Metropolitan Policy ProgramRobert Puentes, Fellow
The Brookings Institution
Eno Foundation Forum on the Future of Urban TransportationDecember 6, 2006Washington, DC
Caution: Challenges AheadA Review of New Urban Demographics and Impacts on Transportation
FOUR BROAD DEMOGRAPHIC MEGA-TRENDS
A Review of New Urban Demographics and Impacts on Transportation
Effect of those trends on metropolitan areas
Impacts on the nation’s transportation network
Outline
Effect of those trends on metropolitan areasEffect of those trends on metropolitan areasEffect of those trends on metropolitan areas
Impacts on the nationImpacts on the nationImpacts on the nation’’’s transportation networks transportation networks transportation network
Population Growth Immigration Internal MigrationAging
The 1990s presented the strongest growth in four decades.
U.S. population growth, 1900-2005
Source: Census
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Decade
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Numerical increase (in millions) Percent Increase
Single person households made up -- by far -- the largestincrease in household type since 1990.
1-person household, 11,825,702
Married no kids, 5,476,979
Single male w /kids, 2,165,939
Other family, 1,758,377
Nonfamily, 3,416,246
Married w /kids, 1,376,788
Single female w /kids, 4,680,913
Absolute change in households, 1980-2005
Source: Frey and Berube, 2003
14%
12%
7%
5%5%
6%
12%
15%
11%
8%
13%
9%
-
10
20
30
40
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005
Popu
latio
n in
Mill
ions
0%
4%
8%
12%
16%
Perc
ent o
f Tot
al P
opul
atio
n
Foreign Born Population (in millions)Percent of Total Population
After several decades of rapid immigration, the share of the U.S. population that is foreign-born is approaching early 1900’s levels.
Total foreign-born and percent, 1900-2005
Source: Updated from Singer 2005
1970
6% 4% 2% - 2% 4% 6%
<5
85+
Male Female
2020
6% 4% 2% - 2% 4% 6%
<5
85+
Male Female
US Age Distribution, 1970 vs. 2020
At the same time, the U.S. population is aging rapidly.
Source: Census
Whites
Male Female
\
Hispanics
Male Female
Blacks
Male Female
API/AI
Male Female
US Age Distribution, 2020
Minorities, however, have younger age structures than whites
Source: Census
New SunbeltMelting PotHeartland
The demographic components of change reveal increasingly sharp differences between states.
Source: Frey, 2002
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Ariz
ona
Col
orad
o
Geo
rgia
Texa
s
Cal
iforn
ia
New
Yor
k
Min
neso
ta
Mis
sour
i
Pen
nsyl
vani
a
Immigration Domestic Natural
New Sunbelt Melting Pot Heartland
The demographic components of change reveal increasingly sharp differences between states.
Demographic components of change, 1990-1999
Source: Census
EFFECT OF THOSE TRENDS ON METROPOLITAN AREAS
A Review of New Urban Demographics and Impacts on Transportation
Four broad demographic megaFour broad demographic megaFour broad demographic mega---trendstrendstrends
Outline
Impacts on the nationImpacts on the nationImpacts on the nation’’’s transportation networks transportation networks transportation network
City resurgence
Uneven growth
Job sprawl
Geography of poverty
Racial diversity
Recent demographic and market changes have already led to a surge of population in cities and downtowns.
Source: Census
-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s
-
250,000
500,000
750,000
1,000,000
1970 1980 1990 2000
Population growth in 50 largest cities, 1970-2005
Total population, 45 U.S. downtowns, 1970-2000
The majority of downtowners in 2000 lived alone;the next largest group contained young couples without kids.
6%
14%
5%
5%
59%
11% Married with kidsMarried without kidsOther family with kidsOther family without kidsLiving aloneOther non-family
Downtown households by type, 2000
Source: Birch, 2005
City Population
ChangeNumber of
Cities
Metro Population
ChangeCity Category
Rapid Growth (over 20%) 18 31% 26%
Significant Growth (10 to 20%) 23 15% 22%
Moderate Growth (2 to 10%) 33 6% 13%
No Growth (-2 to 2%) 6 0% 11%
Loss (below -2%) 20 -7% 6%
The primary determinant for how a city grows is based on the metropolitan area it is in.
Source: Berube, 2003
Average city and metro area population change, by category, 1990-2000
City resurgence
Uneven growth
Job sprawl
Geography of poverty
Racial diversity
4%
19%
7%9%
44%
16%18%
6%
37%
22%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Atlanta Chicago Denver Memphis Top 100
City Suburbs
Population is continuing to decentralize in nearly every U.S. metropolitan area.
Selected cities and suburbs, population growth 1990-2000
Source: Census
-5%
5%
15%
25%
35%
45%
AllHouseholds
Married - nochildren
Married - withchildren
Other Family- no children
Other Family- with children
Nonfamily
Central City
Suburbs
Every household type grew at faster rates in the suburbsthan in cities
Population growth,1990-2000
Source: Frey, 2003
From 1980 to 2000 the states with the highest rates of rural land loss were concentrated in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic.
Loss in develop-able rural land, 1980-2000
Source: Theobald, 2005
<2%
2-10%
10-20%
>20%
Active adult retirement communities
Source: Rosenbloom, 2005
In some areas in the Southwest, the elderly are becoming disproportionately represented on the suburban fringe.
Phoenix
City resurgence
Uneven growth
Job sprawl
Geography of poverty
Racial diversity
7%
23% 44%
24%
WhiteBlackHispanicAsianMulti-racial
In aggregate, the racial makeup of the 100 largest cities has shifted. The top hundred cities are now majority minority
Share of population by race and ethnicity,2000
Source: Census
51%
46%
39%
55%
50%
33%
Blacks Asians Hispanics
1990
2000
The percent of each racial/ethnic group living in the suburbs increased substantially.
Share of population by race and ethnicity,1990, 2000
Source: Census
Older, inner-ring “first” suburbs are now home to a large and growing number of foreign-born residents.
Foreign-born population, 1970-2000
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
1970 1980 1990 2000
Primary Cities First Suburbs New er Suburbs
Source: Puentes and Warren, 2006
City resurgence
Uneven growth
Job sprawl
Geography of poverty
Racial diversity
Over half of all jobs in large metropolitan areas are located more than 10 miles outside of downtowns.
Share of jobs within 3-, 10-, and greater- than-10-mile radius of center, 2002
Source: Berube, undated
Outside 10 miles
Inside 3 miles
Between 3 and 10
miles
52%
17%
31%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Chicago Denver Los Angeles San Fran
Central business district Edge cities Edgeless space
Share of metropolitan office space (SQ FT), 1999
In many metros, an exit ramp economy dominates office development.
Source: Lang, 2003
City resurgence
Uneven growth
Job sprawl
Geography of poverty
Racial diversity
Most of America’s poor live in large metropolitan suburbs.But residents of large cities are twice as likely to be poor.
Below-poverty population by location, 2005
Estimates are roughly +/-0.5 % pts.
Source: Berube and Kneebone, 2006
18.4
9.4
16.7
14.0
Large Suburbs SmallerCities/Towns
Micropolitan/Rural Large Cities
Percentage of people in poverty, 2005
Source: Current Population Survey, 2002
9% 9%
19%
17%
Central City Suburbs
1990 2002
Poverty rates in central cities declined from 1990 to 2002, while poverty rates in the suburbs have increased slightly
Poverty rates for central cities and suburbs, 1990-2001
1990 2000
During the 1990s, the number of high-poverty neighborhoods in central cities dropped significantly.
In Chicago, the number of high poverty
tracts fell from 187 to 114.
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
1970 1980 1990 2000
While the number of high-poverty areas is dropping sharply in cities, it is increasing at an alarming rate in first suburbs.
Percent of census tracts in first suburbs exceeding specified poverty thresholds, 1970-2000
Tracts with 20% poverty rate
Source: Puentes and Warren, 2006
Tracts with 30% poverty rate
Tracts with 40% poverty rate
A Review of New Urban Demographics and Impacts on Transportation
Four broad demographic megaFour broad demographic megaFour broad demographic mega---trendstrendstrends
IMPACTS ON THE NATION’S TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
Outline
Effect of those trends on metropolitan areasEffect of those trends on metropolitan areasEffect of those trends on metropolitan areas
1. What does the new urban resurgence mean for transportation?
Transit ridership is up, especially in cities where new rail lines have been constructed.
Non-recreation walking is up markedly, as is walking to school.
Downtowns with efficient, functioning transit systems are surging.
2. If metropolitan areas are decentralizing, what does this do to demand?
More cars. The number of vehicles per household is rising as people per household is falling.
More driving. Increases continue in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), gasoline consumed, and time behind the wheel.
Research shows the primary determinant of VMT is the degree of sprawl.
3. How will increasing diversity and aging in cities and suburbs affect transportation?
Immigrants are more likely to carpool. But their high levels of transit use decline over time.
The elderly are just as dependent on private cars for their mobility and take many fewer transit trips.
Proximity to transit appears to be a growing determinant, irrespective of race.
4. What does continued job sprawl do to commuting patterns?
Suburb-to-suburb commute still dominates. Two-thirds of the increase in flows during the 1990s was suburb-suburb.
Average commute times increased 14% in the 1990s.
Overall, driving alone was the only mode that increased its share. But regionally, transit use and carpooling increased in the West.
5. How does the changing geography of poverty affect job access?
Most low income workers live in inner cities and first suburbs, far from growing employment centers.
Traditional fixed-route public transit is ineffective against this spatial mismatch. Low income adults face long travel times.
Access to opportunities may be the most difficult for the suburban and rural poor without vehicles.
Built environment: By 2030 about half of the buildings in which Americans live, work, and shop will have been built after 2000. How that is done will have enormous transportation consequences and should provide policy makers a vital opportunity to reshape future development.
Household changes: Childless married-couple and single-person households will grow rapidly and account for nearly half of the net growth in households over the next ten years, but single persons will continue to be the fastest-growing household type. Thus, there appears to be an increasing demand for smaller housing units.
Continued diversity: Minorities are expected to account for 71 percent of household growth from 2006 to 2016, increasing from 63 percent from 1995 to 2005. This suggests a new multi-cultural approach to transportation policy.
Migration shifts: The Census Bureau estimates that Western and Southern states with a strong history of growth management—Florida, California, Washington—will account for the lion’s share of growth between 2000 and 2030.
Increasing elderly: By 2030 more than one in five Americans will be over the age of sixty-five, and one-in eleven will be over 85. Addressing the mobility needs of this segment of society will go a long way to solving transportation challenges in general.
IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE FUTURE
www.brookings.edu/metro
Nathaniel Baum-Snow and Matthew E. Kahn, “The Effects of New Public Projects to Expand Urban Rail Transit.” Journal of Public Economics 77(2) (2000): 241-263.
Alan Berube analysis of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, undated.. Updated from Edward L. Glaeser, Matthew Kahn, and Chenghuan Chu, “Job Sprawl: Employment Location in U.S. Metropolitan Areas, (Washington: Brookings, 2001).
Alan Berube, “Gaining but Losing Ground: Population Change in Large Cities and their Suburbs,” in Redefining Urban and Suburban America: Evidence from Census 2000, B. Katz and R. Lang (eds.) (Washington: Brookings Press, 2003a).
Alan Berube, “Racial and Ethnic Change in the Nation’s Largest Cities, “ in Redefining Urban and Suburban America: Evidence from Census 2000, B. Katz and R. Lang (eds.) (Washington: Brookings Press, 2003b).
Alan Berube and Elizabeth Kneebone, “Two Steps Back: City and Suburban Poverty Trends 1999-2005, (Washington: Brookings, 2006). Eugenie L. Birch, “Who Lives Downtown,” in Redefining Urban and Suburban America: Evidence from Census 2000, Volume III, A. Berube, B. Katz and R. Lang
(eds.) (Washington: Brookings Press, 2006).Center for Transit Oriented Development, “Preserving and Promoting Diverse Transit-Oriented Neighborhoods,” (Chicago, 2006). Randal Crane and Daniel G. Chatman, “As Jobs Sprawl, Whither the Commute?” Access, 23 (University of California Transportation Center): 14-19.William H. Frey, “Three Americas: The Rising Significance of Regions,” Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(4) (2002a), 349-355.William H. Frey, “Metro Magnets for Minorities and Whites: Melting Pots, the New Sunbelt, and the Heartland,” Population Studies Center Research report No.
02-496 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2002b). William H. Frey, “Melting Pot Suburbs: A Study of Suburban Diversity,” in Redefining Urban and Suburban America: Evidence from Census 2000, B. Katz and R.
Lang (eds.) (Washington: Brookings Press, 2003).William H. Frey and Alan Berube, “City Families and Suburban Singles: An Emerging Household Story,” in Redefining Urban and Suburban America: Evidence
from Census 2000, B. Katz and R. Lang (eds.) (Washington: Brookings Press, 2003).Paul A. Jargowsky, “Stunning Progress, Hidden Problems: The Dramatic Decline of Concentrated Poverty in the 1990s,” in Redefining Urban and Suburban
America: Evidence from Census 2000, Volume II, A. Berube, B. Katz and R. Lang (eds.) (Washington: Brookings Press, 2005).Robert E. Lang, Thomas Sanchez and Jennifer LeFurgy, “Beyond Edgeless Cities: Office Geography in the New Metropolis,” National Center for Real Estate
Research (Washington: National Association of Realtors, 2006).Arthur C. Nelson, “Leadership in a New Era, “Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 72 (4) (2006): 393-407.Alan E. Pisarski, “Commuting in America III,” National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 550 and Transit Cooperative Research Program 110
(Washington: Transportation Research Board, 2006).Steven E. Polzin and Xuehao Chu, “A Closer Look at Public Transportation Mode Share Trends,” Journal of Transportation and Statistics, Bureau of
Transportation Statistics, Vol. 8(3) (2005B): 41-53.Steven E. Polzin and Xuehao Chu, “Public Transit in America: Results from the 2001 National Household Travel Survey,” National Center for Urban
Transportation Research Report 527-09 (Tampa: University of South Florida, 2005A).John Pucher and John L. Renne, “Urban-Rural Differences in Mobility and Mode Choice: Evidence from the 2001 NHTS,” Bloustein School of Planning and
Public Policy (New Brunswick: Rutgers University, 2004).Robert Puentes and David Warren, “One Fifth of America, A Comprehensive Guide to America's First Suburbs,” (Washington: Brookings, 2006). Sandra Rosenbloom, “The Mobility Needs of Older Americans: Implications for Transportation Reauthorization,” in Taking the High Road: A Metropolitan
Agenda for Transportation Reform, B. Katz and R. Puentes, eds (Washington: Brookings Press, 2005.)Audrey Singer, “The Rise of New Immigrant Gateways," in Redefining Urban and Suburban America: Evidence from Census 2000, Volume II, A. Berube, B.
Katz and R. Lang (eds.) (Washington: Brookings Press, 2005); (*2005 data from American Community Survey estimates).David Theobald, “Landscape Patterns of Exurban Growth in the USA from 1980 to 2020,” Ecology and Society 10(1) (2005): 32.U.S. Census Bureau, "State Population Estimates and Demographic Components of Population Change: Annual Time-Series, April 1, 1990 to July 1, 1999."
(Washington: 2000).
REFERENCES
Top Related