Chapter 4 FACTS, FIGURES and DEMOGRAPHICS

To effectively plan for future transportation needs, it is necessary to be responsive to regional demographic forecasts. Recent trends affecting transportation include: increased vehicles and trips, decrease in population, fewer households, longer commutes, and increased vehicle miles traveled. Transportation planning needs consider emerging trends that will affect the future transportation system in the HOCTS study area. These emerging trends differ from existing trends and include lifestyle changes, deteriorating infrastructure, less funding available, an aging population, and concern for climate change. This chapter presents a snapshot of the metropolitan planning area in terms of the most current statistics available for population, employment, primary commuting travel patterns, and land use patterns.

4.1 POPULATION TRENDS

The 2010 decennial Census found the population of our region has stabilized after decades of decline. Previously, between the years 1970 and 2000, the total regional population dropped from 340,670 to about 299,896 people. This represents a loss of about 12% in population over that 30 year period. However, when the 2010 Census counts were released, the total regional population was found to be 299,397, this is less than two tenths of a percent drop from the 2000 population. The population, for all intents and purposes, has stabilized from the previous 30 years which saw the loss of several major employers, including the closure of Griffiss Air Force Base.

Figure 4.1, Herkimer-Oneida County Regional Population Change 1950 to 2010

HOCTS Chapter 4 32

In terms of individual counties in the region, the population of Oneida County in the 2010 Census was 234,878. This represents a minimal loss of about three tenths of a percent or approximately 600 people. The Population of Herkimer County in the 2010 census actually reported an increase in population of .1%, or approximately 100 people, to 64,519 residents.

Figure 4.2, Herkimer and Oneida Counties’ Population Changes (1950 to 2010)

Oneida County Most of the towns within Oneida County did not see population increases between 2000 and 2010; in fact two out of three saw population declines. These towns make up most of the northern part of the county. In addition three towns in the southeastern corner of the County (Paris, Bridgewater, and Sangerfield) saw a population drop over the last ten years.

HOCTS Chapter 4 33

Oneida County Population Change1  One city and eight towns saw population increases from 2000 to 2010: o The City of Utica (2.6)% o The Town of Deerfield (9.4%) *All of the areas in the box are o The Town of New Hartford (4.7%) partially or completely located o The Town of Kirkland (1.7%) within the urbanized area. o The Town of Whitestown (0.2%) o The Town of Augusta (2.7%) o The Town of Annsville (1.9%) o The Town of Vernon (1.4%) o The Town of Marshall (0.2%)

With the exception of Annesville in the northwestern corner of the county, all of these municipalities are connected in a swath from Vernon and Augusta in the southwestern corner to Utica and Deerfield in the eastern part of the county. This swath aligns with general employment hubs and the highway network alignment.

Two cities and eighteen towns saw population decreases from 2000 to 2010, most notably the cities of Rome (-3.5%) and Sherrill (-2.4%). It should be noted that the population decrease in Rome has resulted in the area being an urban cluster. The classification impacts the MPO because federal funding is based on urban areas.

 The towns which saw greater than 5% population decrease are: o The Town of Forestport (-9.3%) o The Town of Bridgewater (-8.9%) o The Town of Ava (-6.5%) o The Town of Vienna (-6.5%) o The Town of Lee (-5.7%) o The Town of Florence (-5.6%) o The Town of Steuben (-5.3%) o The Town of Marcy (-5.1%) – A portion of this township is within the Urbanized Area.

The majority of these townships are located in either the northern half or southern tip of the county. All are in the suburban to rural portions of the two-county planning area.

 The only villages to have a population increase are: o The Village of New York Mills (4.3%) *These areas are partially or completely o The Village of Yorkville (0.5%) located within the urbanized area. o The Village of Oriskany Falls (4.9%) o The Village of Vernon (1.5%)

1 Source: 2010 U.S. Census HOCTS Chapter 4 34

Herkimer County Population Change2 Herkimer County does not have any area of population concentration large enough to meet the qualifications for a U.S. Census Urbanized Area. However, there are areas of population which meet the qualifications of urban cluster. Ultimately, the HOCTS Metropolitan Planning Area Boundary encompasses both counties. As such, the two counties are always evaluated as a regional whole for transportation planning purposes.

 Thirteen towns saw population increases from 2000 to 2010. Towns seeing 5% or greater population increase were: o The Town of Ohio (8.7%) o The Town of Norway (7.2%) o The Town of Manheim (5.1%) o The Town of Newport (5.0%)

All of these municipalities are in the northern-to-central portion of the county and located within categorically defined rural area.

 The county’s sole city and six towns saw population decreases from 2000 to 2010: o The City of Little Falls (-4.7%) *These areas are partially or completely o The Town of German Flatts (-2.7%) located within the urbanized area. o The Town of Webb (-5.5%) o The Town of Danube (-5.4%) o The Town of Winfield (-5.3%) o The Town of Columbia (-3.1%) o The Town of Stark (-1.3%)

These municipalities are located in the northern tip of the county and then generally in the southern portion below the NYS Thruway.

 Five of the county’s ten villages saw population increases: o The Village of Poland (12.6%) o The Village of Herkimer (3.3%) o The Village of Mohawk (2.7%) o The Village of Frankfort (2.4%) o The Village of Dolgeville (1.8%)

2 Source: 2010 U.S. Census HOCTS Chapter 4 35

Population Forecasting Based on population projections provided by the Cornell Program on Applied Demographics, Oneida County may see a slight decrease in its population over the projected 20-year period. Likewise, the overall population for Herkimer County is projected to decrease slightly.

Figure 4.3 Population Projections, 2010 - 2025 County 2010 Actual 2020 Estimate 2025 Estimate 2030 Estimate 2035 Estimate

Oneida 234,878 232,007 229,967 226,871 222,718 Herkimer 64,519 62,261 60,455 58,167 55,424

Source: Cornell Program on Applied Demographics, 2014

HOCTS Chapter 4 36

Figure 4.4, Map of Herkimer County Population Shift, 2000 – 2010

HOCTS Chapter 4 37

Figure 4.5, Map of Oneida County Population Shift, 2000 – 2010

HOCTS Chapter 4 38

Poverty Existing in the Herkimer-Oneida Population Combined, the region has 15.3% of its population living below the poverty line in 2012. Among children under the age of 18, nearly one in four (23.8%) are in poverty; among the elderly age 65 and over, about one in twelve (8.1%) live below poverty. As many as 17% of all households receive food stamps or SNAP benefits in the region according to 2012 ACS data.

Figure 4.6, Percent of Population Living in Poverty Percent of Population Living in Poverty 18%

16%

14%

12%

10% 2000 Census 8% 2012 ACS 6%

4%

2%

0% Oneida County Herkimer County

Sources: U.S. Census (2000), American Communities Survey (2012)

HOCTS Chapter 4 39

Figure 4.7, Map of Individuals in Poverty by Percent (Herkimer County)

HOCTS Chapter 4 40

Figure 4.8, Map of Individuals in Poverty by Percent (Oneida County)

HOCTS Chapter 4 41

Representation of Elderly and People with Disabilities Other populations important to the transportation demographic profile are the elderly, people with disabilities, and households without vehicles.

Figure 4.9, Percent of the Population 65 or Older Percent of the Population 65 or Older

Total Population Population 65 and Over

100.00% Regionally 17.20%

100.00% Oneida 16.80%

100.00% Herkimer 17.30%

Source: American Communities Survey (2010-2012) (Approximately 11,000 in Herkimer County, and 39,000 in Oneida County).

The median age in the region is now above 40 years of age for the first time in demographic history for both counties. The median age is 42.6 years old in Herkimer County and 41.3 years old in Oneida County.

People identifying themselves as having disabilities in the ACS comprise about 14.1% of the regional population, or nearly 41,000 residents. Further breakdown shows roughly 33,000 of these live in Oneida County, with almost 8,000 Herkimer County.

Within the two counties, more than a third of all elderly people (35.9%) claimed to have a disability in the 2012 ACS. Further breakdown shows 32.6% in Herkimer County and 37.1% in Oneida County.

About 15,000 households in Herkimer and Oneida Counties lack any vehicle for transportation purposes. This lack of transportation is slightly different within each county however. In Herkimer County one in ten households (9.9%) do not have any vehicles. In Oneida County about one in seven (13.5%) lack any vehicle present.

HOCTS Chapter 4 42

Figure 4.10, Selected Demographics for the HOCTS Planning Area

Population Diversity According to the 2012 ACS One Year Estimates, there are approximately 40,000 people in our region who qualify as being of “minority” racial status (that is to say they identify themselves as something other than “white non-Hispanic”). The vast majority of those, more than 37,000, reside in Oneida County; about 3,000 live in Herkimer County. While the percent of the population identifying itself as being black has remained relatively stable, the Asian population has nearly tripled in the area, with more than 8,000 residents saying they are of Asian descent. Culturally, the percent of respondents saying they are Hispanic has grown by more than 50%, from some 8,000 in the Census 2000 to more than 12,000 in the 2012 ACS.

The changing of racial status, as part of the ACS, now have begun to reflect immigration and refugee populations that have settled or been relocated to Oneida and Herkimer Counties. The immigrants/refugees, primarily settle within the City of Utica, and are initially dependent on social services. The cultural differences and language barriers of this growing immigrant/refugee population create significant barriers for securing employment, accessing public transportation and obtaining personal transportation. In the last ten years, nearly 4,000 refugees have been relocated to Utica and the Mohawk Valley. Since its inception, more than 14,000 people have come to the region through the Mohawk Valley Resource Center for Refugees.

HOCTS Chapter 4 43

Refugee Population Utica is the home of the Mohawk Valley Resource Center for Refugees (MVRCR), one of the largest resettlement agencies in the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service network. According to the Mohawk Valley Resource Center for Refugees, Utica is one of few selected cities in the U. S. accepting refugees. Due to its cultural diversity, affordable housing and generous spirit, the community provides a foundation where these new Americans can find safety, freedom and the opportunity for a better life. MVRCR boasts that Oneida County has the fourth highest concentration of refugees (about 4% of the total population) in the United States, and the City of Utica refugees make up over 11% of the total population. MVRCR recognizes that the region is poised to become a leader as a multi-cultural institute and remains a nationally recognized leader in refugee services. Since its inception, MVRCR has assisted refugees from more than 31 countries, including Bosnia, Cambodia, Czechoslovakia, Haiti, Hungary, Laos, Poland, Romania, the former Soviet Union, Vietnam, Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, China, Burma and others. Today the refugee population being resettled is increasingly diverse with individuals and families from Latin America, the former Soviet Union, Afghanistan, Burma, Somalia and Liberia.

Limited English Proficiency (LEP) According to the Civil Rights Office at the U.S. Department of Transportation, individuals who do not speak English as their primary language and who have a limited ability to read, speak, write, or understand English can be Limited English Proficient, or “LEP”. These individuals may be entitled language assistance with respect to a particular type of service, benefit, or encounter.

The enactment of Executive Order 13166: Improving Access to Services for Persons With Limited English Proficiency (LEP) August 16, 2000, was to clarify Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by ensuring accessibility to all federally conducted programs and activities to individuals whom English is not their primary language and who might have a limited ability to read, speak, write or understand English.

Executive Order 13166 applies to all federal agencies and all programs and all operations of entities that receive funding from the federal government, including state agencies, local agencies and governments including the MPO, private and non-profit entities and subrecipients.

Local LEP Efforts The Mohawk Valley Resource Center for Refugees (MVRCR) in Utica, NY is actively working to fulfill new strategic directions for the center reflecting the presence and needs of the growing refugee and non-refugee immigrants in our community, estimated future growth to be approximately 15% of Utica’s population.

MVRCR seeks to enhance the provision of culturally and linguistically appropriate services in the community. The center’s objective is to provide fee-based cross-cultural competence training and technical assistance. The program is designed to help educators, service providers and business managers, effectively deliver service to clients and manage personnel from different cultural backgrounds. HOCTS has worked with MVRCR to address the needs of refugee populations through the use of JARC funds.

HOCTS Chapter 4 44

Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Statistics The NYSDOT Region 2, which includes Oneida and Herkimer Counties, has 13,540 LEP residents (3%), giving it the 8th most LEP residents of the 11 NYSDOT regions.3

Figures 4-3 and 4-4 show two counties in Region 2 having significant LEP populations: Montgomery and Oneida (4% of the total population); Herkimer and Madison Counties also have notable LEP population. Of the 62 counties in New York State, Oneida County has the 16th highest LEP population. In Montgomery and Oneida Counties, almost 70 percent of the LEP population lives in the largest city. Utica maintains 6,101 (11%) LEP population. Outside of New York City, Utica has the 8th largest LEP population of any city in New York State.

Utica’s LEP population mostly comes from the European nation of Bosnia (3,319), where an Indo-European language is spoken. A wave of Bosnians immigrated to Utica between 1992 and 1995. Currently, refugees from the Asian nation of Burma (560) are moving to Utica. According to data provided by the NYS Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, other common refugee groups in Utica are Ukrainian (453), Vietnamese (412) and Belarusian (361).

Figure 4.11, LEP Population, NYSDOT Region 2 by County COUNTY Spanish Indo-European Asian-Pacific All Others Total Fulton 267 381 83 18 749 Hamilton 9 12 2 3 26 Herkimer 207 733 50 4 994 Madison 414 353 112 65 944 Montgomery 1,155 590 93 21 1,859 Oneida 2,178 5,374 1,237 179 8,968 Total 4,497 7,824 1,660 308 14,289 Source: NYSDOT

Figure 4.12, LEP Population, NYSDOT Region 2 by City CITY Spanish Indo-European Asian-Pacific All Others Total Amsterdam 904 328 51 0 1,283 Gloversville 88 187 48 18 341 Johnstown 24 56 16 0 96 Little Falls 16 59 10 0 85 Oneida 104 38 8 25 175 Rome 319 430 71 23 843 Sherrill 4 0 0 0 4 Utica 1,098 3,907 969 127 6,101 Source: NYSDOT

4.2 TRAVEL TRENDS AND EMPLOYMENT

In March of 2000, a “Statewide Attitudinal and Preference Survey” funded by New York State Metropolitan Planning Organizations, was part of a statewide initiative to attain public input for transportation planning purposes. The surveyed region of Central New York was comprised of ten

3 NYSDOT Region 2 consists of Herkimer, Oneida, Madison, Hamilton, Fulton and Montgomery Counties HOCTS Chapter 4 45

counties: Oneida, Herkimer, Madison, Wayne, Seneca, Cayuga, Tompkins, Oswego, Onondaga, and Cortland.

According to the survey, in the Central New York region 86.4% of the respondents surveyed commute on a daily basis. The primary reason for their commute is to get to work and the household vehicle is the clear mode choice. Respondents who commute by car commented that convenience and lack of alternative transportation options are the major reasons for using their car instead of public transportation. However, out of the 300 Central New York residents surveyed, 240 or 80% indicated that carpooling would be an option if there were more Park and Ride locations in their area.

The American Communities Survey profiles provide a basis for comparing 2010 travel characteristics for the region with data from 1990 and 2000. The vast majority of people commuting to work continue to do so alone in their personal vehicle. According to ACS data for the year 2010, more than four out of five workers drive their own cars, alone, to work each day

Figure 4.13, Percent of Commuters Driving to Work Alone Percent of Commuters Driving to Work Alone 1990 2010

84%

81%

77% 75%

Herkimer Oneida

Source: American Communities Survey (2010)

Alternative means of transportation are available but are utilized less now than in the past: carpooling, public transportation and walking all show declines over the last 20 years. The only alternative to driving alone that remains similar to what it was in 1990, or in the case of Herkimer County, shows some increase, is the number of people working from their own homes at around five percent. In Oneida County the percent of the employees working from home remains at around two and a half percent.

HOCTS Chapter 4 46

Figure 4.14, Transportation to Work: Alternatives to Driving Alone (2010)

Figure 4.15, Means of Transportation to Work 1990-2010

This twenty-year comparison reveals a drop in the occurrence of commuters carpooling to work. The use of public transportation also appears to have decreased regionally. The existing urban transit system is located primarily in Utica, Rome, and suburban areas of Oneida County. This urban system connects to a rural transit system which serves Herkimer, Little Falls, the southern portion of Herkimer County and rural areas of Oneida County.

HOCTS Chapter 4 47

Travel Time to Work Based on the most recent ACS data in 2012, the travel times to work for employees in the Utica- Rome MSA is identical to what was found in the Census 2000. In both cases 58% of workers travel less than twenty minutes to get to work. Approximately 33% spend between twenty and forty five minutes traveling to work. The remaining 9% travel more than 45 minutes to get to work.

Figure 4.16, Travel Time to Work, 2012

Regional Labor Market Travel Patterns The majority of workers in both Herkimer and Oneida Counties work in their County of residence – 55% and 88% of workers age 16 or older, respectively.4

Vehicle Miles Traveled According to the Federal Highway Association (FHWA), there was a 23% increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in the Herkimer-Oneida Counties Urbanized Area from 1990 to 2000. While VMT increased, population in the Urbanized Area decreased. Although population has declined, factors such as multiple-vehicle households, more trips per household, increase in the number of eligible drivers per household, and living further away from work all contribute to the increase in VMT. The nature of the population in the Metropolitan Planning Area has shown that people are very split in where they live related to where they work. Trends have shown that people within the MPA generally choose to live in rural areas where their commute time directly reflects their mileage. Or as many others choose, a commute of less than 20 minutes is easily achievable due to

4 U.S. Census 2000. HOCTS Chapter 4 48

minimal congestion and affordable housing stock near employment centers. Ultimately this pattern of commuting times and vehicle miles traveled is unlikely to change. Historic trends have shown that the planning area population will continue to:  Choose their residence location based more on desire and less on employment location  Easily travel throughout the transportation network due to minimal congestion and traffic concerns  Live in this area and commute to larger economic centers in the state

Figure 4.17, Map of the Percent of Employees who Work in their County of Residence

HOCTS Chapter 4 49

Occupational Projections According to the New York State Department of Labor’s “Occupational Projections 2010 – 2020,” employment for the Mohawk Valley Region for “all occupations” for the ten-year period is projected to increase from 220,620 to 234,560, a 6.3% change.

Listed below are the occupations projected to have the most annual openings from 2010 – 2020. The total employment openings include openings due to growth as well as the need to replace people exiting the occupation. However, please note openings do NOT necessarily equate to the fastest growing jobs – office and administrative support jobs show the largest number of annual openings, but only 120 out of the 880 projected annual job openings are new jobs (representing growth). In comparison, half of all personal care and service jobs (250 out of 500) are projected to actually be new jobs. The growth rate for these jobs is greater than for the administrative assistant jobs.

Figure 4.18, Annual Projected Employment Openings, Mohawk Valley (2010-2020)

HOCTS Chapter 4 50

For contrast purposes, the chart below shows the fastest growing jobs based on new job creation. These are all occupational categories projected to have double digit growth over the next decade.

Figure 4.19, Growth of Occupations in the Mohawk Valley, 2010 - 2020

Total Employment Total 10 Year Percent Occupational Category Job Growth Growth 2010 2020 Personal Care and Service Occupations 10,820 13,350 2,530 23.4% Healthcare Support Occupations 9,210 11,140 1,930 21.0% Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations 14,410 16,520 2,110 14.6% Computer and Mathematical Occupations 3,030 3,380 350 11.6% Community and Social Service Occupations 5,350 5,950 600 11.2% Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations 16,230 18,040 1,810 11.2% Source: NYS DOL

Welfare-To-Work The region’s welfare-to-work effort has been successful in dealing with many adults, leaving those still needing services the hardest to serve due to barriers to employment that include ex-offender status, disability status and refugee status.

Health services remain the major employment sector that can hire and place new workers, but for those with the barriers mentioned above, entry level jobs are difficult to obtain. Geographically, job growth remains concentrated outside of the core cities where the most people live, however there have been efforts on the part of CENTRO to address this by adding routes to suburban areas, such as shopping malls, that are also major entry-level employers.

Addressing these barriers has resulted in a number of partnerships between the Workforce Investment Board and Social Services to develop programs that focus on the populations with the greatest needs. For example, the Wheels to Work program, which involves the Workforce Investment Board (WIB), Department of Social Services (DSS), and Resource Center for Independent Living (RCIL), can help individuals who need private transportation to get to and from work meet the cost of a down payment on a car and arrange the financing.

Because many potential job seekers come with skills deficits, the WIB and DSS are partners in a Wage Subsidy program that offers a small number of cases a wage subsidy for a period of time, which makes it much easier for an employer to “take a chance” on a welfare-to-work customer.

A mix of training and support is offered to young adults with disabilities between the ages of 16 and 25 through the WIB’s CareerStart program, funded by a federal grant. By increasing the numbers of young adults with disabilities attached to the workforce, this project can help young adults who are able to be self-supporting.

One of the most interesting chapters of the regional welfare-to-work effort began in the summer of 2009 as the WIB and a coalition of more than 30 partners began implementation of the Career Pathways project, a regional effort that covers six counties including Herkimer and Oneida. The program seeks to provide entry-level training and jobs for individuals with barriers to employment HOCTS Chapter 4 51

and is designed to also provide training that will allow clients to enter employment with the skills they need to handle not just their first job, but future opportunities as well.

4.3 LAND USE TRENDS

General Land Use Patterns People are drawn to Herkimer and Oneida County by the area’s affordability, quality of life and cultural amenities. Within the two counties there are 45 towns, 29 villages and 4 cities. Land use in Herkimer and Oneida Counties consists of immense areas of forest, agriculture and other undeveloped land. Developed land consists of relatively small urban/village centers that have sprawling suburban residential development.

Urbanized land uses in Herkimer County are primarily located within a few miles of the NYS Thruway/Erie Canal corridor, and NYS Routes 5, 5S, 8 and 12. In Oneida County, suburban residential and commercial development extends outward from the City of Utica along NYS highway corridors. Because of the accessible highway system, with Albany 90 miles east, Syracuse 50 miles west, Binghamton 80 miles south, and the Canadian border 100 miles north, the region exemplifies that real estate axiom… “location, location, location.” Herkimer and Oneida Counties are an excellent and cost efficient alternative for commercial development and business expansion.

Within the Mohawk Valley there is such diversity that one can choose from urban living to rural/country settings. There are single family residences, multi-family units, seasonal getaways, condos, townhouses and senior citizen housing complexes for rent or purchase. Within the region a family can live on a farm, choose a large acreage residential setting, live on a picturesque village street, a Victorian urban home, or move into a newly developed suburban neighborhood. Business properties are also available at great rates and in exceptional locations. The greatest mix of residential densities and housing types are within the cities and villages of Herkimer and Oneida Counties. Single-family housing is the dominant type of residential use. However, two- family and, to a lesser extent, multi-family housing is more common in the Utica urbanized area. Low-density housing and sub-divisions are located in suburban and rural outlying areas. Individuals residing in outlying rural developments may generate higher levels of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) than individuals who reside in an urbanized setting.

New Housing Units in Oneida and Herkimer Counties New Housing “starts” information provided by the 2012 ACS provides an indication of growth or migration patterns within a certain geographic area. A simple measure of these patterns can be seen when looking at new construction housing. Generally, new built housing corresponds directly with population growth and economic growth.

HOCTS Chapter 4 52

Figure 4.20, Top Five Towns in Herkimer County with New Housing (Built 1990 to 2012)

Figure 4.21, Top Five Towns in Oneida County with New Housing (Built 1990 to 2012)

HOCTS Chapter 4 53

Urban Sprawl and Transportation Impacts As a result of upstate sprawl, people have been leaving cities and villages and moving out to less urbanized areas. The "new" housing starts statistics noted above underscores this point in Herkimer-Oneida Counties.

A critical impact of upstate sprawl is the decline in city tax base and a dramatic decline in cities’ assessed property value. As a result, cities bond for many of their infrastructure or economic development improvements, increasing municipal debt load and compounding the problems associated with a shrinking tax base. If projects funded by the bonds fail to increase cities’ tax base, future taxpayers will be burdened with continued rate increases.

The impact of sprawl on transportation infrastructure is becoming more apparent as the population continues to migrate to more rural and suburban communities. The out-migration places an increased demand on the local road system. As a result, towns are faced with people living in scattered, low-density areas beyond traditional municipal services areas. This is directly linked to transportation infrastructure and the associated maintenance to maintain the facilities in a good state of repair.

Sprawl Measured In 2014, Smart Growth America released Sprawl Index scores for all metropolitan counties in the United States. This research contends that people in higher scoring metro areas have more transportation options than people in lower scoring metro areas. In addition to conducting this analysis at the metro-area level, the researchers also examined this question at the county level, where the findings and their implications relate a clearer picture of everyday life.

o Smart Growth America concludes that high-scoring counties have lower rates of car ownership. For every 10 percent increase in an index score, car ownership decreases by 3.8 percent. o High-scoring counties have higher rates of walking. For every 10 percent increase in an index score, the proportion of people who choose to walk as a mode of transportation increases by 6.6 percent. o More people in high-scoring counties ride public transit. For every 10 percent increase in an index score, the proportion of transit users in the county increases by 24 percent. o People in high-scoring counties spend less time driving. For every 10 percent increase in an index score at the county level, people spend on average 3.5 percent less time driving.

The following are the 2014 Sprawl Index Composite Scores for all counties in New York. Herkimer and Oneida Counties have been highlighted.

HOCTS Chapter 4 54

Figure 4.22, Composite Urban Sprawl Measurements (2014)

Index Composite Rank NYS MSA County Score (out of 36)

Albany County 124.04 8 Bronx County 224.01 3 Broome County 109.84 17 Chemung County 114.63 13 Dutchess County 105.40 18 Erie County 114.70 12 Herkimer County 87.62 28 Kings County 265.20 2 Livingston County 77.11 31 Madison County 79.49 30 Monroe County 114.04 14 Nassau County 147.65 6 New York County 425.15 1 Niagara County 100.81 21 Oneida County 101.76 20 Onondaga County 120.80 10 Ontario County 84.03 29 Orange County 97.65 24 Orleans County 75.78 32 Oswego County 89.40 26 Putnam County 88.21 27 Queens County 204.16 4 Rensselaer County 99.41 22 Richmond County 152.34 5 Rockland County 112.27 16 Saratoga County 92.70 25 Schenectady County 116.78 11 Schoharie County 71.39 36 Suffolk County 113.48 15 Tioga County 74.00 34 Tompkins County 104.82 19 Ulster County 99.22 23 Warren County 123.51 9 Washington County 72.33 35 Wayne County 74.62 33 Westchester County 129.58 7 Source: Smart Growth America 2014

HOCTS Chapter 4 55

4.4 SUMMARY

HOCTS continues to plan for the future transportation system in the two-county area by being responsive to existing and future regional demographic forecasts and transportation needs.

The two-county population has nearly stabilized for the first time in 30 years. The increase in the refugee population into the urbanized area is the largest contributing factor of the population stabilization. At the same time the disabled, low-income, and the elderly constitute a significant and growing portion of the population. As the population continues to shift from urbanized areas to rural and outlying suburban communities, growth in the populations noted creates a larger demand for transit services and transportation infrastructure to support the population’s movements between their residences, employment and services.

Land Use It is the goal of HOCTS to promote efficient land use practices by working with local municipalities to improve the coordination of land use and transportation investment. Coordination will result in the development and implementation of projects that effectively anticipate and address the transportation implications of new development and redevelopment. Efficient, coordinated land use policies promote access management on the local and state highway system and the use of public/private financing in the development of transportation investments. Transportation demand management and system management techniques will go a long way in improving mobility throughout the transportation system.

Mobility & Economic Development A major component of this strategy involves coordinating access to land development, while preserving the flow of traffic on the surrounding road system in terms of safety, capacity and speed. It also involves the promotion of transit and other non-motorized modes of travel. An effective capital program involves a reconciliation of these interests to maximize the potential benefits. A well connected region has transportation networks with many links, numerous modal options and meets the identified needs of the population using it.

HOCTS Chapter 4 56