Greater Baltimore State of the Region Report

GREATER BALTIMORE COMMITTEE One Region Regional business leaders creating a better tomorrow ... today. One Future Baltimore Metropolitan Council

2007

Greater Baltimore State of the Region Report

Produced Jointly By:

Greater Baltimore Committee Atwood “Woody” Collins III, Chair Donald C. Fry, President & CEO

Baltimore Metropolitan Council The Honorable David R. Craig, Chair Larry Klimovitz, Executive Director

2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 6. Education & Workforce ...... 38

Summary of Findings ...... 9. Transportation ...... 42

Demographics & Market Characteristics . . 15 Quality of Life ...... 49

Population ...... 16 Cost of Living ...... 50

Market, Income and Area ...... 19 Health and Health Care ...... 51

Economy ...... 23 Arts, Culture and Recreation ...... 53

Employment ...... 24 Social Distress and Crime ...... 54

Employment Growth by Sector ...... 29 Air Quality and Climate ...... 56

Tourism and Conventions ...... 32 Government & Community ...... 59

Innovation and Productivity ...... 34

Commercial Real Estate ...... 35

ABOUT THE GREATER BALTIMORE COMMITTEE ABOUT THE BALTIMORE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL The Greater Baltimore Committee (GBC) is the The Baltimore Metropolitan Council (BMC) is an region’s business leadership organization. It develops organization of the elected executives of Baltimore public policies and serves as a catalyst for action and City and Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford initiatives to strengthen the region’s business climate. and Howard counties. It is committed to identify- The GBC also serves as an advocate for business ing regional interests and developing collaborative in government and civic venues. Its top strategic initiatives to improve the region’s quality of life and priorities for 2007-08 include developing a regional economic vitality. BMC provides technical support transportation system, building life sciences busi- to the Baltimore Regional Transportation Board, nesses in the region, strengthening minority-owned and is also engaged in economic and demographic businesses in the region, preparing for growth from research, computer mapping, air and water quality Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) and other programs, cooperative purchasing and rideshare economic development, teamwork between Baltimore coordination. and Washington, D.C. area business advocates, and legislative advocacy.

Greater Baltimore State of the Region Report 2007 3

Introduction & Summary of Findings

2007 Introduction

The Greater Baltimore State of the Region 2007 in this report, and identifies Greater Baltimore as report examines the relative health and economic Baltimore City, and the surrounding counties of Anne performance of our region as compared to a group Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, Howard, and of metropolitan economies throughout the United Queen Anne’s. The terms metropolitan area and re- States. gion are used interchangeably throughout this report. This report is the latest edition of a decade of Since the purpose of this report is to provide a State of the Region reports starting in 1998 and resource for strengthening the business climate of updated in 2000, 2003, and 2005 and this most recent Greater Baltimore, data from the Greater Baltimore 2007 edition. This edition is a joint initiative between region and the Washington, D.C. region are mea- the Greater Baltimore Committee, the region’s sured separately in most cases. We recognize, how- premier business leadership organization, and the ever, that the two are also widely recognized as an Baltimore Metropolitan Council. economically powerful combined metropolitan statis- The project was launched in 1997 with counsel tical area that comprises one of the nation’s largest and input from the Johns Hopkins Institute for markets and we support business and government Policy Studies. This report offers baseline and teamwork to strengthen the business climate of the follow-up information on key measurements of the combined region. region’s economic health and business climate. The most up-to-date, nationally published data and Its purpose is to provide an objective look at our information sources covering metropolitan regions region’s competitive advantages and challenges as have been used in this report. The results provide a we work to develop regional strategies for success in context for framing key questions about our commu- the national and global economies. nity. How does Greater Baltimore compare to other The U.S. Bureau of the Census definition of the regions as a place to live, work, and operate a busi- Baltimore Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) is used ness? What does the data suggest about where we

Metropolitan Areas of the 2007 State of the Region Report

Seattle !

! Minneapolis Portland !

Boston ! Cleveland !

! Pittsburgh Denver Indianapolis Philadelphia ! ! ! ! Saint Louis ! ! Washington Baltimore Richmond !

! Charlotte ! Raleigh Atlanta ! San Diego Dallas ! !

Austin !

Tampa !

6 Introduction INTRODUCTION

are and where we are going? Is Greater Baltimore The growth and development of the region has well positioned to participate fully and competitively come at a price though. Greater Baltimore has in the present and future economy? What do we become a more congested and costly place to live. need to do to improve our ability to compete in the The region now has one of the longest commuting global economy? times for all of the comparison metro areas. Home- ownership rates have increased from 71.6 percent A Decade of Progress in 1997 to 72.9 percent in 2006, but the median This report marks ten years since the first State of home price has more than doubled from $118,200 to the Region report was produced. There have been $279,900 over the same time period. In 1997, Greater numerous changes since the first report in 1998. Baltimore was one of the most inexpensive places to While the number of major categories has remained live with a cost of living below the national average. the same, the breadth, scope, and number of indica- Today, the region is among the more expensive tors have increased. Additionally, while most of the places to live with a cost of living nearly 18% above benchmark regions have remained the same, several the national average. have changed either due to the ability to update the These changes, both positive and negative indicators or because the definitions for metro areas represent opportunities and challenges as we work have changed. to shape the development of the region. Through Significant changes have also occurred within the regional cooperation and promoting the region as a region since 1998. Many of the suburban counties whole, the Greater Baltimore metro area will be able looked very different than now. Howard County to determine its future and compete both nationally has become one of the top places to live and richest and globally. counties in the nation and Anne Arundel has grown through the continued development of BWI Thur- Selecting Regions for Comparison good Marshall Airport and the defense contracting In 1997, to begin the research process 20 metropoli- and high technology businesses. Harford County tan regions, including Baltimore, were selected from has and will continue to grow due to Aberdeen across the country in order to compare a wider vari- Proving Ground. Carroll County has grown with its ety of factors that relate to the economy and quality increasing residential base. Baltimore County has of life. The metropolitan areas studied include some seen significant change in many of its communi- of the fastest growing, most dynamic regions in the ties including Towson, Owings Mills, Hunt Valley, nation, along with some older metropolitan areas White Marsh, and Middle River. Baltimore City has that are going through economic transition. experienced significant change in the growth and Metro areas studied in the 2007 State of the development of housing, businesses, and residents Region Report: now locating within its neighborhoods. For the first Atlanta, GA Philadelphia, PA time in decades, Baltimore City is growing and not Austin, TX Pittsburgh, PA losing population. Baltimore, MD Portland, OR Each of the region’s counties has grown, developed, Boston, MA Raleigh, NC and evolved. Over the past 10 years, the population of Charlotte, NC Richmond, VA the region has grown by more than 180,000 persons. Cleveland, OH San Diego, CA The region has remained highly competitive and is a Dallas-Fort Worth, TX St. Louis, MO leader in many of the indicators tracked. Key indica- Denver, CO Seattle, WA tors where Greater Baltimore has improved its rank- Indianapolis, IN Tampa, FL ing among the regions studied since the first State of Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN Washington, D.C. the Region report in 1998 include: Many other regions met our criteria, but the final • Per Capita Personal Income; from 10th to 6th list was determined to be a representative and di- • Median Household Income; from 7th to 4th verse national sample. The largest U.S. metropolitan • Percentage of Minority-Owned firms; from 7th areas, such as New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, to 3rd were not included because their size would dramati- • College Education Attainment (persons 25 years cally skew the comparison. and older); from 13th to 10th

Greater Baltimore State of the Region Report 2007 7 This report presents a set of indicators published Major changes since the 2005 State of the Region by credible third parties that are important to gauge Report include: the health and performance of urban regions. The New and changed tables: Several tables have been indicators do not tell us why something is the way it added to this year’s report. These include the per- is, nor do they provide a detailed explanation of the centage of Hispanic owned firms, full-time equiva- conditions we are examining. lent graduate enrollment in colleges and universities The Greater Baltimore State of the Region proj- (total and per 100,000 persons), transit ridership ect brings together the goals and interests of the (buses), roadway miles (total and per capita), daily Greater Baltimore Committee and the Baltimore vehicle miles of travel (total and per capita), traffic Metropolitan Council. The two organizations share congestion (annual delay and wasted fuel), health the belief that strengthening regional ties and col- care cost of living index, and teen pregnancy. The laboration will benefit the entire region. indicator for one table, precipitation, was changed The Baltimore Neighborhood Indicators Alli- from average annual to mean number of days with ance—Jacob France Institute of the University of precipitation of 0.1 inch or more. Baltimore (BNIA-JFI) assisted with data gathering Deleted tables: Three tables from the previous State and conducted data analysis. of the Region reports have been removed due to The Baltimore Metropolitan Council compiled availability of data or non-comparability. These the data in this report with assistance from BNIA- tables are tourism gross metro product, arts culture JFI and the Greater Baltimore Committee. The ranking, and leisure ranking. Greater Baltimore Committee managed production, composition and editing of this report. The data New maps: This year’s report has also added three was reviewed and analyzed by BNIA-JFI and a team maps of the Greater Baltimore region. These maps from all three organizations. The data was compiled show key locations within the region, educational between May 2007 and September 2007. institutions, and transportation infrastructure.

8 Summary of Findings SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Summary of Findings

Overview of Rankings Of the 105 categories measured in this report, the Greater Baltimore region achieved top five rankings Baltimore Metro Area Top Five Rankings in 24 categories. The region ranked in the bottom 5 Indicator Rank in 18 categories. Some factors, such as racial make- Academic R&D Expenditures 2005 1 up, were not evaluated as being either strengths or Best Hospitals 2007 1 weaknesses. Other factors where Greater Baltimore Number of Top 50 Cancer Hospitals 2007 1 ranked in the bottom 5 could also be considered Per Capita Personal Income Percentage Change 2003 to 2005 2 strengths, such as land area. Local Government Units 2002 2 Local Government Units (per 100,000 population) 2002 2 Changes from the 2005 Report Minority-owned Firms as a Percentage of Total Firms 2002 3 Change in High Tech Employment, by state 2002-2005 3 Changes in rankings from the 2005 State of the Average Air Fare 2007 3 Region Report continue to reflect characteristics of a Transportation Ranking 2007 3 region that is becoming more affluent, as increased Physicians 2006 3 personal income rankings attest. The region’s Suicide Rate 2005 (from lowest to highest) 3 increasing transit use and transportation rankings, Violent Crime Rate Change 2004 to 2006 3 even with its fragmented transit system, suggest that Median Household Income 2006 4 Educational and Health Service Employment as a Percentage Greater Baltimore has a constituency and a solid 4 of Total Non-Farm Employment 2004 and 2006 base upon which to build needed transportation Entrepreneurial Dynamism 2006 4 infrastructure improvements. Median Home Price Growth 2004 to 2006 4 Movement in employment categories shows both Change in Air Quality 1990-1999 & 2000-2005 4 increasing and decreasing relative rankings, par- Population Density 2006 5 ticularly in professional services. This underscores Government Employment as a Percentage of total Non-Farm 5 the high degree of competition among regions for Employment 2004 and 2006 job growth. It also underscores the challenges of High Tech Employment, by State 2005 5 sustaining the Baltimore region’s decades-long Workers 16 and over using Public Transportation 2006 5 Heavy Rail Transit Ridership 2007 5 transition from a manufacturing employment base to Homeownership Rates 2005 and 2006 5 one driven by entrepreneurship, diversified business sectors, and professional services. The influence of the “Washington, D.C. factor” is evidenced by the dramatic increase in the region’s Baltimore Metro Area Bottom Five Rankings government employment growth ranking. Indicator Rank Noteworthy Trends Information Employment (as percent of total) 2004 and 2006 20 Manufacturing Employment (as percent of total) 2004 and 19 Key rankings in this report continue to confirm 2006 findings in the 2005 State of the Region Report that Violent Crime Rate 2006 19 Greater Baltimore has clearly emerged from the Air Quality 1990-2005 19 Leisure and Hospitality Employment Growth 2004 to 2006 18 so-called “rust belt” category when compared to Air Passenger Growth 2002-2005 18 regions in the Midwest that were once dominated by Average Travel Time to Work 2006 18 manufacturing employers. Roadway Miles per Capita 2005 18 Like Midwestern regions such as St. Louis, Cleve- Housing Starts 2004 and 2006 17 land, and Pittsburgh, Greater Baltimore’s manu- Land Area 2003 17 facturing employment has diminished significantly Manufacturing Employment Growth 2004 to 2006 17 from 1997, when it accounted for 8.6 percent of the Change in Office Vacancy Rate, Metro Area 2004 and 2006 17 Leisure and Hospitality Employment (as percent of total) 2004 region’s employment, compared to 5.6 percent in 16 2006. All of these regions have made valiant efforts and 2006 to address the impact of these employment shifts. Manufacturing and Total Value Added 2002 16 Infant Mortality Rate 2005 16 However, the Baltimore region has emerged from

Summary of Findings Greater Baltimore State of the Region Report 2007 9 the pack, in terms of weathering the loss of manufac- Positive Change in Rank turing jobs. Indicator Change in Rank In the last 10 years Greater Baltimore has sig- Per Capita Personal Income 7 to 6 nificantly outpaced the overall employment growth Per Capita Personal Income Percentage Change 4 to 2 rates of key Midwestern competitors. This report Financial Services Employment as a percent of total 15 to 13 shows that trend continuing. Though the Baltimore non-farm employment region’s 1.54 percent employment growth between Professional and Business Services Employment (as 12 to 11 percent of total) 2004 and 2006 is slightly below the national average, Minority Owned Firms (as percent of total) 7 to 3 it remains substantially greater than employment Manufacturing Employment Growth 19 to 17 growth rates for the same period in St. Louis (1.08%), Government Employment Growth 18 to 9 Cleveland (0.19%), and Pittsburgh (0.17%). Annual Unemployment Rate 10 to 7 Greater Baltimore has also distanced itself from for- Office Lease Rates 18 to 16 mer “rust belt” regions in population growth, educat- High School Educational Attainment 16 to 14 ed population, and air traffic, as measured by number Workers 16 and over using Public Transportation 6 to 5 of passengers at BWI Marshall Airport compared to Transportation Ranking 14 to 3 airports in St. Louis, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh. Home Ownership Rates 8 to 5 Looking ahead, several noteworthy factors will Cost of Living 15 to 13 impact the region’s employment growth—the Median Home Prices 16 to 15 Cancer Death Rate 14 to 12 emergence of a “creative class,” employment related Infant Mortality Rate 19 to 16 to Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC), and life Violent Crime 20 to 19 sciences and biotechnology industry growth. Violent Crime Change 4 to 3 Property Crime 10 to 9 Creative Class The 2006 Seeding the Vision: Creative Baltimore, published by the University of Baltimore’s Jacob Negative Change in Rank France Institute, identified the region as a leader in Indicator Change in Rank the development of what economist Richard Florida Retail Sales 11 to 12 has termed the “Creative Class.” The Creative Manufacturing Employment 14 to 15 Class—including scientists, engineers, architects, Manufacturing Employment (as percent of total) 18 to 19 educators, artists, musicians—is attracted to areas Wholesale and Retail Trade Employment 9 to 12 that combine high quality of life with educational Women-owned Firms (as percent of total) 4 to 6 opportunities, diversity and tolerance. The Creative Total Non-Farm Employment Growth 9 to 13 Class is a generator of new ideas, new technologies, Financial Services Employment Growth 12 to 15 and new creative content that drive today’s knowl- Educational and Health Services Employment Growth 9 to 11 edge-based economy. This report ranks Baltimore Information Employment Growth 4 to 13 17th in the share of creative class population among Professional and Business Services Employment Growth 8 to 13 Wholesale and Retail Trade Employment Growth 5 to 14 metropolitan areas with more than one million resi- Change in High Tech Employment 2 to 3 dents. When Baltimore and Washington are com- Leisure and Hospitality Employment 14 to 16 bined into the consolidated metropolitan area, the (as percent of total) combined region is ranked 1st nationally on resident Leisure and Hospitality Employment Growth 7 to 18 creative talent. Convention Center Size 11 to 15 The Baltimore region, with its combination of a Office Vacancy Rate 3 to 7 highly educated workforce, strong educational insti- Change in Office Vacancy Rate 5 to 17 tutions, and high quality of life is significantly well Air Passenger Growth 10 to 18 positioned for today’s knowledge-based economy. The Transit Ridership per Capita 5 to 6 region is ranked 1st among the 20 regions in research Light Rail Transit Ridership 9 to 10 Growth in Home Prices 3 to 4 and development activity. Baltimore is ranked 4th Health Care Cost 10 to 11 among the 20 comparison regions in the share of its Property Crime Change 3 to 10 workforce employed in management related occupa-

10 Summary of Findings DEMOGRAPHICS & MARKETSUMMARY CHARACTERISTICS OF FINDINGS

tions and 5th in the share of its workforce employed While it is expected that BRAC will bring over in professional occupations. With its concentration 8,000 new jobs to APG and 5,000 new jobs to Fort of R&D, high quality workforce, arts, cultural and Meade, the total impact is projected to create more educational resources, high quality of life, and natural than 45,000 jobs locating within the Greater Balti- amenities such as the Chesapeake Bay, Baltimore more region mostly between 2010 and 2015. Many has all the attributes of a creative class center. This is of these jobs will be highly educated, high wage demonstrated by Greater Baltimore being ranked 6th positions, with many being in technology fields. for Entrepreneurial Dynamism in 2006. This is an area where the region has a competitive advantage with a high educational attainment level BRAC and a highly skilled workforce. While this will be Maryland, and in particular the Greater Baltimore a boon to the region, BRAC also brings numerous region, was a major beneficiary of the BRAC challenges. Among these are the need for housing. program recommendations in 2005. Fort Meade Another challenge is infrastructure, with needs in Anne Arundel County and Aberdeen Proving including new schools, water/sewer, highways, Ground in Harford County were targeted as loca- and transit. With already congested roadways, the tions that would receive an increase in the number region needs to address the need for better mass of military and defense-related jobs. These jobs transit connections to suburban areas and employ- also bring with them contractors, families, and the ment centers. Finally, the region needs to capitalize demand for housing, employment opportunities, and on the impacts of BRAC to turn this event into a a multitude of services. long-term economic opportunity.

Key Locations Around the Baltimore Metropolitan Area

Taneytown

Hampstead Westminster HARFORD Havre de Grace CARROLL Bel Air Aberdeen

BALTIMORECockeysville Aberdeen Proving Ground Owings Mills Timonium Eldersburg Perry Hall Mount Airy Towson N Randallstown BALTIMORE HOWARD Essex Catonsville CITY Ellicott City Dundalk

Columbia

A N N E Glen Burnie Severn Chesapeake Bay Ft. Meade Centreville QUEEN Crofton A R U N D E L Annapolis ANNE’S

Town Road

Deale

Source: National Atlas

Greater Baltimore State of the Region Report 2007 1 1 Life Sciences and Biotechnology BioPark affiliated with University of Maryland, Bal- timore and the Science + Technology Park at Johns The Baltimore Region is emerging as a national Hopkins in east Baltimore, the Baltimore region is center in life sciences and biotechnology. Mary- poised to become a major center for life sciences land has long been recognized as a leader in the and biotechnology nationally. Baltimore is already biotechnology field, with Ernst & Young ranking home to two major teaching hospitals, to leading Maryland as the fourth leading state in biotechnol- medical schools, venture capital companies, and spe- ogy employment in 2005. The Biotechnology Indus- cialized business services companies working with try Organization in its 2006 national study of state the life sciences and biotechnology sector. These biotechnology initiatives ranks Baltimore as having scientific, educational and professional resources the 16th largest level of drug and pharmaceutical have long supported the development of Maryland’s industry employment nationally and the 11th larg- leading life sciences and biotechnology sector. With est level of employment in research, testing and the development of these two research parks, which medical laboratories. will create as many as 11,000 high technology jobs, The life sciences and biotechnology sector in along with the expansion of other research facilities Maryland has long been dominated by the Wash- at University of Maryland, Baltimore County and ington D.C. suburbs of Montgomery and, more elsewhere in Baltimore County, this region is well recently Frederick, counties. With the development positioned to capitalize on expected life sciences and of two major university research parks, the UMB biotechnology industry growth.

College of Notre Dame Colleges and Universities of Loyolla College

Baltimore Hebrew University The Baltimore Metropolitan Area Morgan State Johns Hopkins Coppin State University of Baltimore Maryland Institute College of Art Peabody Institute University of Maryland - Baltimore Baltimore International College

Taneytown

Hampstead McDaniel College Westminster HARFORD Havre de Grace CARROLL Bel Air Aberdeen BALTIMORE Villa Julie Timonium Owings Mills Eldersburg Towson University N Perry Hall Mount Airy Goucher College Towson

HOWARD Essex Catonsville Ellicott City University of Maryland - Baltimore County Columbia

Sudlersville

Barclay ANNE ARUNDEL Chesapeake Bay

Centreville QUEEN Crofton

Annapolis Queenstown St. Johns College ANNE’S Naval Academy School Queen Anne

Town Road

Bristol Deale

Source: National Atlas

12 Summary of Findings SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Emerging Region; Changing Image High-tech employment: Maryland ranks 5th for high- tech employment among states with benchmark re- Greater Baltimore’s continuing economic growth gions and 3rd for change in high-tech employment. and its proximity to Washington, D.C. has served to improve the region’s image as evidenced by Minority and women-owned businesses: Greater high rankings in many recent national publications. Baltimore ranks 3rd for the percentage of minority- Baltimore is now ranked among the top regions in owned firms, 6th in terms of the percentage of everything from travel, to living single, to academic women-owned firms, and 14th for Hispanic-owned research. These ‘outside’ rankings reinforce the firms among the 20 comparison metros. positive changes taking place in the city and region Tourism and serve to further the momentum that Baltimore Leisure and hospitality employment: Employment has begun to develop. They are also indicators that in Greater Baltimore’s leisure and hospitality sector show the development of the region as being a loca- increased by an average annual rate of 1.45 percent tion for the Creative Class. from 2004-2006, ranking the region 18th among the Key Findings by Category 20 regions and well below the national average of 2.60 percent. Demographics and Market Commercial Real Estate Population: With a metropolitan population of more than 2.65 million, Greater Baltimore ranked 11th Office vacancy rate: The Baltimore metro area ranks among the 20 benchmark regions included in this 7th among the study regions for office vacancy rate study. The region’s annual population growth rate of with an index of 13.7, falling four spots from 2004. 0.4 percent placed it below the national average of Office market size: Greater Baltimore has the 19th 1.0 percent growth. largest office market size nationally and is ranked Per capita income: Greater Baltimore ranks 20th 9th among the 20 comparison metro areas. nationally and 6th among the comparison metros for Education per capita income at $41,320. College attainment: Greater Baltimore ranks 10th Per capita income growth: Greater Baltimore had among the comparison metros in the percentage the 2nd greatest per capita personal income growth of persons with a Bachelor’s degree or higher (33 among the 20 benchmark regions. From 2003-2005, percent) in 2006. the region’s income grew 6.3 percent. High school attainment: Over 86 percent of persons Housing starts: Greater Baltimore maintained its in the Greater Baltimore region have completed a ranking of 17th among the comparison metros for high school degree or above, placing the region 14th housing starts, even with the decline in demand for among the 20 benchmark regions. housing nationally. Academic research and development: Greater Balti- Economy more maintained its 1st place ranking for research Total employment: Greater Baltimore ranks 10th and development funding at academic institutions among the comparison metros for total employment. with nearly $1.9 billion invested in 2005. While the region realized a 1.54 percent gain in Transportation average annual employment from 2004 to 2006, this Commuting: Greater Baltimore ranked 18th among placed the region 13th among the 20 benchmarks the 20 metro regions in the average travel time to and below the national average of 1.80 percent. work at 28.9 minutes. In the region, travelers spend Educational and health services: The Baltimore an average 44 hours in traffic and waste 32 gallons of metro area ranks 4th among the comparison regions fuel annually. These indicators point to a high level of for educational and health care services, with 16.6 congestion within the Baltimore metro’s roadways. percent employment in these sectors. Transit ridership: The Greater Baltimore region ranked 6th for mass transit use among the 20 re- gions, with more than 112 million passenger trips.

Greater Baltimore State of the Region Report 2007 1 3

Quality of Life Greater Baltimore ranked 11th among the 20 metros Cost of living: The cost of living within the Greater with costs 4.9 percent above the national average. Baltimore region has increased dramatically from Arts destination: As an arts destination, Greater 2003 to 2007. The region’s rank among the 20 Baltimore was ranked 12 nationally among cities benchmarks decreased from 3rd to 13th. with 500,000 persons or more and 10th among the Median home price and change: The primary driver 20 benchmark regions. of the increase in the cost of living is the increase in Violent crime: Despite a decrease of 3.5 percent from home prices with home prices in the region increas- 2004 to 2006, ranking the region 3rd for change in ing 29 percent from 2004 to 2006. The region ranks violent crimes, Greater Baltimore ranks 19th among 15th among the metros with a median home price of the benchmark regions in 2006 according to FBI $279,900 in 2006. Uniform Crime Reports. Health care: Another factor adding to the increase in cost of living is the increase in health care costs.

Roads and Transportation Centers in the Baltimore Metropolitan Area

CARROLL HARFORD 83 95 1 Aberdeen k BALTIMORE

795 N 695 40

83 Penn Station HOWARD70 k 40 895 695 1 k 95 o 29 BWI ANNE ARUNDEL Chesapeake Bay 97

50 301 QUEEN Interstate 301 ANNE’S 50 US Route

Amtrak Line

Station Name k Amtrak Stations

o BWI-Marshall Airport

Source: National Atlas

14 Summary of Findings

Demographics & Market Characteristics

2007 Demographics & Market Characteristics

Population With more than 2.65 million people, Greater Baltimore The median age for all of the benchmark regions ranks among the top 20 largest metropolitan areas na- increased from 2004 to 2006 indicating an aging of the tionally, and 11th among the 20 benchmark metro areas population. Greater Baltimore’s median age of 37.6 ranks included in this study. it 15th among the 20 regions, compared to 14th in 2004. The region’s annual population growth of 0.4 percent A key feature of the region is its diversity. The Greater from 2003-2006 was below the national average of 1.0 Baltimore region ranks 3rd for black population, 11th for percent ranking the region 15th among the benchmark Asian population, and 18th for Hispanic population. The regions. Six metros experienced population growth of Washington D.C. metropolitan area ranks 4th, 3rd, and more than 2.0 percent with Raleigh’s population growing 6th respectively. at an annual average of 4.0 percent. Despite maintaining its ranking of 15th, the population growth rate for the Baltimore region slowed from 0.9 percent annually from 2000 to 2003.

Table 1.

Metropolitan Population 2003 and 2006

2006 Rank National Rank 2006 Population 2003 Rank 2003 Population Region 1 4 Dallas 6,003,967 2 5,585,715 2 5 Philadelphia 5,826,742 1 5,762,648 3 8 Washington, DC 5,290,400 3 5,102,099 4 9 Atlanta 5,138,223 4 4,687,191 5 11 Boston 4,455,217 5 4,452,149 6 15 Seattle 3,263,497 6 3,143,272 7 16 Minneapolis 3,175,041 7 3,081,984 8 17 San Diego 2,941,454 8 2,921,810 9 18 St . Louis 2,796,368 9 2,750,114 10 19 Tampa 2,697,731 11 2,527,815 11 20 Baltimore 2,658,405 10 2,625,502 12 21 Denver 2,408,750 13 2,299,879 13 22 Pittsburgh 2,370,776 12 2,405,696 14 23 Portland 2,137,565 15 2,040,422 15 24 Cleveland 2,114,155 14 2,139,469 16 33 Indianapolis 1,666,032 16 1,599,404 17 36 Charlotte 1,583,016 17 1,437,558 18 37 Austin 1,513,565 18 1,376,008 19 43 Richmond 1,194,008 19 1,139,082 20 51 Raleigh 994,551 20 887,887

Source: Bureau of the Census, 2007

16 Demographics & Market Characteristics DEMOGRAPHICS & MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

Table 2. Table 3.

Median Age Population Growth 2004 and 2006 2000–2003 vs . 2003–2006

2006 2006 2004 2004 Average Average Rank Region Median Age Rank Median Age 2003– Annual 2000– Annual 1 Austin 32 .4 1 32 .0 2006 Growth Rate 2003 Growth Rate Rank Region 2003–2006 Rank 2000–2003 2 Dallas 33 .0 2 32 .7 3 San Diego 34 .0 5 33 .8 1 Raleigh 4 .0% 1 3 .8% 4 Atlanta 34 .6 3 33 .6 2 Charlotte 3 .4% 5 2 .7% 5 Raleigh 34 .7 4 33 .7 3 Austin 3 .3% 3 3 .4% 6 Charlotte 35 .4 6 34 .5 4 Atlanta 3 .2% 2 3 .4% 7 Indianapolis 35 .5 8 34 .9 5 Dallas 2 .5% 4 2 .7% 7 Denver 35 .5 7 34 .7 6 Tampa 2 .2% 9 1 .8% 9 Minneapolis 36 .0 9 35 .2 7 Richmond 1 .6% 11 1 .3% 10 Washington, DC 36 .3 11 35 .6 8 Portland 1 .6% 7 1 .9% U S. . 36 .4 36 .0 9 Denver 1 .6% 8 1 .8% 11 Portland 36 .5 10 35 .4 10 Indianapolis 1 .4% 10 1 .6% 12 Richmond 37 .1 13 36 .5 11 Seattle 1 .3% 15 1 .1% 13 Seattle 37 .3 12 36 .0 12 Washington, DC 1 .2% 6 2 .1% 14 St . Louis 37 .5 14 36 .9 13 Minneapolis 1 .0% 13 1 .3% 15 Baltimore 37 .6 14 36 .9 U .S . 1 .0% 1 .1% 16 Philadelphia 37 .9 16 37 .2 14 St . Louis 0 .6% 16 0 .6% 17 Boston 38 .1 17 37 .3 15 Baltimore 0 .4% 15 0 .9% 18 Cleveland 39 .5 18 38 .0 16 Philadelphia 0 .4% 18 0 .4% 19 Tampa 40 .5 19 40 .4 17 San Diego 0 .2% 12 1 .3% 20 Pittsburgh 41 .9 20 40 .8 18 Boston 0 .0% 17 0 .5% 19 Cleveland -0 .4% 19 -0 .1% Source: Census Bureau Annual Estimates 20 Pittsburgh -0 .5% 20 -0 .3%

Source: Bureau of the Census, 2007

Table 4. Table 5.

White Population Black Population 2006 2006

Rank Region % of Population Rank Region % of Population 1 Pittsburgh 89 .1% 1 Atlanta 31 3%. 2 Denver 87 .8% 2 Richmond 30 2%. 3 Portland 87 .8% 3 Baltimore 28 7%. 4 Minneapolis 85 .9% 4 Washington, DC 26 9%. 5 Austin 85 .5% 5 Charlotte 23 5%. 6 Boston 84 .8% 6 Philadelphia 21 1%. 7 Tampa 84 .1% 7 Raleigh 20 2%. 8 Indianapolis 82 .0% 8 Cleveland 19 9%. 9 San Diego 79 .8% 9 St . Louis 18 3%. 10 Seattle 78 .8% 10 Indianapolis 14 7%. 11 Dallas 78 .7% 11 Dallas 14 5%. 12 St . Louis 78 .4% 12 Tampa 11 5%. 13 Cleveland 76 .9% 13 Pittsburgh 8 .3% 14 Raleigh 74 .4% 14 Austin 7 .9% 15 Philadelphia 73 .1% 15 Boston 7 .7% 16 Charlotte 72 .3% 16 Minneapolis 6 .6% 17 Baltimore 65 .8% 17 Denver 5 .7% 18 Richmond 65 .5% 18 Seattle 5 .6% 19 Atlanta 63 .0% 19 San Diego 5 .5% 20 Washington, DC 62 .4% 20 Portland 2 .9%

Source: Census Bureau Annual Estimates, 2006 Source: Census Bureau Annual Estimates, 2006

Greater Baltimore State of the Region Report 2007 1 7 Table 6. Table 7.

Asian, Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Hispanic Population 2006 2006

Rank Region % of Population Rank Region % of Population 1 Seattle 10 .4% 1 San Diego 30 .1% 2 San Diego 10 .3% 2 Austin 29 .6% 3 Washington, DC 8 4%. 3 Dallas 26 .5% 4 Boston 5 9%. 4 Denver 21 .9% 5 Portland 5 4%. 5 Tampa 13 .8% 6 Minneapolis 4 9%. 6 Washington, DC 11 .5% 7 Dallas 4 7%. 7 Portland 9 .7% 8 Austin 4 4%. 8 Atlanta 9 .2% 9 Philadelphia 4 3%. 9 Raleigh 8 .3% 10 Atlanta 4 1%. 10 Charlotte 8 .0% 11 Baltimore 3 7%. 11 Boston 7 .5% 12 Raleigh 3 6%. 12 Seattle 7 .0% 13 Denver 3 4%. 13 Philadelphia 6 .2% 14 Charlotte 2 6%. 14 Minneapolis 4 .4% 15 Tampa 2 6%. 15 Indianapolis 4 .4% 16 Richmond 2 6%. 16 Cleveland 3 .8% 17 St . Louis 1 8%. 17 Richmond 3 .5% 18 Cleveland 1 8%. 18 Baltimore 2 .9% 19 Indianapolis 1 7%. 19 St . Louis 2 .0% 20 Pittsburgh 1 5%. 20 Pittsburgh 1 .0%

Source: Census Bureau Annual Estimates, 2006 Source: Census Bureau Annual Estimates, 2006

Table 8. Table 9.

Population Age 20 to 64 Population Aged 65 and Over 2006 2006 Rank Region % of Population 1 Austin 64 .0% Rank Region % of Population 65+ 2 Seattle 63 .9% 1 Austin 7 .5% 3 Raleigh 63 .7% 2 Atlanta 8 .0% 4 Washington, DC 63 .3% 3 Dallas 8 .1% 5 Portland 63 .1% 4 Raleigh 8 .1% 6 Denver 63 .0% 5 Denver 9 .3% 7 Atlanta 63 .0% 6 Charlotte 9 .5% 8 Charlotte 62 .4% 7 Washington, DC 9 .6% 9 Minneapolis 62 .2% 8 Minneapolis 9 .8% 10 Richmond 62 .1% 9 Seattle 10 .3% 11 Boston 62 .0% 10 Portland 10 .4% 12 Dallas 61 .7% 11 Indianapolis 10 .5% 13 Baltimore 61 .0% 12 San Diego 11 .1% 14 Indianapolis 60 .8% 13 Richmond 11 .4% 15 San Diego 60 .3% 14 Baltimore 12 .0% 16 St . Louis 60 .1% U .S . 12 .4% 17 Philadelphia 59 .8% 15 Boston 12 .6% 18 Pittsburgh 59 .1% 16 St . Louis 12 .7% 19 Cleveland 59 .0% 17 Philadelphia 13 .0% 20 Tampa 58 .9% 18 Cleveland 14 .4% 19 Pittsburgh 17 .1% Source: Census Bureau Annual Estimates, 2006 20 Tampa 17 .2%

Source: Census Bureau Annual Estimates, 2006

18 Demographics & Market Characteristics DEMOGRAPHICS & MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

Market, Income and Area Greater Baltimore ranks 20th nationally and 6th among Of the 20 benchmark regions, only five experienced the 20 benchmark metros for per capita personal income growth in the total number of housing units authorized. at $41,320. The Baltimore region increased its rank Home starts and sales are down nationally, and Balti- both nationally and among the comparison metros from more has not been immune to this trend. While Balti- 2003 where the region ranked 23rd and 7th. Of the 20 more maintained its rank of 17th among the comparison markets, Washington D.C. and Boston remain with the metros, the total number of new home starts declined highest incomes and Austin and Tampa remain below by more than 2,000 units. This is partially due to growth the national average. restrictions placed by many of the suburban counties The Baltimore metro region had the 2nd highest per and the amount of land that is available for development. capita personal income growth from 2003-2005 com- With suburban land for development becoming more pared to the 20 benchmark metros at 6.3 percent. The scarce, Baltimore City’s availability for denser housing D.C. metro area experienced the 3rd largest growth development and its available units enhance its potential from 2003-2005 at 5.7 percent. Additionally, in terms of as a location to support growth in the Greater Baltimore median household income, the Baltimore region ranks region. 4th ($61,010) and the D.C. region ranks 1st ($78,978). Baltimore and Washington regions’ rankings among the wealthiest nationally is tied to the strong presence of the federal government and government contractors within the area.

Table 10.

Per Capita Personal Income 2005 Rank National Rank 2005 Region Per Capita Personal Income 2005 1 5 Washington, DC $48,697 2 6 Boston $47,168 3 14 Denver $42,369 4 16 Minneapolis $42,091 5 17 Seattle $41,608 6 20 Baltimore $41,320 7 23 Philadelphia $40,727 8 24 San Diego $40,569 9 46 Dallas $37,209 10 49 Charlotte $36,761 11 56 Richmond $36,537 12 57 Pittsburgh $36,530 13 58 Indianapolis $36,391 14 62 Raleigh $35,624 15 65 St . Louis $35,573 16 68 Portland $35,430 17 69 Cleveland $35,423 18 79 Atlanta $34,825 U .S . $34,471 19 82 Austin $34,441 20 110 Tampa $33,250

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

Greater Baltimore State of the Region Report 2007 1 9 Table 11.

Per Capita Personal Income Percentage Change 2003–2005 vs . 2001–2003

Cur. Per. 2003-2005 Average Annual Ear. Per. 2001-2003 Average Annual Rank Region Percent Change Rank Percent Change 1 San Diego 6 .6% 3 2 .9% 2 Baltimore 6 .3% 4 2 .6% 3 Washington, DC 5 .7% 9 1 .6% 4 Pittsburgh 5 .3% 5 2 .4% 5 Charlotte 5 .1% 13 1 .1% 6 Boston 5 .1% 14 0 .5% 7 Austin 5 .0% 19 -1 .3% 8 Philadelphia 5 .0% 2 3 .0% 9 Tampa 4 .9% 10 1 .6% 10 Richmond 4 .9% 6 2 .2% 11 Denver 4 .8% 17 -1 .0% U .S . 4 .8% 1 .5% 12 Dallas 4 .5% 16 -0 .2% 13 Cleveland 4 .4% 11 1 .2% 14 Portland 4 .3% 15 0 .5% 15 Minneapolis 4 .2% 7 1 .9% 16 Indianapolis 4 .2% 8 1 .7% 17 Seattle 3 .8% 12 1 .2% 18 Raleigh 3 .8% 20 -1 .4% 19 Atlanta 3 .4% 18 -1 .1% 20 St . Louis 3 .2% 1 3 .1%

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

Table 12. Table 13.

Median Household Effective Buying Income Housing Starts 2006 2004 and 2006 Margin of Error Total Units Total Units Rank Region Median Income (+/-) 2006 Authorized Authorized 1 Washington, DC $78,978 784 Rank Region 2006 2004 2004 2 Boston $64,144 926 1 Atlanta 68,266 1 74,007 3 Minneapolis $62,223 464 2 Dallas 56,514 2 54,179 4 Baltimore $61,010 842 3 Washington, DC 27,958 3 38,024 5 Seattle $60,663 506 4 Austin 26,096 10 18,015 6 San Diego $59,591 1284 5 Seattle 25,743 6 24,135 7 Raleigh $56,150 1358 6 Charlotte 25,161 8 21,551 8 Philadelphia $55,593 463 7 Tampa 22,640 4 29,557 9 Atlanta $55,552 743 8 Denver 18,070 7 21,836 10 Denver $54,994 980 9 Raleigh 17,712 16 14,404 11 Richmond $53,416 1298 10 Philadelphia 17,212 9 21,010 12 Austin $52,882 1107 11 Minneapolis 15,712 5 27,714 13 Portland $52,480 770 12 Portland 15,376 11 15,859 14 Dallas $52,001 483 13 Boston 13,916 14 15,423 15 Indianapolis $50,841 754 14 St . Louis 11,807 12 15,720 16 Charlotte $50,367 859 15 Indianapolis 11,341 15 15,355 17 St . Louis $49,765 699 16 San Diego 9,191 13 15,587 U S. . $48,451 17 Baltimore 8,133 17 10,282 18 Cleveland $45,925 686 18 Richmond 7,980 18 9,298 19 Tampa $43,742 707 19 Pittsburgh 5,633 20 6,856 20 Pittsburgh $43,260 745 20 Cleveland 5,194 19 7,409

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey Source: Bureau of the Census

20 Demographics & Market Characteristics DEMOGRAPHICS & MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

Table 14. Table 15.

Retail Sales of Establishments with Payroll Gross Domestic Product by Metropolitan Area 2007 Estimate 2005 Rank GDP by Metropolitan Rank Region Retail Sales ($ millions) Among National Area (millions of 1 Dallas 89,840 Benchmarks Rank Region current dollars) 2005 2 Philadelphia 80,681 1 4 Washington, DC 347,631 3 Atlanta 74,597 2 6 Dallas 315,544 4 Washington, DC 70,745 3 7 Philadelphia 295,236 5 Boston 65,681 4 9 Boston 261,086 6 Minneapolis 48,549 5 10 Atlanta 242,382 7 Seattle 47,063 6 13 Seattle 182,170 8 San Diego 39,582 7 14 Minneapolis 171,361 9 St . Louis 38,425 8 16 San Diego 146,341 10 Tampa 36,872 9 17 Denver 131,551 11 Denver 35,908 10 19 Baltimore 118,063 12 Baltimore 35,635 11 20 St . Louis 116,215 13 Portland 32,280 12 21 Charlotte 106,408 14 Pittsburgh 32,070 13 22 Pittsburgh 102,053 15 Cleveland 31,440 14 24 Tampa 100,952 16 Indianapolis 25,036 15 25 Cleveland 99,338 17 Charlotte 22,722 16 26 Portland 95,573 18 Austin 21,043 17 30 Indianapolis 87,645 19 Richmond 16,171 18 40 Austin 65,813 20 Raleigh 14,352 19 44 Richmond 55,616 20 50 Raleigh 43,413 Source: Claritas Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Table 16. Table 17.

Land Area Population Density 2003 2006

Rank Region Square Miles Rank Region Population per Square Mile 1 Dallas 8,989 .6 1 Boston 1270 .3 2 St . Louis 8,648 .7 2 Philadelphia 1258 .5 3 Atlanta 8,376 .5 3 Tampa 1056 .2 4 Denver 8,369 .2 4 Cleveland 1054 .8 5 Portland 6,683 .8 5 Baltimore 1019 .1 6 Minneapolis 6,063 .3 6 Washington, DC 940 .4 7 Seattle 5,893 .8 7 San Diego 700 .3 8 Richmond 5,712 .4 8 Dallas 667 .9 9 Washington, DC 5,625 .9 9 Atlanta 613 .4 10 Pittsburgh 5,279 .6 10 Seattle 553 .7 11 Philadelphia 4,629 .8 11 Minneapolis 523 .6 12 Austin 4,224 .0 12 Charlotte 510 .8 13 San Diego 4,200 .0 13 Raleigh 470 .1 14 Indianapolis 3,863 .7 14 Pittsburgh 449 .0 15 Boston 3,507 .4 15 Indianapolis 431 .2 16 Charlotte 3,098 .9 16 Austin 358 .3 17 Baltimore 2,608 .5 17 St . Louis 323 .3 18 Tampa 2,554 .1 18 Portland 319 .8 19 Raleigh 2,115 .8 19 Denver 287 .8 20 Cleveland 2,004 .3 20 Richmond 209 .0

Source: County and City Extra, Bernan, 2004. Source: Bureau of the Census

Greater Baltimore State of the Region Report 2007 2 1

Economy

2007 Economy

Employment Greater Baltimore ranks 10th for total employment (23.2 percent) and Washington D.C. (22.5 percent) lead among the 20 benchmark regions with all of the regions the benchmark regions. experiencing positive job growth since 2004. Greater Baltimore ranks 20th among the 20 benchmark Of the 20 regions, 9 experienced manufacturing regions for employment in information services, with only employment growth. Baltimore ranks 15th in 2006 with 1.6 percent. This sector includes publishing, internet, a total of 73,600 manufacturing jobs—a decline of 2,700 television and other information services. Top markets for manufacturing jobs from 2004. this sector include Seattle, Denver, and Atlanta. Greater Baltimore is home to many nationally recog- With its close proximity to Washington D.C. the Great- nized colleges and universities such as Johns Hopkins, the er Baltimore region ranks 5th among the benchmark University of Maryland Baltimore County, the University regions in total government employment (16.9 percent). of Maryland, Baltimore, and the United States Naval Greater than one out of every 5 jobs in Washington D.C. Academy. The region is also home to several top hospitals are government jobs, ranking it 1st among the regions. such as the number 1 ranked Johns Hopkins, and the Uni- As of 2005, Maryland ranks 5th in total high tech versity of Maryland. Greater Baltimore ranks 4th among employment with 2,890 high tech workers per 100,000 the 20 regions for education and health services, with 16.6 persons. High tech employment continues to be avail- percent of employment in these sectors. able by state and is not available by metro area. With 6.4 percent of its employment in financial services, A significant percentage of firms in the Greater Balti- Greater Baltimore ranks 13th among the 20 regions and more region are women and minority-owned. Baltimore above the U.S. average of 6.1 percent. is 6th among the comparison metros in the percentage of Ranking 11th among the 20 comparison regions, women-owned firms (30.3 percent), is 3rd in the percent- Greater Baltimore has 14.5 percent of total employment age of minority-owned firms (13.0 percent), and is 14th in its professional and business services sector. Tampa in the percentage of Hispanic-owned firms (1.7 percent).

Table 1.

Total Non-Farm Employment 2004 and 2006

2006 Rank Region 2006 Total Annual Employment (000)s 2004 Rank 2004 Total Annual Employment (000)s 1 Washington, DC 2967 .3 1 2854 .9 2 Dallas 2860 .8 3 2698 .2 3 Philadelphia 2800 .7 2 2746 .8 4 Boston 2450 .2 4 2404 .6 5 Atlanta 2398 .3 5 2268 .5 6 Minneapolis 1788 .0 6 1738 .3 7 Seattle 1688 .7 7 1589 .4 8 St . Louis 1349 .4 8 1320 .8 9 Tampa 1308 .6 11 1236 .3 10 Baltimore 1303 .0 9 1264 .0 11 San Diego 1299 .9 10 1260 .3 12 Denver 1214 .7 12 1167 .3 13 Pittsburgh 1137 .4 13 1133 .6 14 Cleveland 1076 .1 14 1072 .1 15 Portland 1015 .2 15 954 .1 16 Indianapolis 900 .7 16 877 .7 17 Charlotte 820 .9 17 771 .2 18 Austin 720 .0 18 667 .4 19 Richmond 626 .4 19 603 .4 20 Raleigh 485 .2 20 446 .1

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

24 Economy ECONOMY

Table 2. Table 3.

Manufacturing Employment Manufacturing Employment 2004 and 2006 as Percent of Total Non-Farm Employment 2004 and 2006 2006 Total 2004 Total Annual Annual 2006 2006 Percent 2004 2004 Percent 2006 Employment 2004 Employment Rank Region Manufacturing Rank Manufacturing Rank Region (000)s Rank (000)s 1 Cleveland 13 7%. 1 14 0%. 1 Dallas 299 4. 1 292 7. 2 Portland 12 5%. 2 12 6%. 2 Philadelphia 228 9. 2 236 6. 3 Minneapolis 11 4%. 3 11 7%. 3 Boston 222 8. 3 230 3. 4 Indianapolis 11 1%. 4 11 5%. 4 Minneapolis 204 7. 4 202 7. 5 Seattle 10 7%. 8 10 4%. 5 Seattle 181 1. 6 164 6. 6 Dallas 10 5%. 7 10 8%. 6 Atlanta 178 1. 5 177 5. U .S . 10 4%. 10 9%. 7 Cleveland 147 6. 7 150 5. 7 St . Louis 10 3%. 6 10 9%. 8 St . Louis 139 1. 8 144 2. 8 Charlotte 10 1%. 5 11 0%. 9 Portland 126 9. 9 120 1. 9 Boston 9 .1% 9 9 .6% 10 San Diego 103 6. 10 104 3. 10 Pittsburgh 8 .8% 10 9 .1% 11 Indianapolis 100 3. 12 101 3. 11 Philadelphia 8 .2% 11 8 .6% 12 Pittsburgh 100 1. 11 102 8. 12 Austin 8 .1% 11 8 .6% 13 Charlotte 82 .6 13 85 .0 13 San Diego 8 .0% 13 8 .3% 14 Tampa 76 .1 15 74 .6 14 Atlanta 7 .4% 14 7 .8% 15 Baltimore 73 .6 14 76 .3 15 Richmond 7 .1% 15 7 .7% 16 Denver 72 .2 16 71 .8 16 Raleigh 6 .6% 16 6 .8% 17 Washington, DC 63 .6 17 66 .1 17 Denver 5 .9% 17 6 .2% 18 Austin 58 .6 18 57 .4 18 Tampa 5 .8% 18 6 .0% 19 Richmond 44 .3 19 46 .3 19 Baltimore 5 .6% 18 6 .0% 20 Raleigh 32 .2 20 30 .2 20 Washington, DC 2 .1% 20 2 .3%

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Table 4.

Financial Services Employment as Percent of Total Non-Farm Employment 2004 and 2006

2006 Rank Region 2006 Percent Financial Activities 2004 Rank 2004 Percent Financial Activities 1 Charlotte 9 .4% 1 8 .8% 2 Denver 8 .3% 2 8 .4% 3 Dallas 8 .0% 4 8 .0% 3 Minneapolis 8 .0% 3 8 .1% 5 Philadelphia 7 .8% 4 8 .0% 5 Tampa 7 .8% 7 7 .7% 7 Boston 7 .7% 8 7 .6% 8 Richmond 7 .5% 6 7 .8% 9 Cleveland 7 .2% 9 7 .5% 10 Indianapolis 7 .0% 10 7 .2% 11 Portland 6 .9% 11 6 .9% 12 Atlanta 6 .8% 12 6 .7% 13 San Diego 6 .4% 13 6 .5% 13 Baltimore 6 .4% 13 6 .5% 15 Seattle 6 .2% 13 6 .5% U S. . 6 .1% 6 .1% 16 Pittsburgh 6 .0% 16 6 .1% 16 Austin 6 .0% 17 6 .0% 18 St . Louis 5 .9% 18 5 .9% 19 Washington, DC 5 .4% 19 5 .5% 20 Raleigh 5 .2% 20 5 .3%

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Greater Baltimore State of the Region Report 2007 2 5 Table 5. Table 6.

Educational and Health Services Employment Information Employment as Percent of Total Non-Farm Employment as Percent of Total Non-Farm Employment 2004 and 2006 2004 and 2006

2006 Percent 2004 Percent 2006 2006 Percent 2004 2004 Percent 2006 Educational & 2004 Educational & Rank Region Information Rank Information Rank Region Health Services Rank Health Services 1 Seattle 4 .8% 1 4 .8% 1 Pittsburgh 19 .7% 1 18 9%. 2 Denver 3 .9% 2 4 .4% 2 Boston 18 .4% 2 17 9%. 3 Atlanta 3 .7% 3 4 .1% 2 Philadelphia 18 .4% 2 17 9%. 4 Raleigh 3 .5% 4 3 .8% 4 Baltimore 16 .6% 4 16 2%. 5 Washington, DC 3 .3% 5 3 .7% 5 Cleveland 15 .9% 5 15 4%. 6 Dallas 3 .2% 6 3 .5% 6 St . Louis 15 .1% 6 14 7%. 7 Boston 3 .0% 7 3 .1% 7 Minneapolis 13 .2% 7 12 4%. 7 Austin 3 .0% 7 3 .1% U S. . 13 .1% 12 9%. 9 San Diego 2 .9% 9 2 .9% 8 Indianapolis 12 .2% 8 12 1%. 10 Charlotte 2 .7% 10 2 .8% 8 Portland 12 .2% 8 12 1%. 11 Tampa 2 .5% 11 2 .7% 10 Tampa 11 .9% 8 12 1%. 12 Portland 2 .3% 13 2 .4% 11 Richmond 11 .5% 12 10 8%. 12 Minneapolis 2 .3% 12 2 .5% 12 Seattle 11 .0% 11 11 1%. U .S . 2 .2% 2 .4% 13 Washington, DC 10 .7% 13 10 6%. 14 St . Louis 2 .2% 14 2 .2% 14 Dallas 10 .5% 14 10 2%. 15 Pittsburgh 2 .0% 15 2 .1% 15 Austin 10 .2% 14 10 2%. 15 Philadelphia 2 .0% 16 2 .0% 16 Denver 10 .1% 16 10 0%. 17 Richmond 1 .8% 17 1 .9% 16 Atlanta 10 .1% 17 9 .8% 17 Indianapolis 1 .8% 17 1 .9% 18 San Diego 9 6%. 18 9 .7% 17 Cleveland 1 .8% 17 1 .9% 19 Raleigh 9 5%. 19 9 .2% 20 Baltimore 1 .6% 20 1 .7% 20 Charlotte 8 7%. 20 8 .4% Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Table 7.

Professional and Business Services Employment as Percent of Total Non-Farm Employment 2004 and 2006

2006 Percent Professional & 2004 Percent Professional & 2006 Rank Region Business Services 2004 Rank Business Services 1 Tampa 23 2%. 1 22 .5% 2 Washington, DC 22 5%. 2 21 .6% 3 Raleigh 16 8%. 5 16 .0% 4 Atlanta 16 6%. 3 16 .3% 5 Denver 16 4%. 6 15 .9% 5 San Diego 16 4%. 4 16 .2% 7 Boston 16 2%. 7 15 .7% 8 Richmond 15 2%. 10 14 .6% 9 Charlotte 15 0%. 8 14 .8% 10 Philadelphia 14 9%. 9 14 .7% 11 Minneapolis 14 5%. 11 14 .1% 11 Baltimore 14 5%. 11 14 .1% 13 Dallas 14 4%. 13 13 .6% 14 St . Louis 14 2%. 13 13 .6% 15 Austin 13 7%. 15 13 .4% 16 Indianapolis 13 6%. 16 13 .3% 17 Seattle 13 4%. 17 12 .8% 18 Portland 13 2%. 17 12 .8% 19 Cleveland 13 1%. 19 12 .5% U .S . 12 9%. 12 .5% 20 Pittsburgh 12 9%. 20 12 .4%

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

26 Economy ECONOMY

Table 8.

Wholesale and Retail Trade Employment as Percent of Total Non-Farm Employment 2004 and 2006 2006 Rank Region 2006 Percent Trade 2004 Rank 2004 Percent Trade 1 Atlanta 17 6%. 1 17 6%. 2 Dallas 16 6%. 2 17 0%. 3 Charlotte 16 5%. 3 16 8%. 4 Portland 16 3%. 4 16 4%. 5 Indianapolis 16 0%. 6 16 2%. 6 Pittsburgh 15 9%. 6 16 2%. 7 Austin 15 8%. 9 15 7%. 8 Philadelphia 15 7%. 8 16 0%. 9 Raleigh 15 6%. 5 16 3%. 9 Denver 15 6%. 9 15 7%. U .S . 15 6%. 15 8%. 11 Tampa 15 5%. 14 15 5%. 12 Cleveland 15 4%. 12 15 6%. 12 Minneapolis 15 4%. 14 15 5%. 12 Baltimore 15 4%. 9 15 7%. 15 St . Louis 15 3%. 14 15 5%. 16 Seattle 15 2%. 12 15 6%. 17 Richmond 15 1%. 17 15 4%. 18 San Diego 14 8%. 19 14 8%. 19 Boston 14 6%. 18 15 0%. 20 Washington, DC 11 5%. 20 11 7%.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Table 9. Table 10.

Government Employment Women-Owned Firms as Percent of Total Non-Farm Employment as Percent of Total Firms 2004 and 2006 2002

2006 2006 Percent 2004 2004 Percent Percent of Rank Region Government Rank Government Rank Region Total Firms 1 Washington, DC 21 .5% 1 21 .8% 1 Washington, DC 32 2%. 2 Austin 21 .1% 1 21 .8% 2 Portland 31 6%. 3 Raleigh 18 .5% 3 19 .0% 3 St . Louis 31 0%. 4 Richmond 18 .2% 4 18 .6% 4 Atlanta 30 6%. 5 Baltimore 16 .9% 5 17 .1% 5 Seattle 30 3%. 6 San Diego 16 .7% 6 17 .0% 6 Baltimore 30 3%. U S. . 16 .1% 16 .4% 7 San Diego 30 1%. 7 Seattle 15 .0% 7 15 .8% 8 Denver 30 0%. 8 Denver 13 .7% 9 14 .0% 9 Minneapolis 29 9%. 8 Portland 13 .7% 8 14 .3% 10 Raleigh 29 4%. 10 Minneapolis 13 .5% 10 13 .8% 11 Boston 29 0%. 11 Atlanta 13 .2% 11 13 .3% 12 Austin 28 0%. 12 Cleveland 13 .0% 11 13 .3% 13 Dallas 27 7%. 13 Indianapolis 12 .8% 13 13 .0% 14 Indianapolis 27 3%. 14 Dallas 12 .7% 14 12 .9% 15 Richmond 27 2%. 14 Philadelphia 12 .7% 14 12 .9% 16 Cleveland 26 8%. 16 Charlotte 12 .4% 16 12 .6% 17 Tampa 26 6%. 16 St . Louis 12 .4% 16 12 .6% 18 Charlotte 26 6%. 18 Boston 12 .2% 18 12 .2% 19 Pittsburgh 26 5%. 19 Tampa 11 .4% 19 11 .9% 20 Philadelphia 26 0%.

20 Pittsburgh 11 .2% 20 11 .3% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Business Owners

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Greater Baltimore State of the Region Report 2007 2 7 Table 11. Table 12.

Minority-Owned Firms Hispanic-Owned Firms as Percent of Total Firms as Percent of Total Firms 2002 2002

Percent of Percent of Rank Region Total Firms Rank Region Total Firms 1 Washington, DC 25 3%. 1 San Diego 13 .4% 2 Atlanta 21 6%. 2 Austin 11 .6% 3 Baltimore 13 0%. 3 Dallas 9 .6% 4 Richmond 12 6%. 4 Tampa 7 .4% 5 Dallas 12 3%. 5 Washington, DC 6 .6% 6 Seattle 11 7%. 6 Denver 5 .8% 7 San Diego 11 6%. 7 Atlanta 3 .5% 8 Philadelphia 10 9%. 8 Boston 3 .0% 9 Raleigh 10 3%. 9 Charlotte 2 .3% 10 Charlotte 10 0%. 10 Philadelphia 2 .2% 11 Cleveland 8 .9% 11 Raleigh 2 .1% 12 St . Louis 6 .8% 12 Portland 2 .0% 13 Boston 6 .6% 13 Seattle 1 .9% 14 Portland 6 .5% 14 Baltimore 1 .7% 15 Denver 6 .3% 15 Richmond 1 .3% 16 Indianapolis 5 .6% 16 Cleveland 1 .1% 17 Tampa 4 .6% 17 Minneapolis 1 .1% 18 Austin 4 .5% 18 Indianapolis 1 .0% 19 Minneapolis 3 .2% 19 St . Louis 0 .9% 20 Pittsburgh 2 .9% Pittsburgh NA

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Business Owners Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Business Owners Minority is defined as non-white.

Table 13.

High Tech Employment, by State 2005

High Tech Employment Rank State Region per 100,000 Population 1 District of Columbia Washington, DC 6,019 2 Massachusetts Boston 3,689 3 Virginia Richmond, DC suburbs 3,415 4 Colorado Denver 3,326 5 Maryland Baltimore, DC suburbs 2,890 6 California San Diego 2,522 7 Minnesota Minneapolis 2,477 8 Washington Seattle 2,447 9 Oregon Portland 2,245 10 Texas Austin, Dallas 1,896 11 Georgia Atlanta 1,735 12 Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pittsburgh 1,638 13 North Carolina Charlotte, Raleigh 1,607 14 Florida Tampa 1,528 15 Missouri St . Louis 1,511 16 Ohio Cleveland 1,328 17 Indiana Indianapolis 1,087

Source: Cyberstates 2007. Data at the metropolitan area level not available.

28 Economy ECONOMY

Employment Growth by Sector While Greater Baltimore experienced a 1.54 percent gain Greater Baltimore also experienced declines in em- in average annual employment from 2004 to 2006, this ployment growth within the information sector and in placed the region 13th among the comparison regions the manufacturing sectors. Among the 20 comparison and below the U.S. average of 1.80 percent. None of the regions, Greater Baltimore ranked 13th in information regions experienced job loss and six of the regions saw employment growth (-1.18 percent) and 17th in manufac- gains of more than 3 percent annually with Raleigh having turing employment growth (-1.77 percent). the greatest growth at 4.38 percent annually. With a 2.3 percent growth in high tech employment The Baltimore metro area experienced positive job between 2002 and 2005, Maryland was one of five growth in many sectors of the economy. Among the jurisdictions that registered an increase in this category. comparison regions, Greater Baltimore ranks 13th in Washington, D.C and Virginia also experienced increases professional and business services employment growth in high tech employment. This regional growth can be at- (3.0 percent), 11th in educational and health services tributed to the strong presence of the federal government (2.71 percent), 15th in financial services (0.79 percent), and the numerous federal laboratories. 9th in government employment (0.90 percent), and 14th in wholesale and retail trade employment growth (0.56 percent).

Table 14.

Total Non-Farm Employment Growth 2002–2004 vs . 2004–2006

2004-2006 2002-2004 2006 Rank Region Average Annual Growth 2004 Rank Average Annual Growth 1 Raleigh 4 .38% 3 1 .70% 2 Austin 3 .94% 7 0 .68% 3 Charlotte 3 .22% 14 0 .09% 4 Portland 3 .20% 8 0 .53% 5 Seattle 3 .12% 11 0 .24% 6 Dallas 3 .01% 15 -0 .13% 7 Tampa 2 .92% 1 2 .55% 8 Atlanta 2 .86% 12 0 .22% 9 Denver 2 .03% 16 -0 .21% 10 Washington, DC 1 .97% 2 2 .33% 11 Richmond 1 .91% 4 1 .41% U .S . 1 .80% 0 .42% 12 San Diego 1 .57% 5 1 .20% 13 Baltimore 1 .54% 9 0 .52% 14 Minneapolis 1 .43% 10 0 .50% 15 Indianapolis 1 .31% 6 1 .17% 16 St . Louis 1 .08% 18 -0 .44% 17 Philadelphia 0 .98% 13 0 .14% 18 Boston 0 .95% 20 -1 .24% 19 Cleveland 0 .19% 19 -0 .47% 20 Pittsburgh 0 .17% 17 -0 .37%

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Greater Baltimore State of the Region Report 2007 2 9 Table 15. Table 16.

Manufacturing Employment Growth Financial Services Employment Growth 2002–2004 vs . 2004–2006 2002–2004 vs . 2004–2006

2004–2006 2002–2004 2004-2006 2002-2004 2006 Average Annual 2004 Average Annual 2006 Average 2004 Average Rank Region Growth Rank Growth Rank Region Annual Growth Rank Annual Growth 1 Seattle 5 01%. 18 -5 .27% 1 Charlotte 6 .61% 3 3 .12% 2 Raleigh 3 31%. 10 -4 .10% 2 Tampa 4 .11% 7 1 .63% 3 Portland 2 83%. 3 -1 .49% 3 Austin 3 .75% 4 2 .63% 4 Dallas 1 14%. 7 -2 .81% 4 Dallas 3 .44% 14 0 .59% 5 Austin 1 05%. 14 -4 .80% 5 Atlanta 3 .22% 15 0 .46% 6 Tampa 1 01%. 5 -2 .18% 6 Portland 3 .18% 16 0 .38% 7 Minneapolis 0 49%. 4 -2 .04% 7 Raleigh 2 .94% 2 3 .36% 8 Denver 0 28%. 2 -1 .49% U .S . 2 .07% 1 .17% 9 Atlanta 0 17%. 6 -2 .28% 8 Denver 1 .38% 6 1 .69% 10 San Diego -0 .34% 9 -3 .60% 9 Boston 1 .31% 20 -2 .27% U S. . -0 .41% -3 .09% 10 Washington, DC 1 .30% 5 2 .12% 11 Indianapolis -0 .49% 1 -1 .44% 11 San Diego 1 .10% 1 4 .60% 12 Cleveland -0 .96% 8 -3 .43% 12 Seattle 1 .02% 9 1 .14% 13 Pittsburgh -1 .31% 19 -5 .34% 13 Minneapolis 0 .89% 8 1 .39% 14 Charlotte -1 .41% 20 -6 .59% 14 St . Louis 0 .84% 19 -0 .32% 15 Philadelphia -1 .63% 16 -4 .97% 15 Baltimore 0 .79% 10 1 .12% 15 Boston -1 .63% 15 -4 .95% 16 Richmond 0 .32% 17 0 .21% 17 St . Louis -1 .77% 12 -4 .25% 17 Philadelphia 0 .21% 18 0 .00% 17 Baltimore -1 .77% 17 -5 .12% 18 Indianapolis -0 .08% 13 0 .72% 19 Washington, -1 .89% 11 -4 .16% 19 Pittsburgh -0 .79% 12 0 .80% DC 20 Cleveland -1 .74% 11 0 .89% 20 Richmond -2 .16% 13 -4 .70% Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Table 17. Table 18.

Educational and Health Services Employment Growth Information Employment Growth 2002–2004 vs . 2004–2006 2002–2004 vs . 2004–2006

2004-2006 2002-2004 2004-2006 2002-2004 2006 Average 2004 Average 2006 Average Annual 2004 Average Annual Rank Region Annual Growth Rank Annual Growth Rank Region Growth Rank Growth 1 Raleigh 6 19%. 2 5 .08% 1 Seattle 3 .76% 2 -0 .07% 2 Richmond 5 53%. 1 7 .41% 2 Austin 3 .17% 14 -4 .65% 3 Charlotte 5 41%. 3 4 .28% 3 Portland 2 .89% 7 -2 .73% 4 Minneapolis 4 69%. 5 3 .58% 4 St . Louis 1 .19% 3 -1 .16% 5 Dallas 4 51%. 10 2 .61% 5 Charlotte 0 .93% 8 -3 .48% 6 Atlanta 4 35%. 6 3 .53% 6 San Diego 0 .82% 4 -1 .46% 7 Austin 3 51%. 9 2 .86% 7 Boston 0 .54% 18 -6 .39% 8 Portland 3 41%. 12 2 .12% 8 Richmond 0 .45% 15 -4 .84% 9 Denver 2 79%. 8 2 .91% 9 Raleigh 0 .29% 6 -2 .50% 10 Seattle 2 78%. 14 1 .46% 10 Tampa 0 .00% 11 -4 .05% 11 Baltimore 2 71%. 11 2 .22% 11 Philadelphia -0 .27% 20 -8 .75% U S. . 2 61%. 2 .33% 12 Dallas -1 .01% 17 -6 .27% 12 Philadelphia 2 41%. 16 1 .20% U .S . -1 .01% -4 .08% 13 St . Louis 2 40%. 20 0 .63% 13 Baltimore -1 .18% 5 -1 .61% 14 Pittsburgh 2 27%. 13 1 .69% 14 Indianapolis -1 .21% 1 0 .00% 15 Washington, DC 2 24%. 15 1 .32% 15 Atlanta -1 .46% 16 -5 .78% 15 Boston 2 24%. 17 1 .12% 16 Pittsburgh -1 .88% 9 -3 .67% 17 Cleveland 1 97%. 19 0 .64% 17 Cleveland -2 .51% 13 -4 .57% 18 Tampa 1 91%. 7 3 .28% 18 Minneapolis -2 .77% 12 -4 .52% 19 Indianapolis 1 84%. 4 4 .08% 19 Washington, DC -3 .44% 10 -4 .03% 20 San Diego 1 23%. 18 0 .84% 20 Denver -3 .60% 19 -6 .51%

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

30 Economy ECONOMY

Table 19. Table 20.

Professional and Business Services Employment Growth Wholesale and Retail Trade Employment Growth 2002–2004 vs . 2004–2006 2002–2004 vs . 2004–2006

2004-2006 2002-2004 2004-2006 2002-2004 2006 Average 2004 Average 2006 Average 2004 Average Rank Region Annual Growth Rank Annual Growth Rank Region Annual Growth Rank Annual Growth 1 Raleigh 7 16%. 5 1 82%. 1 Austin 4 .59% 3 1 .13% 2 Dallas 6 08%. 6 1 81%. 2 Tampa 2 .92% 14 -0 .26% 3 Seattle 5 78%. 12 0 77%. 2 Atlanta 2 .92% 19 -1 .32% 4 Austin 5 39%. 8 1 09%. 4 Portland 2 .85% 7 0 .42% 5 Portland 4 91%. 17 0 16%. 5 Charlotte 2 .23% 9 0 .31% 6 Tampa 4 59%. 1 8 53%. 6 Raleigh 1 .99% 4 0 .98% 7 Charlotte 4 22%. 19 0 00%. 7 Dallas 1 .97% 20 -2 .23% 8 Washington, DC 4 08%. 2 5 00%. 8 Seattle 1 .83% 13 -0 .14% 9 Denver 3 97%. 11 0 80%. 9 Denver 1 .72% 18 -1 .02% 10 Richmond 3 91%. 15 0 29%. 10 San Diego 1 .58% 1 2 .03% 11 Atlanta 3 78%. 14 0 64%. U .S . 1 .20% 0 .11% U S. . 3 53%. 1 31%. 11 Washington, DC 1 .10% 2 1 .66% 12 St . Louis 3 45%. 16 0 22%. 12 Richmond 1 .02% 5 0 .49% 13 Baltimore 3 00%. 10 0 94%. 13 Minneapolis 0 .98% 11 0 .00% 14 Minneapolis 2 96%. 18 0 04%. 14 Indianapolis 0 .56% 16 -0 .76% 15 Boston 2 67%. 20 -0 .80% 14 Baltimore 0 .56% 6 0 .46% 16 Indianapolis 2 66%. 3 4 19%. 16 St . Louis 0 .46% 8 0 .39% 17 Cleveland 2 62%. 9 1 03%. 17 Philadelphia 0 .16% 10 0 .06% 18 San Diego 2 27%. 13 0 67%. 18 Boston -0 .22% 17 -0 .81% 19 Pittsburgh 2 10%. 7 1 43%. 19 Cleveland -0 .45% 15 -0 .47% 20 Philadelphia 1 95%. 4 2 35%. 20 Pittsburgh -0 .79% 12 -0 .08%

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Table 21. Table 22.

Government Employment Growth Change in High Tech Employment, by State 2002–2004 vs . 2004–2006 2002 and 2005

2004-2006 2002-2004 % Change 2006 Average 2004 Average in High Tech Rank Region Annual Growth Rank Annual Growth Employment 1 Raleigh 2 77%. 1 3 40%. Rank State Region 2002-2005 2 Dallas 2 43%. 2 2 01%. 1 District of Columbia Washington, DC 6 .1% 3 Atlanta 2 38%. 5 1 36%. 2 Virginia Richmond, 4 .0% 4 Charlotte 2 26%. 4 1 75%. DC suburbs 5 Austin 2 09%. 11 0 35%. 3 Maryland Baltimore, 2 .3% DC suburbs 6 Washington, DC 1 29%. 3 1 86%. 4 Florida Tampa 2 .0% 7 Portland 1 06%. 8 0 86%. 5 Missouri St . Louis 0 .2% 8 Denver 1 04%. 14 -0 .12% 6 Washington Seattle -0 .3% 9 Baltimore 0 90%. 18 -1 .22% 7 North Carolina Charlotte, Raleigh -3 .2% U S. . 0 85%. 0 25%. 8 Indiana Indianapolis -3 .2% 10 San Diego 0 79%. 19 -1 .23% 9 Minnesota Minneapolis -4 .5% 11 Boston 0 78%. 20 -1 .39% 10 Oregon Portland -5 .6% 12 Tampa 0 65%. 13 0 14%. 11 Texas Austin, Dallas -6 .9% 13 Richmond 0 62%. 6 0 95%. 12 Pennsylvania Philadelphia, -6 .9% 14 Indianapolis 0 53%. 7 0 89%. Pittsburgh 15 Minneapolis 0 33%. 10 0 40%. 13 Massachusetts Boston -7 .2% 15 St . Louis 0 33%. 16 -0 .48% 14 California San Diego -7 .6% 17 Seattle 0 32%. 9 0 66%. 15 Ohio Cleveland -9 .7% 18 Philadelphia 0 17%. 12 0 27%. 16 Georgia Atlanta -10 .0% 19 Pittsburgh -0 .35% 15 -0 .35% 17 Colorado Denver -11 .2% 20 Cleveland -0 .98% 17 -0 .69% Source: Cyberstates 2007. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Data at the metropolitan area level not available.

Greater Baltimore State of the Region Report 2007 3 1 Table 23.

Annual Unemployment Rate 2004 and 2006

2006 Rank Region 2006 Rate 2004 Rank 2004 Rate 1 Washington, DC 3 .1 1 3 .3 2 Richmond 3 .2 5 4 .2 3 Tampa 3 .3 4 4 .1 4 Minneapolis 3 .7 6 4 .4 4 Raleigh 3 .7 2 3 .8 6 San Diego 4 .0 3 3 .9 7 Austin 4 .1 7 4 .7 7 Baltimore 4 .1 10 4 .8 9 Denver 4 .4 13 5 .6 9 Indianapolis 4 .4 7 4 .7 11 Seattle 4 .5 13 5 .6 12 Atlanta 4 .6 7 4 .7 12 Boston 4 .6 10 4 .8 12 Philadelphia 4 .6 12 5 .2 U .S . Average 4 .6 5 .5 15 Charlotte 4 .8 17 6 .0 15 Dallas 4 .8 18 6 .1 17 Pittsburgh 4 .9 13 5 .6 18 St . Louis 5 .0 19 6 .2 19 Portland 5 .1 20 7 .2 20 Cleveland 5 .4 16 5 .9

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Table 24.

Tourism and Conventions Leisure and Hospitality Employment as a Percent of Employment in Greater Baltimore’s leisure and hospital- Non-Farm Employment 2002–2004 vs . 2004–2006 ity sector increased by an average annual rate of 1.45 percent from 2004-2006, ranking the region 18th among 2006 Percent 2004 Percent 2006 Leisure & 2004 Leisure & the 20 regions and well below the national average of 2.60 Rank Region Hospitality Rank Hospitality percent. While the region’s leisure and hospitality employ- 1 San Diego 12 0%. 1 11 .6% ment growth slowed from 2002-2004, this sector accounts 2 St . Louis 10 5%. 2 10 .4% for 8.7 percent of total employment within the Greater 3 Denver 10 3%. 3 10 .1% Baltimore region with a ranking of 16th. 3 Austin 10 3%. 3 10 .1% The Baltimore metro area added 1,115 hotel rooms 5 Indianapolis 9 .9% 5 9 .6% between 2005 and 2007. The region’s 28,279 hotel rooms U .S . 9 .7% 9 .5% ranks it 14th among the benchmark metros. 6 Atlanta 9 .4% 6 9 .3% The Baltimore Convention Center’s 300,000 square 7 Pittsburgh 9 .3% 9 9 .2% feet of exhibit space ranks 15th among the 20 regions. 7 Charlotte 9 .3% 11 9 .1% 7 Dallas 9 .3% 6 9 .3% 7 Seattle 9 .3% 6 9 .3% 11 Portland 9 .2% 9 9 .2% 12 Tampa 9 .1% 11 9 .1% 12 Raleigh 9 .1% 13 8 .9% 14 Minneapolis 9 .0% 13 8 .9% 15 Cleveland 8 .8% 16 8 .6% 16 Baltimore 8 .7% 15 8 .7% 17 Boston 8 .6% 16 8 .6% 18 Washington, DC 8 .4% 18 8 .4% 19 Richmond 8 .1% 19 8 .0% 20 Philadelphia 7 .8% 20 7 .7%

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

32 Economy ECONOMY

Table 25.

Leisure and Hospitality Employment Growth 2004 and 2006

2004-2006 2002-2004 2006 Rank Region Average Annual Growth 2004 Rank Average Annual Growth 1 Raleigh 5 .70% 14 1 .70% 2 Austin 5 .14% 4 3 .85% 3 Charlotte 4 .40% 3 4 .07% 4 San Diego 3 .60% 1 4 .45% 5 Portland 3 .42% 13 1 .71% 6 Atlanta 3 .28% 6 2 .79% 7 Denver 3 .01% 17 1 .08% 8 Dallas 2 .98% 15 1 .56% 9 Seattle 2 .97% 8 2 .26% 10 Indianapolis 2 .90% 16 1 .33% 11 Tampa 2 .74% 12 1 .83% 12 Richmond 2 .69% 2 4 .38% U S. . 2 .60% 2 .11% 13 Minneapolis 2 .30% 10 2 .09% 14 Philadelphia 1 .97% 9 2 .20% 15 St . Louis 1 .75% 11 1 .93% 16 Washington, DC 1 .74% 5 3 .41% 17 Cleveland 1 .46% 19 0 .99% 18 Baltimore 1 .45% 7 2 .33% 19 Boston 1 .24% 20 0 .81% 20 Pittsburgh 0 .67% 18 1 .02%

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Table 26. Table 27.

Total Hotel Rooms, Metro Area Convention Center Size May 2007 2005

2007 Rank Square Feet Among Major Rank Region Exhibit Space Rank Markets Region Rooms 1 Dallas 2,650,000 1 5 Washington, DC 92,221 2 Atlanta 1,776,000 2 6 Atlanta 90,633 3 Cleveland 1,078,000 3 8 Dallas 71,004 4 Boston 709,000 4 11 San Diego 53,724 5 Washington, DC 703,000 5 15 Boston 48,413 6 San Diego 615,701 6 19 Tampa 41,422 7 Denver 584,000 7 20 Philadelphia 40,684 8 St . Louis 502,000 8 27 Denver 37,398 9 Portland* 485,860 9 29 Seattle 37,227 10 Minneapolis 475,000 10 32 St . Louis 35,740 11 Philadelphia 440,120 11 35 Minneapolis 35,142 12 Indianapolis 403,700 12 50 Charlotte 29,877 13 Seattle 360,000 13 57 Indianapolis 28,706 14 Pittsburgh 313,400 14 60 Baltimore 28,279 15 Baltimore 300,000 15 63 Austin 25,994 15 Richmond 300,000 16 73 Portland 24,208 17 Charlotte 280,000 17 77 Raleigh 23,478 18 Austin 264,325 18 86 Pittsburgh 21,909 19 Tampa 200,000 19 87 Cleveland 21,396 20 Raleigh 173,060 20 97 Richmond 19,141 Source: Baltimore Convention Center Source: Smith Travel *Source: Oregon Convention Center brochure MSAs based on 1993 OMB definitions.

Greater Baltimore State of the Region Report 2007 3 3 Table 28.

Innovation and Productivity Entrepreneurial Dynamism Greater Baltimore combined with the Washington D.C. 2006 metro ranked 6th nationally and 4th among the bench- Rank Region National Rank 2006 mark regions in 2006 for entrepreneurial dynamism. 1 Charlotte 2 This indicates that the region is among the top locations 2 Raleigh 3 for starting and growing businesses. 3 Austin 5 The Baltimore region ranked 10th among the bench- 4 Washington-Baltimore 6 mark metros for value added per manufacturing produc- 5 Indianapolis 16 6 Dallas 17 tion worker based on the 2002 Census of Manufacturers. 7 Denver 19 The 2007 Census of Manufacturers was not yet available 8 San Diego 20 for analysis. Richmond, Raleigh, and Austin rank as the 9 Atlanta 21 top three markets for productivity. 10 St . Louis 22 11 Cleveland 23 12 Richmond (1) 25 13 Seattle 31 14 Boston 32 15 Portland 36 16 Minneapolis 38 17 Philadelphia 45 18 Tampa 47 19 Pittsburgh 48

Source: Entrepreneur and NPRC’s 2006 Hot Cities for Entrepreneurs. MSAs based on 1993 OMB definitions. Baltimore combined with Washington in the ranking.

Table 29. Table 30.

Manufacturing: Total Value Added Manufacturing Productivity Value Added 2002 per Production Worker 2002 Value Added by Rank Region Manufacture ($000) Value Added Rank Value 1 Philadelphia $41,862,973 per Production per Added per 2 Dallas $37,123,089 Rank Region Worker Employee Employee 3 Boston $32,321,310 1 Richmond $471,692 1 $337,812 4 Atlanta $25,538,098 2 Raleigh $446,280 2 $293,388 5 Seattle $24,511,175 3 Austin $414,969 3 $251,555 6 Minneapolis $23,901,942 4 Charlotte $275,789 4 $195,376 7 St . Louis $19,759,458 5 Portland $261,538 6 $173,976 8 Portland $19,270,095 6 Seattle $258,344 8 $146,935 9 Charlotte $17,937,297 7 Indianapolis $256,216 5 $180,378 10 Cleveland $17,421,183 8 Philadelphia $251,579 7 $165,887 11 Richmond $16,784,211 9 Boston $246,694 10 $139,296 12 Indianapolis $16,728,071 10 Baltimore $214,030 11 $134,592 13 San Diego $14,187,121 11 Dallas $207,960 12 $132,333 14 Austin $12,444,916 12 San Diego $207,018 14 $121,128 15 Pittsburgh $11,846,449 13 Atlanta $205,508 9 $143,586 16 Baltimore $11,095,515 14 St . Louis $183,275 13 $131,816 17 Denver $8,591,224 15 Minneapolis $183,130 17 $113,818 18 Raleigh-Durham $8,460,133 16 Denver $181,721 15 $116,691 19 Washington, DC $8,251,283 17 Tampa $161,947 20 $102,638 20 Tampa $7,429,135 18 Pittsburgh $161,669 18 $109,855 19 Cleveland $150,183 19 $106,471 Source: Bureau of the Census 20 Washington, DC $102,861 16 $116,371 Census of Manufacturers: Area Series, 2002

Source: Bureau of the Census Census of Manufacturers: Area Series, 2002

34 Economy ECONOMY

Table 31.

Commercial Real Estate Rank of Office Market Size Greater Baltimore has the 19th largest office market size 2nd Quarter 2005 and 2nd Quarter 2007 nationally and is ranked 9th among the 20 comparison 2007 2005 metro areas. The region also ranks 7th among the study 2007 Q2 National 2005 Q2 National Rank Region Rank Rank Rank regions for office vacancy with an index of 13.7, falling 1 Washington, DC 2 1 2 four spots from 2004. Washington, D.C. and San Diego 2 Dallas 4 2 4 continue to have the tightest markets for which data was 3 Boston 6 3 6 available. 4 Atlanta 7 4 8 Despite an office vacancy rate of 13.7 percent and a 5 Philadelphia 10 5 10 central business district office vacancy rate of 14.9 per- 6 Denver 11 6 11 cent, Greater Baltimore has a relatively high office lease 7 Seattle 13 7 13 cost. The rate per square foot in the region is $23.68 8 Minneapolis 17 8 16 ranking 16th among the comparison areas. 9 Baltimore 19 9 19 10 San Diego 20 10 21 11 St . Louis 25 11 23 12 Portland 26 12 26 13 Tampa 30 14 31 14 Cleveland 32 13 30 15 Charlotte 33 16 34 16 Austin 34 15 33 17 Indianapolis 38 17 38 Pittsburgh NA NA Raleigh NA NA Richmond NA NA

Source: CB Richard Ellis, National Office Vacancy Index

Table 32. Table 33.

Office Vacancy Rate, Metro Area Change in Office Vacancy Rate, Metro Area 2004 and 2006 2004 and 2006

Average of 2006 Average of 2004 2004-2006 2002-2004 2006 Quarterly Office 2004 Quarterly Office Net Change in Net Change in Rank Region Vacancy Index Rank Vacancy Index 2006 Office Vacancy 2004 Office Vacancy 1 Washington, DC 9 3. 1 10 .3 Rank Region Rate Rank Rate 2 San Diego 9 7. 2 10 .4 1 Denver -5 .8 15 3 .8 3 Tampa 11 .5 8 16 .7 2 Boston -5 .3 17 5 .5 4 Portland 11 .7 5 15 .7 3 Tampa -5 .3 9 2 .4 5 Seattle 12 .8 6 16 .1 4 Austin -4 .8 16 4 .6 6 Boston 13 .6 12 18 .9 5 Portland -4 .0 1 -1 .9 7 Baltimore 13 .7 3 13 .9 6 Atlanta -3 .9 11 2 .5 8 Philadelphia 14 .4 7 16 .4 7 Seattle -3 .4 6 0 .9 9 St . Louis 14 .5 9 17 .3 8 Dallas -3 .4 9 2 .4 10 Charlotte 14 .6 4 15 .4 9 St . Louis -2 .9 3 0 10 Denver 14 .6 15 20 .4 10 Indianapolis -2 .6 4 0 .1 12 Austin 15 .5 14 20 .3 10 Minneapolis -2 .0 13 3 .3 13 Indianapolis 15 .9 11 18 .5 12 Philadelphia -2 .0 14 3 .4 14 Minneapolis 16 .0 10 18 .1 13 Cleveland -1 .4 12 3 15 Cleveland 18 .4 13 19 .8 14 Washington, DC -1 .0 7 1 .3 16 Atlanta 19 .3 16 23 .1 15 Charlotte -0 .8 8 1 .7 17 Dallas 21 .1 17 24 .4 16 San Diego -0 .7 2 -0 .4 Pittsburgh NA NA 17 Baltimore -0 .2 5 0 .3 Raleigh NA NA Pittsburgh NA Richmond NA NA Raleigh NA Richmond NA Source: CB Richard Ellis, National Office Vacancy Index Source: CB Richard Ellis, National Office Vacancy Index

Greater Baltimore State of the Region Report 2007 3 5

Table 34. Table 35.

Office Vacancy Rate, Central Business District Office Lease Rates 2004 and 2006 2007, 1st Half

Average of Average of Rate Per % Change 2006 Quarterly 2004 Quarterly Rank Region Square Foot 12 Months 2006 Office Vacancy 2004 Office Vacancy 1 Minneapolis $16 .50 -14 .2 Rank Region Index Rank Index 2 Dallas $17 .20 -1 .9 1 Charlotte 5 1. 2 9 .0 3 Indianapolis $18 .77 1 .3 2 Washington, DC 7 5. 1 8 .3 4 Cleveland $19 .68 -2 .2 3 Boston 9 1. 6 12 7. 5 Charlotte $19 .69 3 .6 4 Portland 9 4. 5 11 3. 6 Raleigh $19 .97 4 .3 5 San Diego 10 .6 3 9 .3 7 Atlanta (CBD) $20 .16 0 .4 6 Philadelphia 11 .3 4 11 2. 8 Atlanta (suburban) $20 .81 2 .5 6 Denver 11 .3 8 15 6. 9 St . Louis $21 .21 0 .4 8 Seattle 12 .5 7 15 3. 10 Pittsburgh $21 .48 -0 .5 9 Indianapolis 14 .1 9 16 1. 11 Austin $21 .81 4 .9 10 Baltimore 14 .9 11 17 3. 12 Denver $22 .17 17 .0 11 St . Louis 17 .0 12 20 1. 13 Tampa $22 .46 9 .1 12 Tampa 17 .4 10 16 9. 14 Philadelphia $22 .60 0 .7 13 Minneapolis 18 .5 14 20 9. 15 Portland $23 .00 6 .6 14 Dallas 19 .5 17 24 7. 16 Baltimore $23 .68 1 .3 15 Atlanta 19 .6 15 21 2. 17 Boston (suburban) $24 .34 11 .8 16 Austin 20 .1 16 22 3. 18 Seattle (suburban) $25 .93 10 .2 16 Cleveland 20 .1 13 20 6. 19 Seattle (CBD) $29 .04 17 .0 Pittsburgh NA NA 20 Washington, DC $30 .13 8 .0 Raleigh NA NA (suburban) Richmond NA NA 21 San Diego $33 .33 -0 .8

Source: CB Richard Ellis, National Office Vacancy Index 22 Boston (CBD) $40 .86 17 .6 23 Washington, DC (CBD) $44 .00 3 .3 Richmond NA NA

Source: CB Richard Ellis Global Market Rates

36 Economy

Education & Workforce

2007 Education & Workforce

Table 1. One of the prime reasons that businesses choose to locate within a region is the presence of a skilled and educated College Education Attainment, Persons 25 and Older workforce. The Greater Baltimore workforce is among the 2006 most highly skilled and educated in the nation. The metro Percent Completed area ranks 10th among the comparison metros in the Rank Region Bachelor’s Degree or More percentage of persons with a Bachelor’s degree or higher 1 Washington, DC 45 .90% (33 percent) and the Baltimore metro’s close neighbor 2 Boston 40 .60% of Washington, D.C. is ranked 1st with nearly 46 percent 3 Raleigh 39 .20% having a Bachelor’s degree or higher. Over 86 percent of 4 Austin 39 .10% 5 Denver 36 .80% persons in the Greater Baltimore region have completed 6 Minneapolis 36 .30% a high school degree or above, placing the region 14th 7 Seattle 35 .80% among the 20 benchmark regions. 8 San Diego 34 .00% Greater Baltimore maintained its 1st place ranking for 9 Atlanta 33 .30% research and development funding at academic institu- 10 Baltimore 33 .00% tions with nearly $1.9 billion invested in 2005. This funding 11 Portland 31 .90% is important to the overall economic growth and vitality of 12 Philadelphia 31 .70% the region, especially in the continued growth of the high 13 Charlotte 30 .50% technology and education and health service sectors 14 Richmond 30 .30% 15 Indianapolis 29 .50% 16 Dallas 29 .40% 17 St . Louis 28 .60% 18 Pittsburgh 27 .10% 19 Cleveland 25 .70% 20 Tampa 25 .00%

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey

Table 2. Table 3.

High School Educational Attainment, Academic Research and Development Expenditures Persons 25 and Older by Metro Area 2006 FY 2005

Percent Completed R&D Funding Rank Region High School or More Rank Region (thousands of dollars) 1 Minneapolis 92 20%. 1 Baltimore 1,890,639 2 Seattle 90 60%. 2 Boston 1,691,273 3 Pittsburgh 89 60%. 3 San Diego 1,135,500 4 Boston 89 50%. 4 Philadelphia 1,067,677 5 Portland 89 10%. 5 Atlanta 861,197 6 Washington, DC 89 00%. 6 Washington, DC 764,926 7 Denver 88 00%. 7 Pittsburgh 719,336 8 Raleigh 87 30%. 8 Seattle 708,602 9 Indianapolis 87 20%. 9 St . Louis 612,141 10 Philadelphia 87 10%. 10 Minneapolis 552,229 11 Austin 87 00%. 11 Dallas 446,358 12 St . Louis 86 70%. 12 Austin 418,242 13 Cleveland 86 50%. 13 Cleveland 341,067 14 Baltimore 86 30%. 14 Raleigh 304,460 15 Tampa 86 00%. 15 Portland 298,241 16 Atlanta 85 80%. 16 Denver 289,654 17 Charlotte 85 30%. 17 Tampa 259,552 18 San Diego 84 70%. 18 Richmond 153,250 19 Richmond 84 50%. 19 Charlotte 17,303 20 Dallas 81 20%. 20 Indianapolis 201

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey Source: National Science Foundation

38 Education & Workforce EDUCATION & WORKFORCE

Table 4. Table 5.

Total Full-Time Equivalent Total College Undergraduate Undergraduate Enrollment in Colleges and Universities Enrollment per 100,000 Population Fall 2005 Fall 2005 Total FTE Undergraduate Rank Region Total FTE Enrollment Rank Region Enrollment per 100,000 Persons 1 Philadelphia 204,621 1 Austin 5,506 2 Boston 190,083 2 San Diego 4,617 3 Washington, DC 164,247 3 Boston 4,273 4 Dallas 157,493 4 Raleigh 3,998 5 San Diego 135,589 5 Pittsburgh 3,854 6 Atlanta 130,250 6 Seattle 3,611 7 Seattle 115,838 7 St . Louis 3,591 8 Minneapolis 112,250 8 Minneapolis 3,574 9 St . Louis 99,910 9 Philadelphia 3,524 10 Pittsburgh 91,789 10 Baltimore 3,457 11 Baltimore 91,643 11 Richmond 3,286 12 Tampa 83,143 12 Denver 3,218 13 Austin 80,101 13 Tampa 3,142 14 Denver 75,995 14 Washington, DC 3,128 15 Portland 63,552 15 Portland 3,031 16 Cleveland 55,808 16 Charlotte 3,024 17 Charlotte 46,016 17 Dallas 2,705 18 Indianapolis 39,584 18 Cleveland 2,626 19 Richmond 38,563 19 Atlanta 2,620 20 Raleigh 38,056 20 Indianapolis 2,414

Source: U.S. Department of Education FTE enrollment includes all of full time and one/third of Source: U.S. Department of Education FTE enrollment includes all of full time and one/third of part time students part time students

Table 6. Table 7.

Total Full-Time Equivalent Graduate Enrollment Total College Graduate Enrollment in Colleges and Universities per 100,000 Population Fall 2005 Fall 2005

Total FTE Total FTE Graduate Enrollment Rank Region Enrollment Rank Region per 100,000 Persons 1 Boston 54,610 1 Boston 1,227 2 Washington, DC 40,187 2 Minneapolis 1,219 3 Minneapolis 38,305 3 Austin 942 4 Philadelphia 31,956 4 San Diego 812 5 Dallas 24,302 5 Washington, DC 765 6 San Diego 23,848 6 St . Louis 728 7 St . Louis 20,269 7 Baltimore 701 8 Atlanta 19,548 8 Pittsburgh 641 9 Baltimore 18,574 9 Philadelphia 550 10 Pittsburgh 15,260 10 Denver 542 11 Seattle 15,127 11 Raleigh 522 12 Austin 13,703 12 Seattle 472 13 Denver 12,804 13 Richmond 429 14 Portland 8,303 14 Dallas 417 15 Tampa 7,455 15 Portland 396 16 Cleveland 7,163 16 Atlanta 393 17 Richmond 5,033 17 Cleveland 337 18 Raleigh 4,972 18 Tampa 282 19 Indianapolis 4,183 19 Indianapolis 255 20 Charlotte 3,607 20 Charlotte 237

Source: U.S. Department of Education FTE enrollment includes all of full time and one/third of Source: U.S. Department of Education FTE enrollment includes all of full time and one/third of part time students part time students

Greater Baltimore State of the Region Report 2007 3 9

Transportation

2007 Transportation

Greater Baltimore is ranked 36th nationally and 3rd regions for air passenger growth. Located close by in the among the 20 comparison metro areas in its transporta- Washington, D.C. metro area, Dulles International and tion system by Cities Ranked and Rated. This ranking Reagan National served more than 44.6 million persons takes into account 13 different characteristics including in 2005, 3rd among the 20 benchmarks. The growth in commuting, air and rail travel and automotive costs. air passengers at these two airports increased 33 percent The Greater Baltimore region possesses 7,102 from 2002–2005 placing Washington, D. C. 1st among the roadway miles (13th among the comparison regions) comparison metro areas. and is centrally located between Philadelphia (2nd) and With over 6 percent of persons aged 16 and over using Washington D.C. (5th). On average, each person in the public transportation in 2006, Greater Baltimore ranks region travels a total of 24 miles daily, ranking Baltimore 5th (tied with Portland) among the benchmark metros. 8th among the 20 benchmark metros. Greater Baltimore Washington, D. C. ranks 1st with 14.2 percent and remained ranked 18th among the comparison metros in Raleigh ranks 20th at 1.0 percent. Among the 20 regions, average travel time to work (28.9 minutes), despite the The Greater Baltimore metro ranks 6th for mass transit fact that the travel time has decreased slightly from 32 usage, with 112.6 million passenger trips. The region minutes in 2000. The region’s residents waste on average ranks 7th for average weekday trips for all modes, 5th 32 gallons of fuel per year and 44 hours to congestion on for heavy rail (44,500 average weekday trips), 10th for the region’s roadways. A recent study by Texas A&M light rail (21,400 average weekday trips), and 7th for bus University System’s Texas Transportation Institute found (213,800 average weekday trips). Baltimore’s light rail that traffic congestion in the Greater Baltimore region figures increased significantly from 2005 (14,500 average costs $1 billion per year in terms of wasted fuel, time and weekday trips) but are still below levels experienced in economic opportunity. 2002 (28,000 average weekday trips), which was attained BWI Thurgood Marshall Airport is the nation’s 26th before both north and south sections were closed for largest airport, serving more than 20.1 million passen- long periods of time to accommodate double-tracking gers in 2005. This ranks Baltimore 10th among the 20 construction. benchmarks. BWI grew its passenger base by 5.8 per- cent from 2002-2005, placing Baltimore 18th among the

42 Transportation TRANSPORTATION

Table 1. Table 2.

Average Air Fare Yield, Cost per Mile Air Passenger Growth 2005 Q1 and 2007 Q1 2002–2005

2007 2007 2005 2005 Percent Change Q1 Rank Region Q1 (cents) Q1 Rank Q1 (cents) Rank Region 2002–2005 1 San Diego 13 .7 2 12 .5 1 Washington, DC 33 0%. 2 Seattle 13 .8 1 12 .2 (Dulles Intl & Reagan Natl) 3 Baltimore 14 .0 4 12 .8 2 Philadelphia (Philadelphia Intl) 21 3%. 4 Tampa 14 .1 2 12 .5 3 Indianapolis (Indianapolis Intl) 19 1%. 5 Philadelphia 14 .8 6 13 .3 4 Richmond (Richmond Intl) 18 7%. 6 Denver 15 .3 9 16 .4 5 Tampa (Tampa Intl) 18 6%. 7 Portland 15 .4 8 14 .3 6 Denver (Denver Intl) 17 8%. 8 Boston 15 .6 7 13 .4 7 Charlotte (Douglas Intl) 16 3%. 9 Indianapolis 16 .2 5 13 .1 8 Boston (Logan Intl) 16 2%. 9 Pittsburgh 16 .2 14 18 .0 9 San Diego (San Diego Intl) 14 0%. 11 Minneapolis 17 .5 10 16 .6 10 Minneapolis (Minneapolis/St . Paul Intl) 13 2%. 12 Austin 18 .4 14 18 .0 11 Austin (Austin-Bergstrom Intl) 12 8%. 13 Cleveland 18 .7 12 16 .9 12 Portland (Portland Intl) 11 8%. 14 Washington, DC 18 .8 12 16 .9 13 Atlanta (Hartsfield Atlanta Intl) 10 5%. 15 Raleigh 19 .4 10 16 .6 14 Dallas (Dallas/Ft .Worth Intl + Love Field) 10 2%. 16 St . Louis 19 .6 16 18 .6 15 Seattle (Seattle/Tacoma Intl) 8 .9% 16 Dallas 19 .6 18 19 .3 16 Cleveland (Hopkins Intl) 8 .8% 18 Charlotte 22 .0 19 27 .2 17 Raleigh (Raleigh-Durham Intl) 7 .5% 19 Atlanta 23 .0 17 18 .9 18 Baltimore (BWI Thurgood Marshall) 5 .8% 20 Richmond 27 .4 20 33 .9 19 Pittsburgh (Pittsburgh Intl) -72 .0% 20 St . Louis (Lambert/St . Louis Intl) -74 .4% Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Aviation Analysis Source: Airports Council International

Table 3.

Total Air Passengers 2005

Rank National Rank Region Total Passengers 1 1 Atlanta (Hartsfield Atlanta Intl) 85,907,423 2 4 and 59 Dallas (Dallas/Ft .Worth Intl + Love Field) 65,085,864 3 21 and 29 Washington, DC (Dulles Intl & Reagan Natl) 44,686,694 4 6 Denver (Denver Intl) 43,387,513 5 10 Minneapolis (Minneapolis/St . Paul Intl) 37,604,373 6 15 Philadelphia (Philadelphia Intl) 31,495,385 7 18 Seattle (Seattle/Tacoma Intl) 29,289,026 8 19 Charlotte (Douglas Intl) 28,206,052 9 20 Boston (Logan Intl) 27,087,905 10 26 Baltimore (BWI Thurgood Marshall) 20,187,741 11 28 Tampa (Tampa Intl) 19,045,390 12 31 San Diego (San Diego Intl) 17,372,521 13 33 St . Louis (Lambert/St . Louis Intl) 14,697,263 14 35 Portland (Portland Intl) 13,879,701 15 36 Cleveland (Hopkins Intl) 11,463,391 16 40 Pittsburgh (Pittsburgh Intl) 10,478,605 17 46 Raleigh (Raleigh-Durham Intl) 9,204,490 18 47 Indianapolis (Indianapolis Intl) 8,524,442 19 50 Austin (Austin-Bergstrom Intl) 7,683,545 20 84 Richmond (Richmond Intl) 2,903,503

Source: Airports Council International

Greater Baltimore State of the Region Report 2007 4 3 Table 4. Table 5.

Workers 16 and Older Using Public Transportation Average Travel Time to Work 2006 2006

2006 Travel Time Rank Region Percent Rank Region 2006 Minutes 1 Washington, DC 14 2%. 1 Cleveland 23 .5 2 Boston 11 3%. 2 Indianapolis 23 .5 3 Philadelphia 8 .8% 3 Minneapolis 23 .9 4 Seattle 7 .5% 4 Richmond 24 .3 5 Baltimore 6 .4% 5 Portland 24 .6 5 Portland 6 .4% 6 Pittsburgh 24 .7 7 Pittsburgh 6 .0% 7 St . Louis 24 .8 8 Denver 4 .6% 8 San Diego 24 .9 9 Minneapolis 4 .1% 9 Charlotte 25 .2 10 Cleveland 3 .9% 10 Austin 25 .3 11 Atlanta 3 .7% 11 Tampa 25 .8 12 San Diego 3 .1% 12 Raleigh 26 .1 13 St . Louis 2 .5% 13 Denver 26 .2 14 Austin 2 .3% 14 Dallas 26 .5 15 Charlotte 1 .7% 15 Philadelphia 27 .8 16 Dallas 1 .6% 16 Seattle 27 .8 16 Richmond 1 .6% 17 Boston 27 .9 18 Tampa 1 .4% 18 Baltimore 28 .9 19 Indianapolis 1 .1% 19 Atlanta 31 .2 20 Raleigh 1 .0% 20 Washington, DC 33 .2

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey

Table 6. Table 7.

Transportation Ranking Transit Use: Passenger Trips Urbanized Areas Over 2007 1,000,000 Population FY 2004 Rank Region National Ranking Score 1 Philadelphia 3 99 5. Unlinked Passenger Trips 2 Minneapolis 10 97 6. Rank Region (thousands) 3 Baltimore 36 90 6. 1 Boston 396,087 .1 4 Boston 118 68 7. 2 Washington, DC 389,910 .3 5 Richmond 121 67 9. 3 Philadelphia 332,690 .4 6 Indianapolis 129 65 8. 4 Atlanta 136,157 .1 7 Dallas 175 53 5. 5 Seattle (1) 117,200 .4 8 Washington, DC 186 50 5. 6 Baltimore 112,634 .1 9 San Diego 194 48 4. 7 San Diego (2) 104,167 .2 10 Tampa 228 39 3. 8 Portland 98,412 .9 11 Pittsburgh 249 33 7. 9 Dallas (3) 84,559 .4 12 Portland 254 32 4. 10 Denver 82,362 .8 13 Denver 253 32 4. 11 Pittsburgh 66,021 .1 14 Cleveland 259 30 5. 12 Cleveland 57,868 .3 15 Seattle 282 24 9. 13 Minneapolis 56,901 .4 16 St . Louis 285 24 1. 14 St . Louis 45,516 .7 17 Charlotte 286 23 5. 15 Tampa (4) 20,370 .0 18 Austin 329 12 3. 16 Indianapolis 9,299 .5 19 Atlanta 332 11 5. 17 Austin NA 20 Raleigh 352 5 .9 18 Charlotte NA 19 Raleigh NA Source: Cities Ranked and Rated, 2007. 20 Richmond NA Rankings are based on 13 different characteristics including commuting, air and rail travel and automotive costs. Source: U.S. Federal Transit Administration Data for some areas may be understated since not all transit agencies report; data for some areas may be overstated since some transit agencies serve other urbanized areas and only agency-total data are reported. (1) Includes Data from two agencies: Seattle (King County Transportation) & Tacoma (Pierce Transit) (2) Includes Data from two agencies: San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) & San Diego Trolley, Inc. (3) Includes data from two agencies: Dallas Area Rapid Transit & Fort Worth Transportation Authority (4) Includes data from two agencies: Hillsborough Area Reg TA & Pinellas Tran Auth 44 Transportation TRANSPORTATION

Table 8. Table 9.

Transit Ridership (All Modes) Transit Ridership Per Capita 2007 Q1 2007 Q1

Average Weekday Ridership Rank Region Unlinked Trips All Modes Rank Region per 1,000 residents 1 Washington, DC 1,334,000 1 Boston (1) 254 2 Boston (1) 1,130,800 2 Washington, DC 252 3 Philadelphia 1,053,300 3 Seattle (2) 189 4 Seattle (2) 556,900 4 Philadelphia 181 5 Atlanta 474,700 5 Portland 145 6 Dallas (3) 332,600 6 Baltimore 122 7 Baltimore 324,700 7 Denver 110 8 Portland 310,600 8 Pittsburgh 99 9 Denver 265,100 9 Cleveland (3) 93 10 San Diego (4) 246,700 10 Atlanta 92 11 Pittsburgh 235,300 11 San Diego (4) 88 12 Minneapolis (5) 230,200 12 Austin 78 13 Cleveland (5) 197,600 13 Minneapolis (3) 73 14 St . Louis (5) 152,200 14 Charlotte 61 15 Austin 117,400 15 Dallas (5) 55 16 Charlotte 96,400 16 St . Louis (3) 47 17 Tampa (6) 78,200 17 Richmond 31 18 Richmond 37,600 18 Tampa (6) 29 19 Indianapolis 26,600 19 Indianapolis 16 20 Raleigh NA 20 Raleigh NA

Source: American Public Transportation Association Data for some areas may be understated Source: American Public Transportation Association (1) First Quarter 2005 (2) Includes Data since not all transit agencies report it; data for some areas may be overstated since some transit from two agencies: King County Transportation (Seattle) & Pierce Transit (Tacoma) (3) First agencies serve other urbanized areas and only agency-total data are reported. Quarter 2006 (4) Includes Data from three agencies: San Diego Metropolitan Transit & San (1) First Quarter 2005 (2) Includes Data from two agencies: Seattle (King County Transporta- Diego Trolley & San Diego Transit Corp (5) Includes data from two agencies: Dallas Area Rapid tion) & Tacoma (Pierce Transit) (3) Includes data from two agencies: Dallas Area Rapid Transit & Transit & Fort Worth Transportation Authority (6) Includes data from two agencies: Fort Worth Transportation Authority (4) Includes Data from three agencies: San Diego Metro- Hillsborough Area Reg TA & Pinellas Tran Auth politan Transit & San Diego Trolley & San Diego Transit Corp (5) First Quarter 2006 (6) Includes data from two agencies: Hillsborough Area Reg TA & Pinellas Tran Auth Table 11.

Table 10. Transit Ridership (Light Rail) 2007 Q1 Transit Ridership (Heavy Rail) 2007 Q1 Average Weekday Average Rank Region Transit Agency Unlinked Trips Weekday Rank Region Transit Agency Unlinked Trips 1 Boston (1) Massachusetts Bay 173,300 1 Washington Washington Metro Area 910,100 Transportation Authority D .C . Transit Authority 2 Portland Tri-County Metropolitan 102,000 2 Boston (1) Massachusetts Bay 414,900 Transportation Transportation Authority 3 San Diego San Diego Trolley, Inc . 96,700 3 Philadelphia Southeastren Pennsylvania 312,400 4 Philadelphia Southeastren Pennsylvania 71,900 Transit Authority Transit Authority 4 Atlanta Metro Atlanta Rapid 250,200 5 Denver Regional Transportation 60,400 Transit Authority Dist . 5 Baltimore Maryland Transit 44,500 6 Dallas Dallas Area Rapid Transit 58,200 Administration 7 St . Louis (2) METRO 41,500 6 Cleveland Greater Clevelend 26,500 8 Pittsburgh Port Authority of 23,800 Regional Transit Authority Allegheny County 9 Minneapolis (2) Metro Transit 23,000 Source: American Public Transportation Association Data for some areas may be understated since not all transit agencies report it; data for some 10 Baltimore Maryland Transit 21,400 areas may be overstated since some transit agencies serve other urbanized areas and only Administration agency-total data are reported. (1) First Quarter 2005 11 Cleveland Greater Cleveland Regional 12,400 Transit Authority 12 Seattle (1) Sound Transit 2,800 13 Tampa Hillsborough Area 900 Regional Transit Authority

Source: American Public Transportation Association Data for some areas may be understated since not all transit agencies report it; data for some areas may be overstated since some transit agencies serve other urbanized areas and only agency-total data are reported. (1) First Quarter 2005 (2) First Quarter 2006

Greater Baltimore State of the Region Report 2007 4 5 Table 12.

Transit Ridership (Bus) 2007 Q1

Average Weekday Rank Region Transit Agency Unlinked Trips 1 Philadelphia Southeastren Pennsylvania Transit Authority 554,400 2 Seattle King County Transportation & Pierce Transit 439,600 3 Washington, DC Washington Metro Area Transit Authority 423,900 4 Boston (1) Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 381,400 5 Dallas Dallas Rapid Transit & Fort Worth Trans Auth . 250,800 6 Atlanta Metro Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority 223,200 7 Baltimore Maryland Transit Administration 213,800 8 Minneapolis (2) Metro Transit 207,300 9 Portland Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation 205,000 10 Pittsburgh Port Authority of Allegheny County 204,100 11 Cleveland Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority 181,400 12 San Diego San Diego Transit Corp . & San Diego Metro Transit 147,700 13 Denver Regional Transportation Dist . 125,500 14 St . Louis (2) METRO 108,400 15 Tampa Hillsborough Area Reg TA & Pinellas Tran Auth 75,700 16 Austin Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority 75,600 17 Charlotte Charlotte Area Transit System 72,700 18 Richmond Greater Richmond Transit Company 35,400 19 Indianapolis Indianapolis Public Transportation Corp 25,500

Source: American Public Transportation Association Data for some areas may be understated since not all transit agencies report it; data for some areas may be overstated since some transit agencies serve other urbanized areas and only agency-total data are reported. (1) First Quarter 2005 (2) First Quarter 2006

Table 13. Table 14.

Roadway Miles Roadway Miles Per Capita 2005 2005

Rank Region (1) Total Roadway Miles Roadway Miles 1 Atlanta 19,504 Rank Region (1) per Thousand Persons 2 Philadelphia 19,080 1 Raleigh 5 .2 3 Dallas 17,798 1 Pittsburgh 5 .2 4 Boston 16,776 1 Indianapolis 5 .2 5 Washington, DC 11,545 1 Austin 5 .2 6 Minneapolis 11,057 5 Richmond 5 .1 7 Seattle 10,785 6 St . Louis 4 .8 8 St . Louis 10,024 6 Dallas 4 .8 9 Tampa 9,467 8 Atlanta 4 .7 10 Pittsburgh 9,235 9 Minneapolis 4 .4 11 Denver 8,197 9 Charlotte 4 .4 12 Cleveland 7,232 11 Tampa 4 .2 13 Baltimore 7,102 12 Boston 4 .1 14 Portland 6,891 12 Cleveland 4 .1 15 San Diego 5,077 14 Portland 4 .0 16 Indianapolis 4,755 15 Denver 3 .9 17 Richmond 4,682 16 Philadelphia 3 .6 18 Charlotte 3,738 16 Seattle 3 .6 19 Raleigh 3,530 18 Baltimore 3 .3 20 Austin 3,302 19 Washington, DC 2 .7 20 San Diego 1 .7 Source: U.S. Federal Highway Administration (1) This tables uses the Urbanized Area rather than the MSA Source: U.S. Federal Highway Administration (1) This tables uses the Urbanized Area rather than the MSA

46 Transportation TRANSPORTATION

Table 15.

Transit Farebox Recovery 2004

Fare Revenues Operating Farebox Recovery Rank Region Mode Earned Expenses Percent 1 Philadelphia Bus 147,683,906 400,367,435 36 9%. 2 Baltimore Bus 59,413,337 177,251,647 33 5%. 3 San Diego Bus 22,500,658 75,525,835 29 8%. 4 Atlanta Bus 48,732,853 165,459,043 29 5%. 5 Richmond Bus 7,331,198 27,091,097 27 1%. 6 Minneapolis Bus 48,785,657 186,088,934 26 2%. 7 Pittsburgh Bus 56,352,308 219,056,516 25 7%. 8 Denver Bus 39,867,897 160,164,590 24 9%. 9 Washington, DC Bus 96,633,174 395,725,481 24 4%. 10 Indianapolis Bus 7,210,068 30,285,635 23 8%. 11 Boston Bus 53,546,734 242,582,169 22 1%. 12 Portland Bus 37,208,055 183,577,437 20 3%. 13 Tampa Bus 7,428,308 38,412,495 19 3%. 14 St . Louis Bus 21,234,195 110,332,283 19 2%. 15 Cleveland Bus 30,604,774 159,993,401 19 1%. 16 Seattle Bus 56,913,382 309,420,258 18 4%. 17 Charlotte Bus 9,374,336 53,836,678 17 4%. 18 Dallas Bus 24,503,269 187,190,414 13 1%. 19 Austin Bus 3,511,261 73,021,190 4 .8%

1 San Diego Light Rail $24,196,943 $41,830,450 57 8%. 2 Boston Light Rail $51,704,769 $107,081,950 49 2%. 3 Denver Light Rail $8,050,707 $21,689,060 37 1%. 4 Portland Light Rail $19,822,219 $56,965,750 34 8%. 5 Philadelphia Light Rail $14,787,752 $46,088,287 32 1%. 6 Tampa Light Rail $448,089 $1,626,233 27 6%. 7 St . Louis Light Rail $9,376,280 $36,293,685 25 8%. 8 Pittsburgh Light Rail $5,818,124 $35,589,571 16 3%. 9 Baltimore Light Rail $5,432,412 $33,687,929 16 1%. 10 Seattle Light Rail $226,322 $1,426,751 15 9%. 11 Dallas Light Rail $8,760,375 $57,023,065 15 4%. 12 Cleveland Light Rail $1,742,726 $12,765,722 13 7%.

1 Washington D .C . Heavy Rail $322,272,047 $525,516,163 61 3%. 2 Philadelphia Heavy Rail $72,039,379 $125,380,076 57 5%. 3 Boston Heavy Rail $96,684,267 $214,246,802 45 1%. 4 Atlanta Heavy Rail $43,614,432 $123,208,332 35 4%. 5 Baltimore Heavy Rail $11,580,711 $41,810,635 27 7%. 6 Cleveland Heavy Rail $4,956,439 $23,869,102 20 8%.

Source: U.S. Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Database

Greater Baltimore State of the Region Report 2007 4 7

Table 16. Table 17.

Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel Per Capita 2005 2005

Rank Region (1) Daily Vehicle-Miles of Travel Rank Region (1) DVMT (thousands) Per Capita 1 Austin 21,095 1 Portland 20 .0 2 Raleigh 22,892 2 Philadelphia 20 .1 3 Richmond 26,187 3 Cleveland 22 .0 4 Charlotte 29,513 3 Pittsburgh 22 .0 5 Indianapolis 30,572 5 Boston 23 .0 6 Portland 35,144 5 Seattle 23 .0 7 Cleveland 38,642 5 Washington, DC 23 .0 8 Pittsburgh 38,674 8 Baltimore 24 .0 9 Denver 52,437 8 San Diego 24 .0 10 Baltimore 52,541 10 Denver 25 .0 11 Tampa 63,178 10 Minneapolis 25 .0 12 Minneapolis 63,491 12 Tampa 28 .0 13 St . Louis 63,584 13 Richmond 28 .8 14 Seattle 69,967 14 St . Louis 30 .2 15 San Diego 70,408 15 Atlanta 31 .0 16 Boston 94,248 16 Dallas 32 .0 17 Washington, DC 97,009 17 Austin 32 .9 18 Philadelphia 106,558 18 Indianapolis 33 .4 19 Dallas 119,649 19 Raleigh 34 .0 20 Atlanta 128,353 20 Charlotte 34 .5

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation Source: U.S. Federal Highway Administration (1) This tables uses the Urbanized Area rather than the MSA (1) This tables uses the Urbanized Area rather than the MSA

Table 18. Table 19.

Traffic Congestion: Annual Wasted Fuel per Traveler Traffic Congestion: Annual Delay per Traveler 2005 2005

Rank Region Gallons Rank Region Hours 1 Cleveland 9 1 Cleveland 13 1 Pittsburgh 9 2 Pittsburgh 16 3 Charlotte 13 3 Richmond 20 3 Richmond 13 4 St . Louis 33 5 St . Louis 20 5 Raleigh 35 6 Philadelphia 24 6 Philadelphia 38 7 Minneapolis 26 6 Portland 38 8 Portland 27 8 Indianapolis 43 9 Indianapolis 28 8 Minneapolis 43 9 Tampa 28 10 Baltimore 44 11 Boston 31 11 Charlotte 45 12 Baltimore 32 11 Seattle 45 13 Austin 33 11 Tampa 45 13 Denver 33 14 Boston 46 15 Seattle 34 15 Austin 49 16 Raleigh 39 16 Denver 50 17 Dallas 40 17 San Diego 57 18 Washington, DC 43 18 Dallas 58 19 Atlanta 44 19 Atlanta 60 19 San Diego 44 19 Washington, DC 60

Source: Texas Transportation Institute Source: Texas Transportation Institute

48 Transportation

Quality of Life

2007 Quality of Life

Cost of Living The most significant driver of the cost of living in 5th). Indianapolis has the highest homeownership rate Greater Baltimore is housing costs. The housing boom in 2006 at 79.0 percent and Dallas has the lowest rate at occurred throughout the entire metro area and the 60.7 percent. expected future growth due to the Base Realignment Greater Baltimore’s cost of living index for 2007 and Closure (BRAC) program will directly affect both (117.6) exceeds the national average and its competitive Aberdeen Proving Ground and Ft. Meade, both located ranking in the region is 13th among the comparison in the Greater Baltimore metro area. The median home metros. While the cost of living in Greater Baltimore price in Greater Baltimore is $279,900 ranking the region decreased slightly from 2005 to 2007, a majority of 15th among the benchmark metros. Home sales prices the metro areas also experienced a decline with many in Greater Baltimore have increased 29 percent from areas having a greater decline than occurred in Greater 2004-2006, placing Greater Baltimore 4th among the 20 Baltimore. The region continues to resemble many of comparison metros. the higher priced markets nationally, such as Portland, Additionally, homeownership rates within the Greater Seattle, Boston, and Washington, D.C. Baltimore region have increased from 70.6 percent in 2005 (ranking 10th) to 72.9 percent in 2006 (ranking

Table 1. Table 2.

Homeownership Rates Cost of Living 2005 and 2006 2007 Q2 and 2005 Q2

2006 Homeownership 2005 Homeownership 100% 100% Rank Region Rate 2006, % Rank Rate 2005, % 2007 Composite Index, 2005 Composite Index, Rank Region 2007 Rank 2005 1 Indianapolis 79 .0% 1 77 1%. 2 Cleveland 76 .9% 3 74 4%. 1 Charlotte 88 2. 2 93 .1 3 Minneapolis 73 .4% 2 74 9%. 2 Dallas 90 9. 5 94 .4 4 Philadelphia 73 .1% 5 73 5%. 3 St . Louis 91 0. 6 96 .8 5 Baltimore 72 .9% 10 70 6%. 4 Indianapolis 94 5. 1 91 .2 6 St . Louis 72 .8% 4 74 4%. 5 Austin 95 1. 7 97 .1 7 Pittsburgh 72 .2% 6 73 1%. 6 Atlanta 95 7. 8 97 .3 8 Tampa 71 .6% 7 71 7%. 7 Tampa 98 6. 9 98 .8 9 Raleigh 71 .1% 8 71 4%. 8 Pittsburgh 99 5. 3 93 .2 10 Denver 70 .0% 9 70 7%. 9 Cleveland 99 6. 10 102 .0 11 Richmond 68 .9% 11 69 7%. 10 Raleigh 100 .4 4 93 .3 12 Washington, DC 68 .9% 12 68 4%. 11 Denver 103 .7 11 103 .0 13 Atlanta 67 .9% 14 66 4%. 12 Richmond 104 .1 12 105 .2 14 Austin 66 .7% 17 63 9%. 13 Baltimore 117 .6 15 118 .5 15 Charlotte 66 .1% 15 65 8%. 14 Portland 120 .3 13 115 .6 16 Portland 66 .0% 13 68 3%. 15 Seattle 120 .4 14 116 .4 17 Boston 64 .7% 18 63 0%. 16 Philadelphia 124 .0 16 125 .4 18 Seattle 63 .7% 16 64 5%. 17 Boston 135 .9 17 137 .4 19 San Diego 61 .2% 20 60 5%. 18 Washington, DC 137 .0 18 141 .4 20 Dallas 60 .7% 19 62 3%. 19 San Diego 140 .6 19 152 .1 Minneapolis NA NA Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Data prior to 2005 is based on old MSA definitions. Source: ACCRA Cost of Living Index

50 Quality of Life QUALITY OF LIFE

Table 3. Table 4.

Median Home Prices Growth in Median Home Prices Existing Single-Family Homes Existing Single-Family Homes 2004 and 2006 2004 and 2006

2006 2006 2004 2004 2006 % Change Rank Region ($000) Rank ($000) Rank Region 2004-2006 1 Pittsburgh 116 1. 1 113 4. 1 Tampa 43 3%. 2 Indianapolis 119 3. 2 121 7. 2 Portland 36 0%. 3 Cleveland 134 4. 4 136 4. 3 Richmond 32 1%. 4 St . Louis 148 4. 3 128 7. 4 Baltimore 29 0%. 5 Dallas 149 5. 5 138 2. 5 Seattle 26 9%. 6 Atlanta 171 8. 7 156 9. 6 Washington, DC 26 8%. 7 Austin 173 7. 6 154 7. 7 Raleigh 25 8%. 8 Charlotte 190 6. 9 168 0. 8 Philadelphia 24 4%. 9 Raleigh 213 8. 10 169 9. 9 St . Louis 15 3%. 10 Richmond 225 5. 11 170 7. 10 Charlotte 13 5%. 11 Tampa 228 9. 8 159 7. 11 Austin 12 3%. 12 Philadelphia 230 2. 12 185 1. 12 Atlanta 9 .5% 13 Minneapolis 232 3. 15 217 4. 13 San Diego 9 .1% 14 Denver 249 5. 16 239 1. 14 Dallas 8 .2% 15 Baltimore 279 9. 14 217 0. 15 Minneapolis 6 .9% 16 Portland 280 8. 13 206 5. 16 Denver 4 .3% 17 Seattle 361 2. 17 284 6. 17 Boston 3 .2% 18 Boston 402 2. 19 389 7. 18 Pittsburgh 2 .4% 19 Washington, DC 431 0. 18 339 8. 19 Cleveland -1 .5% 20 San Diego 601 8. 20 551 6. 20 Indianapolis -2 .0%

Source: National Association of Realtors Source: National Association of Realtors

Table 5.

Health and Health Care Health Care Cost of Living The Greater Baltimore region is home to several of 2007 Q2 and 2005 Q2 the top hospitals and health care facilities in the nation 2007 Health Care 2005 Health Care including Johns Hopkins and the University of Mary- Rank Region Index, 2007 Rank Index, 2005 land hospitals. U.S. News and World Report ranked 1 Pittsburgh 85 1. 1 93 9. Johns Hopkins as the best hospital nationally for the 2 Indianapolis 91 5. 4 98 8. 17th consecutive year. Of the 20 metro areas, only eight 3 Tampa 94 8. 7 100 .0 hospitals within all of these metros made the report. 4 St . Louis 96 9. 2 97 4. 5 Austin 98 1. 10 106 .3 Boston had the greatest number making the list with 6 Richmond 99 4. 9 104 .5 two hospitals. With the quality of medical institutions 7 Dallas 100 .5 8 101 .9 within the region, it is no surprise that the region ranks 8 Cleveland 103 .2 6 99 8. 3rd of the benchmark metros in the number of physi- 9 Atlanta 103 .4 3 98 0. cians per 100,000 persons. 10 Charlotte 104 .3 12 106 .5 Another significant contribution to the high cost of 11 Baltimore 104 .9 11 106 .3 living in the region is health care costs. Greater Balti- 12 Raleigh 105 .3 5 99 5. more ranks 11th among the comparison regions and is 13 Portland 106 .9 13 108 .6 above the national average. Pittsburgh has the lowest 14 Washington, DC 108 .4 17 117 .0 health care costs and Boston has the highest health 15 Denver 108 .5 14 108 .8 care costs. 16 Philadelphia 112 .5 15 112 .6 17 San Diego 116 .1 18 122 .7 Greater Baltimore ranks 3rd lowest in the number of 18 Seattle 124 .7 16 116 .9 suicides per 100,000 persons and 13th in the percent- 19 Boston 136 .1 19 129 .8 age of births to teen mothers among the 20 comparison Minneapolis NA NA metro areas. Source: ACCRA Cost of Living Index

Greater Baltimore State of the Region Report 2007 5 1 Table 6. Table 7.

Physicians Best Hospitals 2006 2007

2006 Physicians per National Rank Region 100,000 Population* Rank Rank Region Hospital 1 Boston 589 1 1 Baltimore Johns Hopkins Hospital 2 Cleveland 508 2 4 Cleveland Cleveland Clinic 3 Baltimore 507 3 5 Boston Massachusetts General 4 Philadelphia 484 Hospital 5 Washington, DC 457 4 9 St . Louis Barnes-Jewish Hospital 6 Pittsburgh 430 5 10 Boston Brigham and Women’s 7 Indianapolis 410 Hospital 8 Seattle 394 6 11 Seattle University of Washington Medical Center 9 San Diego 379 7 12 Philadelphia Hospital of the University of 10 Richmond 370 Pennsylvania 11 Portland 369 8 13 Pittsburgh University of Pittsburgh 12 Denver 360 Medical Center 13 St . Louis 359 14 Tampa 329 Source: U.S. News & World Report 15 Minneapolis 324 16 Atlanta 264 17 Charlotte 256 18 Dallas 251 19 Austin 249 20 Raleigh 245

Source: American Medical Association *Physicians Includes Generalists and Specialists

Table 8.

Cancer Hospitals in the Top 50 2007

U.S. News & World Report Rank National Rank Region Hospital Score 1 3 Baltimore Johns Hopkins Hospital 73 .2 2 5 Boston Dana-Farber Cancer Institute 54 .4 3 6 Seattle University of Washington Medical Center 42 .9 4 10 Boston Massachusetts General Hospital 36 .7 5 11 Philadelphia Fox Chase Cancer Center 36 .3 6 12 Pittsburgh University of Pittsburgh Medical Center 36 .2 7 16 Tampa H . Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute 34 .6 8 17 Cleveland Cleveland Clinic 34 .1 9 19 St . Louis Barnes-Jewish Hospital 33 .4 10 24 Minneapolis University of Minnesota Medical Center 29 .5 11 25 Cleveland University Hospitals Case Medical Center 29 .2 12 28 Boston Brigham and Women’s Hospital 28 .8 13 29 Philadelphia Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania 28 .6 14 35 Denver University of Colorado Hospital 27 .5 15 37 Portland Oregon Health and Science University Hospital 26 .5 16 39 San Diego University of California, San Diego Medical Center 26 .2 17 43 Minneapolis Abbott Northwestern Hospital 25 .8 18 50 Washington, DC Inova Fairfax Hospital 25 .1

Source: U.S. News & World Report

52 Quality of Life QUALITY OF LIFE

Table 9. Table 10.

Cancer Death Rates Infant Mortality Rate 2005 2005

Cancer Deaths Per Rank Region Infant Mortality Rate Rank Region 1,000 Population 1 Boston (1) 4 .5 1 Raleigh 0 25. 2 Seattle 4 .7 2 Austin (1) 0 31. 3 Minneapolis 5 .1 3 Charlotte (2) 0 47. 4 Austin (2) 5 .2 4 Richmond 0 48. 5 Portland 5 .3 5 Indianapolis 0 60. 6 San Diego (2) 5 .4 6 Denver 0 61. 7 Dallas (2) 6 .3 7 Portland 0 72. 7 Raleigh 6 .3 8 San Diego (1) 0 93. 9 Washington, DC (3) 6 .4 8 Minneapolis 0 93. 9 Atlanta 6 .4 10 Cleveland 1 01. 11 Pittsburgh 6 .8 11 Seattle 1 03. 12 Denver 7 .0 12 Baltimore 1 09. 13 Charlotte (4) 7 .4 13 St . Louis 1 11. 14 Philadelphia (5) 7 .6 14 Atlanta 1 24. 14 St . Louis 7 .6 15 Tampa 1 34. 16 Baltimore 7 .9 16 Pittsburgh 1 36. 16 Indianapolis 7 .9 17 Washington, DC (3) 1 46. 18 Tampa 8 .5 18 Dallas (1) 1 50. 19 Cleveland 9 .0 19 Boston (4) 1 74. 20 Richmond 9 .3 20 Philadelphia (5) 2 47. Source: State Health Departments Source: State Health Departments (1) NH county data is from 2003 (2) All data from 2004 (3) District of Columbia data is from (1) All data is from 2004 (2) SC county data is from 2004 (3) District of Columbia data is from 2004 (4) SC county data is from 2004 (5) NJ county data is from 2003 2004 (4) NH county data is from 2003 (5) NJ county data is from 2004

Table 11.

Arts, Culture Arts Destinations and Recreation 2007 National Rank (Cities of National Rank (Cities of Besides being a center for arts desti- Rank City 500,000 or more) 100,000 to 500,000) nations, the Greater Baltimore region 1 Pittsburgh 1 is also located in close proximity 2 Washington, DC 4 to several other major arts destina- 3 Seattle 5 tions such as Washington, D.C. and 3 Atlanta 5 Philadelphia. Greater Baltimore ranks 5 Boston 7 6 Austin 9 10th among the 20 benchmark cities 7 Philadelphia 10 in AmericanStyle magazine’s 2007 8 Portland 11 reader’s poll. 8 Minneapolis 11 10 Baltimore 12 11 San Diego 13 12 Denver 14 13 Dallas 15 14 Cleveland 16 15 Charlotte 18 16 St . Louis 22 17 Indianapolis 23 17 Tampa 23 Raleigh Not in top 25 Richmond Not in top 25

Source: AmericanStyle magazine, 2007.

Greater Baltimore State of the Region Report 2007 5 3 Social Distress and Crime From 2004 to 2006 the Greater Baltimore region has ex- The rate of decline in the number of property crimes perienced a 3.5 percent annual decline in violent crimes. slowed in the Baltimore metro area. From 2001 to 2004, This ranks the region 3rd among the comparison metro the region experienced a decline of nearly 6 percent while areas in terms of drop in violent crime. Even with this from 2004 to 2006 the region experienced a decline of 2.4 decline, the region ranks 19th in terms of violent crime percent. This decline placed Baltimore 10th among the 20 rate (823.8 violent crimes per 100,000 persons). But the metro regions with Portland and Richmond experiencing Baltimore region is no longer ranked as having the high- the greatest declines in property crime. est rate, with Charlotte having more violent crimes per Among the 20 comparison metro areas, Greater 100,000 persons. Regions with the lowest violent crime Baltimore has the 4th lowest level of poverty with 6.1 rates are Portland, Minneapolis, Austin, and Raleigh. percent of families having income below the poverty For property crime, Greater Baltimore ranks 9th among level in 2006. Of the benchmark regions, only Dallas the benchmark regions with a property crime rate that has a higher percentage of families in poverty than the is just above the national average. Boston and Pittsburgh national average. have the lowest property crime rates and Seattle and Charlotte have the highest property crime rates.

Table 12. Table 13. Table 14.

Poverty Suicide Teen Pregnancy 2006 2005 2005

% Families Suicide Births to with Income Deaths Mothers Below Margin Per Under 20 as Poverty of Error 100,000 a Percent of Rank Region Level (+/-) Rank Region Population Rank Region Total Births 1 Washington, DC 4 7. 0 3. 1 Washington, DC (1) 5 .0 1 Boston (1) 4 .7% 2 Minneapolis 5 9. 0 4. 2 Boston (2) 7 .4 2 Minneapolis 5 .9% 3 Seattle 6 0. 0 4. 3 Baltimore 8 .6 3 Seattle 6 .1% 4 Baltimore 6 1. 0 5. 4 Atlanta 8 .7 4 Washington, DC (2) 6 .3% 4 Richmond 6 1. 0 6. 5 Raleigh 9 .1 5 Raleigh 7 .1% 6 Boston 6 2. 0 4. 6 Austin (3) 9 .2 6 Portland 7 .3% 7 Raleigh 6 5. 0 8. 7 Charlotte (4) 9 .2 7 Pittsburgh 7 .7% 8 Pittsburgh 8 0. 0 5. 8 Dallas (3) 9 .4 8 San Diego (3) 8 .3% 9 Philadelphia 8 1. 0 4. 9 Philadelphia (5) 9 .6 9 Philadelphia (4) 8 .8% 9 Portland 8 1. 0 7. 10 Minneapolis 9 .9 10 Atlanta 9 .3% 9 San Diego 8 1. 0 6. 11 Indianapolis 10 4. 10 Denver 9 .3% 12 Charlotte 8 2. 0 8. 12 Cleveland (6) 10 5. 12 Richmond 9 .4% 12 St . Louis 8 2. 0 6. 13 San Diego (3) 10 6. 13 Baltimore 9 .5% 14 Austin 8 3. 0 8. 14 St . Louis 10 9. 14 Charlotte (5) 9 .7% 14 Indianapolis 8 3. 0 8. 15 Richmond 11 7. 15 Cleveland 9 .8% 16 Atlanta 8 5. 0 5. 16 Pittsburgh 12 0. 16 St . Louis 9 .9% 17 Denver 8 7. 0 6. 17 Seattle 12 1. 17 Indianapolis 10 .0% 18 Tampa 8 9. 0 5. 18 Portland 12 5. 17 Austin 10 .0% 19 Cleveland 9 6. 0 6. 19 Tampa 14 0. 19 Tampa 11 .0% U S. . 9 8. 20 Denver 16 1. 20 Dallas 11 .8% 20 Dallas 10 .0 0 4. Source: State Health Departments Source: State Health Departments (1) District of Columbia data is from 2004 (2) NH county (1) NH county data is from 2003 (2) District of Columbia Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey data is from 2003 (3) All data is from 2004 (4) SC county data is from 2004 (3) All data is from 2004 (4) NJ county data is from 2004 (5) NJ county data is from 2004 (6) All data is from 2004 (5) SC county data is from 2004 data is 2003-2005 average

54 Quality of Life QUALITY OF LIFE

Table 15. Table 16.

Violent Crime Violent Crime Change 2006 2004 to 2006

Rank Region Rate per 100,000 Population Rank Region Percent Annual Change 1 Portland 323 8. 1 Richmond -6 .2% 2 Minneapolis (1) 338 8. 2 Tampa -4 .9% 3 Austin 345 3. 3 Baltimore -3 .5% 4 Raleigh 359 8. 4 Austin -2 .6% 5 Pittsburgh 359 9. 5 Portland -2 .6% 6 Richmond 378 1. 6 Dallas -1 .9% 7 Boston (2) 398 2. 7 Pittsburgh -1 .2% 8 Seattle 415 9. 8 San Diego -1 .0% 9 Denver 427 7. 9 Denver -0 .7% 10 San Diego 458 7. 10 Boston (1) -0 .5% 11 Cleveland 459 7. 11 Minneapolis (2) 0 .0% U S. . 473 5. 12 Atlanta 0 .5% 12 Washington, DC 478 2. U .S . 0 .9% 13 Atlanta 527 3. 13 Indianapolis 1 .3% 14 Dallas 534 3. 14 Seattle 2 .1% 15 Indianapolis 546 9. 15 Washington, DC 3 .5% 16 St . Louis 566 1. 16 Philadelphia 4 .1% 17 Philadelphia 659 2. 17 Raleigh 4 .4% 18 Tampa 709 2. 18 St . Louis 7 .7% 19 Baltimore 823 8. 19 Charlotte (1) 9 .7% 20 Charlotte 837 7. Cleveland NA

Source: U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation Source: U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (1) 2004 (2) 2005 (1) Change is from 2004 to 2005 (2) Data is from 2004

Table 17. Table 18.

Property Crime Property Crime Change 2006 2004 to 2006

Rank Region Rate per 100,000 Population Rank Region Percent Annual Change 1 Boston (1) 2229 .9 1 Portland -12 .6% 2 Pittsburgh 2334 .6 2 Richmond -8 .9% 3 Washington, DC 2888 .5 3 Washington, DC -7 .2% 4 Philadelphia 2903 .4 4 Denver -7 .0% 5 Raleigh 2935 .5 5 Dallas -5 .4% 6 Richmond 2969 .9 6 Boston (1) -4 .2% 7 Cleveland 3130 .8 7 Tampa -3 .7% 8 San Diego 3154 .0 8 Austin -3 .2% U S. . 3334 .5 U .S . -2 .6% 9 Baltimore 3482 .9 9 Atlanta (1) -2 .6% 10 Minneapolis 3534 .7 10 Baltimore -2 .4% 11 Portland 3644 .6 11 San Diego -2 .0% 12 Denver 3683 .5 12 Charlotte -1 .4% 13 St . Louis 3731 .2 13 Seattle -0 .8% 14 Austin 3942 .7 14 Raleigh -0 .8% 15 Atlanta (1) 4115 .2 15 Pittsburgh -0 .8% 16 Indianapolis 4175 .9 16 Indianapolis 1 .0% 17 Tampa 4225 .1 17 Philadelphia 1 .2% 18 Dallas 4419 .0 18 St . Louis 1 .3% 19 Seattle 5008 .6 19 Minneapolis 2 .2% 20 Charlotte 5248 .1 Cleveland NA

Source: U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation Source: U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (1) 2005 (1) Change is from 2004 to 2005

Greater Baltimore State of the Region Report 2007 5 5 Table 19.

Air Quality Air Quality and Climate 1990–2005 Average # of Days with AQI Values While Baltimore ranks 19th for air Greater than 100 at Trend Sites quality among the 20 benchmark Rank Region (1990-2005) 1 Boston 1 .3 regions, it also ranked 4th for most 2 Minneapolis 1 .7 improvement in air quality based on 3 Seattle 2 .3 an EPA Air Quality Index. Of the com- 4 Austin 3 .4 parison regions, San Diego has the 5 Tampa 4 .0 poorest air quality but also has the 6 Portland 4 .3 greatest positive change in air quality. 7 Denver 5 .1 In terms of average daily tem- 8 Raleigh 8 .6 perature, amount of sunshine, and 9 Richmond 11 .7 days with precipitation, the Greater 10 Dallas 12 .0 Baltimore region falls into the middle 11 Indianapolis 13 .8 of the 20 comparison regions. 12 Charlotte 18 .6 13 Cleveland 20 .4 14 St . Louis 21 .3 15 Washington, DC 28 .2 16 Atlanta 29 .2 17 Pittsburgh 29 .8 18 Philadelphia 30 .8 19 Baltimore 33 .5 20 San Diego 38 .4

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. MSAs are based on 1993 OMB definitions.

Table 20.

Change in Air Quality 1990–1999 and 2000–2005

Average # of Days with AQI Values Average # of Days with AQI Values Cur. Per. Greater than 100 at Trend Sites Greater than 100 at Trend Sites Change in Rank Region (1990-1999) (2000-2005) Average # of Days 1 San Diego 49 0. 20 7. -28 .3 2 Atlanta 35 0. 19 5. -15 .5 3 Washington, DC 32 5. 21 0. -11 .5 4 Baltimore 37 5. 26 8. -10 .7 5 Philadelphia 34 2. 25 2. -9 .0 6 Charlotte 21 3. 14 0. -7 .3 7 Richmond 13 9. 8 .0 -5 .9 8 Raleigh 9 .6 6 .8 -2 .8 9 St . Louis 22 2. 19 7. -2 .5 10 Dallas 12 7. 10 8. -1 .9 11 Indianapolis 14 5. 12 7. -1 .8 12 Austin 3 .7 2 .8 -0 .9 13 Tampa 4 .3 3 .5 -0 .8 14 Portland 4 .5 3 .8 -0 .7 15 Denver 4 .7 5 .7 1 .0 16 Minneapolis 1 .3 2 .3 1 .0 17 Seattle 1 .4 3 .8 2 .4 18 Boston 0 .3 3 .0 2 .7 19 Cleveland 18 7. 23 3. 4 .6 20 Pittsburgh 21 5. 43 5. 22 .0

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. MSAs are based on 1993 OMB definitions.

56 Quality of Life QUALITY OF LIFE

Table 21. Table 22.

Average Daily Temperature Sunshine 1971–2000 Rank Region Percent Possible Sunshine Rank Region Degrees F. 1 Denver 69% 1 Tampa 73 .1 2 San Diego 68% 2 Austin* 68 .5 3 Tampa 66% 3 Dallas 65 .5 4 Richmond 63% 4 San Diego 64 .4 5 Charlotte 62% 5 Atlanta 62 .1 6 Dallas 61% 6 Charlotte 61 .4 7 Atlanta 60% 7 Greenville-Spartanburg 60 .0 7 Austin 60% 8 Raleigh-Durham 59 .6 9 Boston 58% 9 Richmond 57 .6 9 Minneapolis 58% 10 Washington, DC Reagan 57 .5 9 Raleigh 58% 11 St . Louis 56 .3 12 Baltimore 57% 12 Philadelphia 55 .3 12 St . Louis 57% 13 Baltimore 54 .6 14 Philadelphia 56% 14 Washington, DC Dulles 54 .2 14 Washington, DC 56% 15 Portland-Vancouver 53 .5 16 Indianapolis 55% 16 Indianapolis 52 .5 17 Cleveland 49% 17 Seattle 52 .3 18 Portland 48% 18 Boston 51 .6 19 Pittsburgh 45% 19 Denver 50 .1 19 Seattle 45% 20 Cleveland 49 .6 21 Minneapolis-St . Paul 45 .4 Source: U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, through 2005

Source: Southern Regional Climate Center, 1971-2000 Based on airport data except where *.

Table 23.

Mean Number of Days with Precipitation

Rank Region Mean Number of Days 1 San Diego 42 2 Dallas 79 3 Austin 85 4 Denver 89 5 Tampa 106 6 Charlotte 111 6 St . Louis 111 8 Raleigh 113 9 Richmond 114 10 Atlanta 115 10 Baltimore 115 10 Minneapolis 115 13 Washington, DC 116 14 Philadelphia 118 15 Indianapolis 126 16 Boston 127 17 Pittsburgh 152 18 Portland 153 18 Seattle 153 20 Cleveland 156

Source: U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, through 2005

Greater Baltimore State of the Region Report 2007 5 7

Government & Community

2007 Government & Community

Table 1. Table 2. The Greater Baltimore region ranks 2nd for the least number of local gov- Local Government Units Local Government Units per ernment units per 100,000 persons and 2002 100,000 Population 2002 for the total number of local govern- Total County ment units in the region. and Subcounty Units Per 100,000 Rank Region Governments The Baltimore region ranks 15th Rank Region Population 1 San Diego 19 among the benchmark regions for 1 San Diego 0 .6 2 Baltimore 26 2 Baltimore 1 .0 median contributions received by 3 Raleigh 30 3 Tampa 1 .5 the region’s charities, according to 3 Richmond 30 4 Washington, DC 2 .1 data from Charity Navigator. This is 5 Tampa 39 5 Denver 2 .2 a significant change from the 2005 6 Austin 49 6 Seattle 2 .6 report where the Baltimore metro 7 Denver 52 6 Richmond 2 .6 was ranked 1st. According to Charity 8 Charlotte 60 8 Portland 3 .1 Navigator, this change in ranking and 9 Portland 65 9 Raleigh 3 .3 in the amount of contributions relates 10 Seattle 81 10 Atlanta 3 .4 to the amount of resources being 11 Washington, DC 109 11 Austin 3 .5 12 Atlanta 161 devoted towards fundraising and 12 Dallas 3 .7 13 Cleveland 167 expenses rather than on programs. 13 Charlotte 4 .1 14 Indianapolis 187 14 Boston 4 .5 15 Boston 201 15 Philadelphia 6 .6 16 Dallas 211 16 Cleveland 7 .8 17 Minneapolis 342 17 Minneapolis 11 .0 18 Philadelphia 385 18 Indianapolis 11 .5 19 St . Louis 395 19 St . Louis 14 .3 20 Pittsburgh 464 20 Pittsburgh 19 .3

Source: Bureau of the Census. Source: Bureau of the Census. Census of Governments, 2002. Census of Governments, 2002.

Table 3. Table 4.

Contributions to Charities Financial Practices of Charities 2006 2006

Median Contributions to National Overall Rank Region Largest Charities Rank Region Rank Score 1 San Diego $4,995,500 1 San Diego 1 57 .01 2 Atlanta $4,812,576 2 Dallas 2 56 .52 3 Denver $4,661,733 3 St . Louis 5 55 .52 4 Cleveland $3,865,494 4 Philadelphia 7 54 .89 5 Pittsburgh $3,784,576 5 Denver 9 53 .55 6 Dallas $3,711,118 6 Charlotte 11 53 .31 7 Minneapolis $3,426,089 7 Minneapolis 12 53 .28 8 Boston $3,417,932 8 Boston 13 53 .13 9 Charlotte $3,291,237 9 Atlanta 14 52 .88 10 St . Louis $3,276,274 10 Washington, DC 15 52 .79 11 Washington, DC $3,265,207 11 Cleveland 16 52 .76 12 Philadelphia $3,176,454 U .S . 52 .76 U S. . $3,118,919 12 Pittsburgh 21 52 .15 13 Seattle $3,114,911 13 Baltimore 23 51 .50 14 Indianapolis $2,898,522 14 Seattle 25 50 .72 15 Baltimore $2,875,094 15 Indianapolis 26 50 .70 16 Portland $2,632,527 16 Portland 28 49 .79 Austin NA Austin NA NA Raleigh NA Raleigh NA NA Richmond NA Richmond NA NA Tampa NA Tampa NA NA

Source: Charity Navigator Source: Charity Navigator

60 Government & Community GREATER BALTIMORE COMMITTEE 111 S. Calvert Street, Suite 1700 • Baltimore, Maryland 21202 • www.gbc.org

BALTIMORE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 2700 Lighthouse Point East, Suite 310 • Baltimore, Maryland 21224 • www.baltometro.org