Historical and Projected Population Totals in Maryland,

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Historical and Projected Population Totals in Maryland,"

Sharyl Carroll
5 years ago
Views:

1 Growth and Land Use Trends Population Trends From Maryland will grow by nearly 1.4 million people. Specifically, this growth will mean the difference between 5.3 million people in 2000 to 6.7 million people in During this same time frame it is expected that while households in Maryland will increase to 2,652 households by 2030 the household size will in fact decrease from about 2.6 persons per household in 2000 to 2.4 persons per household in This growth will use approximately 650,000 acres. Historical and Projected Population Totals in Maryland, Millions Source: U.S. Census Bureau and the Maryland Department of Planning Births and Deaths From births increased from 548,000 to 742,000 and from births are expected to increase from 747,000 to 838,000. Deaths from increased from 327,000 to 408,000 and from deaths are expected to increase from 468,000 to 651,000. These increases are commensurate with Maryland s expected growth. Historical & Projected Births in Maryland by Decade, Historical & Projected Deaths in Maryland by Decade, Thousands Thousands Source: Maryland Department of Health & Mental Hygiene and the Maryland Department of Planning Source: Maryland Department of Health & Mental Hygiene and the Maryland Department of Planning

2 Domestic Migration and Foreign Immigration Beginning in the 1990s Maryland saw a decrease of -62,000 in domestic migration. Conversely there was a significant increase of 228,500 people due to foreign immigration. This trend continued from with -54,000 in domestic migration and 135,800 in foreign immigration. An analysis of non-hispanic white and minority populations showed that the non-hispanic white population has decreased while minority populations have increased. Net Domestic Migration and Foreign Immigration into Maryland 250, , , ,000 50, , , , ,800-50, ,000-62,000-54, s 1990s Domestic Foreign Immigration Source: U.S. Census and the Maryland Department of Planning Jurisdictional trends of net migration in/out flow were examined to gain a better overall picture of Maryland. Outflow from Baltimore, Carroll and Frederick Counties to Pennsylvania has been increased almost annually across the board from The outflow from Frederick County to Washington County which has changed from -424 to -1,885 people was highlighted. Frederick County also has had increased inflow from Montgomery County up from 1,986 to 4,397 people from Washington County also experienced increased inflow from Montgomery County as did Cecil County from Harford County. Changing Age Structure Since the 1970s Marylander has increasingly moved toward similarities in all age categories. Current trends indicate that the largest increases will be in age categories 65 and over. Below is a comparison of population by age category between 2000 and 2030.

3 Population Pyramid for Maryland 2000 Population Pyramid for Maryland Females Males Females Males '10-14 '5-9 '10-14 ' , , , , , , , , , , , ,000 Prepared by the Maryland Department of Planning from Census 2000 Source:The Maryland Department of Planning Labor Force Maryland s population growth significantly outpaces labor force projections. Projected Labor Force and Population Growth in Maryland Thousands Labor Force Population Source: The Maryland Department of Planning

Job Growth, Labor Force Growth and Net Commutation The overwhelming bulk of the projected job growth over the 2000 to 2030 time period will be in Central Maryland, particularly the four inner

4 Job Growth, Labor Force Growth and Net Commutation The overwhelming bulk of the projected job growth over the 2000 to 2030 time period will be in Central Maryland, particularly the four inner suburban counties of Anne Arundel and Baltimore counties in the Baltimore Region and Prince George s and Montgomery counties in the Suburban Washington Region. Secondarily, total growth will be greatest in Harford, Howard and Frederick counties. There are eight jurisdictions in which projected job growth will be more than twice the projected labor force growth over the 2000 to 2030 time period. This imbalance is most severe in the Baltimore Region including Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Harford and Howard counties. While not displaying as much of an imbalance, there is still significantly more job growth than labor force growth in Montgomery and Prince George s counties. Other imbalances are also evident in parts of the Eastern Shore and Garrett County, but overall job growth there is not on the order of magnitude of what is expecting to happen in Central Maryland.

6 Where Marylanders go every day to work (net commutation) is an important planning tool. Net commutation is the number of workers commuting into a jurisdiction to work, minus the number of workers residing in that jurisdiction but commuting out their jurisdiction to work elsewhere. In 2000, only a handful of jurisdictions in Maryland had net in-commuting, i.e. more people commuting into the jurisdiction than commuting out of the jurisdiction. With the exception of Baltimore City, all of the larger jurisdictions, which comprise the bulk of jobs in Maryland, experienced net out commuting in Maryland as a whole is a net exporter of labor, with more people leaving the State to work than coming into the State for work.

7 Examining net commuting by jurisdiction for 2030 helps us understand if there are to be enough workers to fill the projected jobs. There is a need for three jurisdictions in the Baltimore Region Baltimore, Anne Arundel and Howard counties to move from a netout commuting mode in 2000 to a net in-commuting mode by In addition, Prince George s County needs to see its net out commuting substantially decline over this time period. The data on jobs, labor force and net commuting implies that, overall there is an imbalance in projected jobs and labor force growth, or what often is typically described as a jobs/housing imbalance. What this means is that for the job forecasts to be reached, either there has to be more household/population growth in Maryland, or there has to be a significant change in the net commuting patterns in Maryland. Regarding this commuting shift, what is needed is either a significant reduction in the number of Maryland s workers who commute outside of Maryland to work, or there has to be a substantial increase in the number of out of state residents who commute into Maryland for work. Some other significant factors related to job and housing is vehicle miles traveled and affordability issues. The trends indicate increasingly people are commuting farther. Further, from the median home sales exceeded $300,000.

Overall, commuting into and out of Maryland increased between 1990 and 2000.

9 Traffic Trends Where do Marylanders commute? Over 450,000 Maryland residents commute out of State, comprise 18.1 percent of all working residents of Maryland. At the same time, just under 183,000 out-of-state residents commute to work in Maryland. Overall, commuting into and out of Maryland increased between 1990 and The number of out-of-state residents commuting into Maryland increased by nearly 31,500 (20.8%), while the number of Maryland residents working out-of-state rose by 18,545, or 4.3 percent. Below is a sample of the type of information the Task Force studied (Frederick County).

10 Vehicle Miles Traveled Between 1996 and 2006, vehicle miles of travel per person grew by 12.4% at an average rate of 1.1% per year. The Maryland Department of Planning (MDP) population projections data shows 9.6% growth during the same period. Vehicle miles traveled alone, increased 23% at an average ratio of 2.1% per year for the same period. As of 2006, a Marylander traveled an average of 10,104 miles and total vehicle miles traveled in Maryland is 56,600 million miles. Coupling population growth and development patterns vehicle miles traveled will likely continue to increase. Annual Vehicle Miles of Travel in Maryland 10,400 10,200 10,174 10,104 10,000 9,894 9,952 9,953 9,800 9,678 9,600 9,471 VMT per Capita 9,400 9,200 9,000 8,988 9,112 9,306 9,340 8,800 8,600 8,400 8, Year Transit Since 2004, transit trips per person have gradually increased. According to the Maryland Department of Transportation 2008 Annual Attainment Report, transit ridership increased on all Mass Transit Administration modes between FY2006 and FY2007. The Report also convinces the importance of Core Bus, Metro, Light Rail, MARC, Commuter Bus and Paratransit services. Transit Ridership in Maryland Transit Ridership per Capita Year

Priority Funding Area Growth Growth in Priority Funding Areas (PFAs) from 1990-2005 on a county-by-county basis were examined.

The Maryland Department of Planning provided data that illustrated important trends in growth patterns.

11 Priority Funding Area Growth Growth in Priority Funding Areas (PFAs) from on a county-by-county basis were examined. Sprawl development spurs the need to redirect investment to established communities and designate growth areas served by public utilities. The Maryland Department of Planning provided data that illustrated important trends in growth patterns. How many houses are located inside of Priority Funding Areas - the places where growth is supposed to go - and how much land do they consume? Conversely, how many houses are located outside of Priority Funding Areas - places dedicated largely to agricultural preservation and resource conservation - and how much land do they consume? See Appendix for an example of the detailed PFA information studied to compliment the chart below. Priority Funding Areas Investments Priority Funding Area (PFA) investments related to transportation, schools and sewer were examined. Understanding investments in PFAs are beneficial to understanding how monies are spent which ultimately dictates how Maryland grows. A large piece of the investment lies within transportation expenditures. Spending by the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) is represented in chart below for each year for the following categories: (1) Inside PFA; (2) Grandfathered; (3) Outside PFA and Subject to Exception; (4) Exception Approved by MDOT/BPW; (5) Not Location Specific or Not Determined. Also shown are appropriations for two large transportation projects: the Addison Road Metro Extension and Woodrow Wilson Bridge.

Over the nine-year period, spending on transportation projects identified as inside PFAs averaged 60%. As shown in the above chart, however, the share of spending inside PFAs rose then fell over time.

12 Over the nine-year period, spending on transportation projects identified as inside PFAs averaged 60%. As shown in the above chart, however, the share of spending inside PFAs rose then fell over time. The low share at the beginning of the study period reflects a low share of appropriations for road projects and a large share of grandfathered projects in the period immediately after the passage of the Planning Act. From FY1999 to FY2003, the share of road spending inside PFAs increased and spending increased on the Addison Road Metrorail Extension, projects at Baltimore-Washington International (BWI) Airport and the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, all of which are inside PFAs. After FY2003, the share of spending inside PFAs began to decline because spending on the Addison Road project and BWI airport projects diminished while spending on notlocation-specific transit projects increased. Over the past nine years, the share of grandfathered transportation projects declined from 53 percent to 28 percent. Approximately two and a half percent of growth-related spending by MDOT was provided for projects outside PFAs with exceptions approved or pending approval by the Board of Public Works.

13 MDP also provided a snapshot of PFA investment by State Highway Administration (SHA) from the FY CTP. SHA estimated 70 % of its investment, about 1.35 billion out of a total of 1.92 billion spending inside PFAs (see table below). Estimated investment includes planning, engineering, right-of-way acquisition and construction costs for six years. Figure C shows the Maryland CTP Major Project Locations with Priority Funding Areas (including Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA)). Table 1. SHA Investment from FY CTP Various or SHA Investment Inside PFA Outside PFA Partially In PFA Unknown Location TOTAL (in $000s) Total (Major + Minor) $1,354,029 $200,254 $342,357 $25,990 $1,922,630 70% 10% 18% 1% 100%

14 Total Estimated Cost for 2007 CTP SHA Major Projects (in $000s) $184,449, 11% Inside PFA $317,962, 19% Outside PFA $1,142,323, 70% Partially in PFA Total Estimated Cost for 2007 CTP SHA Minor Projects (in $000's) $25,990, 9% $24,395, 9% Inside PFA $15,805, 6% Outside PFA Partially In PFA $211,706, 76% Various or Unknown Location

Funding for systemic and other non-capacity adding projects was not included.

15 Another large investment is schools. The chart below reflects funding for new, replacement and addition/renovation projects from FY 1998 thru FY Funding for systemic and other non-capacity adding projects was not included. The total percentage of State public school construction investments in PFA s peaked in FY2000 at 86 percent. In FY2008, 40 percent of approved, non-systemic public school construction projects were approved outside of PFA s.

The output results were overlay with Sewer Service Data provided by the county.

16 Sewer Information The Development Capacity Model was used to determine the new household capacity within each county. The output results were overlay with Sewer Service Data provided by the county. Therefore, MDP can determine the number of new households that can potentially be built within each Sewer Service Area; existing, planned and not planned.

17 Annexation Annexation data on a county-by-county basis from 1997 to present was studied. The information showed the estimated 1997 acreage for the municipality and a 2007 estimated acreage, along with percent change information (i.e., land added via annexations). Each county included a map with the municipalities for reference purposes. Howard and Baltimore Counties were not studied since they do not have municipalities. MDP used 1997 as the base year because the time frame gave a good overview of annexation activity to date and because this was the year that the State and local governments were working together to map Priority Funding Areas, which included municipalities. The annexation information from 1997 to present is based on Department of Legislative Services (DLS) data. Municipalities are required by law to register their annexations with DLS. While some municipalities ignore this law, we feel that the DLS numbers are the best statewide source of this information. Below is a snapshot of Wicomico County.

Growth Scenarios Two drastically different growth scenarios are worth reviewing- current policies and smart growth. Between 1973 and 2002, Maryland s population increased by 30%.

18 Growth Scenarios Two drastically different growth scenarios are worth reviewing- current policies and smart growth. Between 1973 and 2002, Maryland s population increased by 30%. During these three decades development patterns changed dramatically, the State saw a 100% increase in developed acres (e.g., residential, industrial, commercial), resulting in a significant loss of agriculture and forestlands (600K acres). Low density residential acreage increased the most over this time period, representing 58% of the new developed lands (374,655 acres). The two scenarios used to estimate future land use change -current policies and smart growth. The current policies scenario assumes land will continue to develop according to

19 the programs and policies (e.g. zoning, sewer service areas, etc.) that are currently in place. The second scenario, smart growth, projects future land use based on some of the basic principles of smart growth. These include concentrating growth around existing development and targeted growth areas, particularly Priority Funding Areas (PFA), and protecting agricultural and forestlands by assigning more restrictive zoning to these lands (areas outside of PFA s). Under Current Policies, the following assumptions are used: Maryland is projected to grow by 1.1 million people by Current small area forecasts (where available in the state) are used to direct growth. Where small area forecasts are not available, MDP estimates future growth by assessing recent trends in the area. Allowable densities of current zoning and current water and sewer plans are used to place projected growth. This scenario results in approximately 650,000 new developed acres in Maryland by Under Smart Growth, the following assumptions are used: Maryland is projected to grow by 1.1 million people by % of future growth is directed to PFAs. Allowable density inside PFAs is at least 4 dwelling units per acre. Allowable density outside PFAs is 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres or less dense. This scenario results in approximately 150,000 acres of new developed acres in Maryland by 2030 (500,000 fewer acres than under current programs).

20 Land Preservation Land preservation and threats to Maryland s rural lands were studied. The current status, vulnerability and threat of these lands were examined. A comprehensive compilation of this information is available on the MDP s website: INPUT CORRECT URL. The data shows that an overwhelmingly, Maryland s rural lands are being assaulted by tremendous development pressure presently and that many areas are highly vulnerable to these threats.

Local Taxing Authority and Revenue Sources Presentation to the Local and Regional Transportation Funding Task Force

Local Taxing Authority and Revenue Sources Presentation to the Local and Regional Transportation Funding Task Force Department of Legislative Services Office of Policy Analysis Annapolis, Maryland September