
solicitation. In short, the temperament
of the Capital District is one that is receptive to “green” concepts; more
interested in preservation and restoration than large-scale new development;
and quite appreciative of local heritage and quality of the environment.
Under any growth scenario, the
benefits of concentrated development patterns are significant for the
transportation system and for regional quality of life. The New Visions Plan supports and encourages
concentrated development in the Capital District.
Yet, there is much uncertainty in
forecasting and there are many market forces that continue to encourage low
density sprawl development patterns, and in many cases a planning framework
that is not empowered to achieve the kinds of quality communities and urban
reinvestment called for in the New Visions Plan. The urgency for coordinated, high quality
planning is even greater under a scenario of high growth. This urgency will be necessary because the
impacts of a high growth scenario with dispersed development patterns would
threaten to make the region’s quality of life unsustainable.
The opportunities for big ticket
initiatives and for the Capital District to achieve the many attractive
attributes of a quality region are greater under the high growth
scenarios. Achieving the benefits of the
concentrated development scenarios will require continued strong public support
and much concerted regional and community leadership. The opportunities presented by the big ticket
initiatives will also require proactive leadership and determination, as well
as development of the prerequisite conditions discussed in this paper.
Additional public dialogue is
warranted and will be pursued to review and confirm or modify the findings of
CDTC’s review of “big idea” and “big ticket” transportation initiatives and the
vision for a quality region.
[1] Sprawl Without Growth: The Upstate Paradox, by Rolf Pendall, Brookings Institute Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, October 2003.
[2] Fukuyama, Francis (2002). Our Posthuman Future, Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution: Picador, p 66.
[3] Davis, Mike (2000). Magical Urbanism: Latinos Reinvent the U.S. Big City: Verso.
[4] Abu-Lughod, Janet L. (1999): NY, Chicago, Los Angeles, America’s Global Cities: University of Minnesota Press, p 383.
[5] See the books “The New American Ghetto” and “American Ruins,” by Camilo Vergara, which show several decades of urban transformation in the inner-city areas of places such as Newark, New York, Chicago, Detroit and Los Angeles.
[6] Low, S. (2003): Behind the Gates: Life, Security, and the Persuit of Happiness in Fortress America: Routledge.
[7] Soja, E. (2000): Postmetropolis: Critical Studies of Cities and Regions: Blackwell Publishers.
[8] As quoted in Garreau, J. (1988). Edge City: Life on the New Frontier: Doubleday.
[9] Blakely, E, and Snyder, M (1997) Fortress America: Gated Communities in the United States: Brookings Institute and Lincoln Land Institute.
[10] Putnam, Robert (2000): Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community: Simon & Schuster.
[11] See Garreau, Joel (2005): Radical Evolution: The Promise and Peril of Enhancing Our Minds, Our Bodies -- and What It Means to Be Human: Doubleday, and Fukuyama, Francis (2002). Our Posthuman Future, Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution: Picador, for detailed discussions of these trends and their implications.
[12] Mumford, Lewis (1963): The Highway and the City: Harcourt, Brace, and World.