sustainable growth and conservation indicators

SUSTAINABLE GROWTH AND CONSERVATION INDICATORS

STATUS CHECK& MEASURING PROGRESS

PRELIMINARY DRAFT Confidential for Deliberation Only,

Not Distribution.

Planning.Maryland.gov

DRAFT

• Background, Purpose• Screening criteria• Some important issues•Objectives & Indicators

Composite indicators Individual indicators & measures of progress

• Commission discussion, input• Subsequent plans

AGENDA


DRAFT

• Commission’s Indicators Work Group•MDP’s indicators work for PlanMaryland Planning Area review process•National Center for Smart Growth’s Opportunity Mapping effort

BACKGROUND


DRAFT

• Assess smart growth status & progress: achieve objectives• ID shortcomings, needs, success in programs• Apply Statewide, where possible for regions, individual jurisdictions• Support use by the public, local gov’t, Commission, MDP, & the National Center

PURPOSE


DRAFT

•Only germane objectives• Indicators legitimately measure progress• Likely continued data availability•Within reasonable purview/ responsibilities of PlanMD, Commission, MDP

SCREENING CRITERIA


DRAFT

• Adequacy of current suite of objectives & indicators – Work in progress• How will Commission use them?•Measures/ benchmarks appropriate for different regions, jurisdictions, scales• Incomplete, out-of-date or inadequate data•Overly generous or miserly indicators•Mistakes

IMPORTANT ISSUES


DRAFT

Draft suite 16 objectives in five categories•Development (3 objectives)• Agricultural and Environmental Resources (3 objectives)• Socio-Economic Equity (2 objectives)• Transportation – Land Use (1 objective)• Economic Development (7 objectives)

SUSTAINABLE GROWTH & CONSERVATION INDICATORS


DRAFT

For first Development objective onlyOne composite indicator, implicationsAll component indicators & measures of progress

All other objectivesComposite/1 or 2 indicators onlyComponent indicators & measures of progress in “Appendix”

Solicit input on objectives, indicators, benchmarks,

APPROACH FOR TODAY


DRAFT

• Accommodate the vast majority of development in Priority Funding Areas (PFAs), and minimize development pressure on resource and environmentally sensitive lands• Accommodate mixed uses in a walkable environment within PFAs• PFAs provide a range of housing types, densities, sizes and values and accommodate socio-economically diverse population

DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES:


DRAFT

COMPOSITE: ACCOMMODATE DEVELOPMENT IN PFASMINIMIZE IMPACTS TO RESOURCES & LANDS

Sources: MdProperty View & U.S. Census Bureau

Capita

l Reg

ion

Baltim

ore

Regio

n

Upper

Eas

tern

Sho

re R

egio

n

Lower

Eas

tern

Sho

re

Sout

hern

Mar

ylan

d Reg

ion

Wes

tern

Mar

ylan

d Reg

ion

Stat

ewid

e0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

8075

6661

49 46

72

Composite of 4 equally weighted indicators: % residential parcels, % residential acres, % commercial parcels, and % commercial acres built in

PFAs, 1999-2012. 0 = least supportive, 100 = most supportive of Sustainable Growth Objective(s).


DRAFT

Capita

l Reg

ion

Baltim

ore

Regio

n

Upper

Eas

tern

Sho

re R

egio

n

Lower

Eas

tern

Sho

re

Sout

hern

Mar

ylan

d Reg

ion

Wes

tern

Mar

ylan

d Reg

ion

Stat

ewid

e0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

8075

6661

49 46

72

COMPOSITE: ACCOMMODATE DEVELOPMENT IN PFASMINIMIZE IMPACTS TO RESOURCES & LANDS

Sources: MdProperty View & U.S. Census Bureau

Implications for Sustainable Growth Objectives: Statewide, and in every region, growth is being accommodated in PFAs, but not enough to take the pressure off resources and resource lands, contradicting many sustainability objectives. Details vary by region & county.

Statewide, 71% of residential parcels are being developed in PFAs, but 77% of residential acres are being developed outside the PFA, converting 132,675 acres of resource land to development.

Both residential and commercial/ institutional development are factors, but the former’s effect is much greater. Recent multifamily construction may be contributing to improvements in these measures.

Considerably more of future growth must occur in PFAs to support sustainable growth and conservation objectives.


DRAFT

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.810074513171380.773111998220578

0.571052926037820.56605345811166

0.5030487804878050.47261729606016

0.706598273446015

0.189925486828620.2268880017794220.428947073962180.4339465418883410.4969512195121950.527382703939840.293401726553985

37%

26%

17%22%

14% 14%

23%

63% 74% 83% 78% 88% 86% 77%

Parcels In PFA Parcel Out PFA Acres in PFA Acres Outside PFA

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 1999-2012 PARCELS AND ACRES IN AND OUTSIDE PFAS*

MARYLAND BY REGION

Source: MdProperty View

*Includes single family (detached, duplexes, townhouses, and condos) but not apartments/multifamily units.

231,212 Parcels*

72,202 Parcels*

85,421 Parcels*

17,874 Parcels*

15,601 Parcels*

27,880 Parcels*

12,234 Parcels*

171,850 Acres

231,212 Parcels

33,820 Acres

72,202 Parcels

53,997 Acres

19,755 Acres

14,007 Acres

33,325 Acres

16,946 Acres

85,421 Parcels

17,874 Parcels

15,601 Parcels

27,880 Parcels

12,234 Parcels


DRAFT


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.810074513171380.773111998220578

0.571052926037820.56605345811166

0.5030487804878050.47261729606016

0.706598273446015

0.189925486828620.2268880017794220.428947073962180.4339465418883410.4969512195121950.527382703939840.293401726553985

0.369778254808126

0.257982271660213

0.169016701062970.217705588424065

0.1420073752744780.142006956271325

0.227961134021266

0.6302217451918740.7420177283397870.830983298937030.7822944115759350.881648446947760.8579926247255220.772038865978734

Parcels In PFA Parcel Out PFA Acres in PFA Acres Outside PFA

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 1999-2012 PARCELS AND ACRES IN AND OUTSIDE PFAS*

MARYLAND BY REGION


231,212 Parcels*

72,202 Parcels*

85,421 Parcels*

17,874 Parcels*

15,601 Parcels*

27,880 Parcels*

12,234 Parcels*

171,850 Acres

231,212 Parcels

33,820 Acres

72,202 Parcels

53,997 Acres

19,755 Acres

14,007 Acres

33,325 Acres

16,946 Acres

85,421 Parcels

17,874 Parcels

15,601 Parcels

27,880 Parcels

12,234 Parcels

Implications for Sustainable Growth Objectives: Statewide, 71% of residential parcels are being developed in PFAs, but 77% of residential acres are being developed outside the PFA, converting 132,675 acres of resource land to development. Even when 80% (Capital Region) or more of growth is concentrated in PFAs, market pressure continues to compromise substantial resource & environmentally sensitive lands.


DRAFT

BALTIMORE & CAPITAL REGIONS


RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 1999-2012PARCELS IN & ACRES OUTSIDE PFAS*

212 Acres

10,393 Acres

10,899 Acres

12,288 Acres

8,578 Acres

11,600 Acres

12,529 Acres

11,060 Acres

10,259 Acres

Anne

Arundel

Bal-timore City

Bal-timore

Car-roll

Har-ford

Howard

Freder-ick

Montgomer

y

Prince

George'

s

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%0.2450763010303

90 0.2024546258255

760.3691740248127

860.2128254644735

970.2125824454591

580.1555474095796

680.1730532012255

780.2220629905872

3971% 0% 72% 81% 79% 70% 73% 68% 51%1

0.797545374174424

0.630825975187214

0.787174535526403

0.787417554540842

0.844452590420332

0.826946798774422 0.7779370094127

61

100%

28%

19%21%

30%27%

32%

49%

Percent Parcels Inside PFAs Percent Parcels Outside PFAs Percent Acres Inside PFAs Percent Acres Outside PFA

23,001 Parcels

3,459 Parcels

19,229 Parcels

8,947 Parcels

15,017 Parcels

15,768 Parcels

16,368 Parcels

25,131 Parcels

30,703 Parcels



DRAFT


BALTIMORE & CAPITAL REGIONS



212 Acres

10,393 Acres

10,899 Acres

12,288 Acres

8,578 Acres

11,600 Acres

12,529 Acres

11,060 Acres

10,259 Acres

Anne

Arundel

Bal-timore City

Bal-timore

Car-roll

Har-ford

Howard

Freder-ick

Montgomer

y

Prince

George'

s

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%0.24507630103039 0 0.20245462582557

60.36917402481278

60.21282546447359

70.21258244545915

80.15554740957966

80.17305320122557

80.22206299058723

971% 0% 72% 81% 79% 70% 73% 68% 51%1

0.797545374174424

0.630825975187214

0.787174535526403

0.787417554540842

0.844452590420332

0.826946798774422 0.77793700941276

1

100%

28%

19%21%

30%27%

32%

49%

Percent Parcels Inside PFAs Percent Parcels Outside PFAs Percent Acres Inside PFAs Percent Acres Outside PFA

23,001 Parcels

3,459 Parcels

19,229 Parcels

8,947 Parcels

15,017 Parcels

15,768 Parcels

16,368 Parcels

25,131 Parcels

30,703 Parcels

Implications for Sustainable Growth ObjectivesCounties in these two most populated regions in the state had the lowest percents of land developed outside of PFAs. But the acres of resource land lost are, nonetheless, the greatest. Individual county percents range from a low of 51% in Prince George’s County to 81% in Carroll County.


DRAFTSource: MdProperty View

WESTERN & SOUTHERN MARYLAND REGIONS


2,680 Acres

7,971 Acres

12,590 Acres

12,957 Acres

7,778 Acres

6,295 Acres

Allegany Garrett Washington Calvert Charles St. Mary's0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.625791139240506

0.157036029911625

0.564150473343299

0.433142857142857

0.554940910233845

0.488546206280031

0.374208860759494 0.842963970088375 0.435849526656702 0.566857142857143 0.445059089766155 0.511453793719969

0.238486369488553

0.0403135871896297

0.189882151629730.141097392737619 0.120079301473479 0.103018627941295

0.761513630511448 0.95968641281037 0.81011784837027 0.858902607262381 0.879920698526521 0.896981372058705

Percent Parcels Inside PFAs Percent Parcels Outside PFAs Percent Acres Inside PFAs Percent Acres Outside PFA1,264 Parcels

2,942 Parcels

8,028 Parcels

7,000 Parcels

11,931 Parcels

8,949 Parcels



DRAFT



WESTERN & SOUTHERN REGIONS


2,680 Acres

7,971 Acres

12,590 Acres

12,957 Acres

7,778 Acres

6,295 Acres

Allegany Garrett Washington Calvert Charles St. Mary's0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.625791139240506

0.157036029911625

0.564150473343299

0.433142857142857

0.554940910233845

0.488546206280031

0.374208860759494 0.842963970088375 0.435849526656702 0.566857142857143 0.445059089766155 0.511453793719969

0.238486369488553

0.0403135871896297

0.189882151629730.141097392737619 0.120079301473479 0.103018627941295

0.761513630511448 0.95968641281037 0.81011784837027 0.858902607262381 0.879920698526521 0.896981372058705


2,942 Parcels

8,028 Parcels

7,000 Parcels

11,931 Parcels

8,949 Parcels

Implications for Sustainable Growth ObjectivesCounties in the Western and Southern Regions have notably lower percents of parcels built in PFAs and correspondingly higher percents residential acres developed outside of PFA than counties in the Metro regions. However, populations are smaller & so too are absolute acreage losses.


DRAFT



EASTERN SHORE REGIONS

4,034 Acres

4,054 Acres

3,540 Acres

1,691 Acres

2,260 Acres

171,850 Acres

7,088 Acres

3,381 Acres

4,744 Acres

2,970 Acres

Caroline Cecil Kent Queen Anne's Talbot Dorchester Somerset Wicomico Worcester Statewide0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.467926404773744

0.508736462093863

0.590108401084011

0.601552717255197

0.712020755260882

0.429800724637681

0.560956175298805

0.437120400142908

0.723394495412844

0.706598273446015

0.532073595226256

0.491263537906137

0.409891598915989

0.398447282744803

0.287979244739118

0.570199275362319

0.439043824701195

0.562879599857092

0.276605504587156

0.293401726553985

8%

14%

27%

19%23%

15%

31%

17%

27%23%

92% 86% 73% 81% 77% 85% 69% 83% 73% 77%


6,925 Parcels

1,476 Parcels

3,993 Parcels

3,469 Parcels

231,212 Parcels

2,208 Parcels

3,381 Acres

1,255 Parcels

6,540 Parcels



DRAFT




EASTERN SHORE REGIONS

4,034 Acres

4,054 Acres

3,540 Acres

1,691 Acres

2,260 Acres

171,850 Acres

7,088 Acres

3,381 Acres

4,744 Acres

2,970 Acres

Caroline Cecil Kent Queen Anne's Talbot Dorchester Somerset Wicomico Worcester Statewide0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.467926404773744

0.508736462093863

0.590108401084011

0.601552717255197

0.712020755260882

0.429800724637681

0.560956175298805

0.437120400142908

0.723394495412844

0.706598273446015

0.532073595226256

0.491263537906137

0.409891598915989

0.398447282744803

0.287979244739118

0.570199275362319

0.439043824701195

0.562879599857092

0.276605504587156

0.293401726553985

8%

14%

27%

19%23%

15%

31%

17%

27%23%

92% 86% 73% 81% 77% 85% 69% 83% 73% 77%


6,925 Parcels

1,476 Parcels

3,993 Parcels

3,469 Parcels

231,212 Parcels

2,208 Parcels

3,381 Acres

1,255 Parcels

6,540 Parcels

Implications for Sustainable Growth ObjectivesLike the Western and Southern Regions, the Eastern Shore Regions have generally lower percents of parcels developed in the PFAs and higher percents of acres developed outside the PFAs. Also as in those Regions, populations are smaller & so too are the absolute acreage losses.


DRAFT

COMPARISON: PERCENT OF RESIDENTIAL PARCELS VERSUS TOTAL UNITS* BUILT INSIDE PFAS, 2007-2012

Source: Md PropertyView and U.S. Census Bureau

*Includes both single family (detached, duplexes, townhomes and condos) and apartments/multifamily units.

Baltim

ore

Regio

n

Capita

l Reg

ion

Sout

hern

Mar

ylan

d Reg

ion

Wes

tern

Mar

ylan

d Reg

ion

Upper

Eas

tern

Sho

re R

egio

n

Lower

Eas

tern

Sho

re R

egio

n

Maryl

and

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

80%76%

61%

46%

63%58%

72%

88%83%

67%

53%

68% 68%

80%

Pct SF Units Built Inside PFAs Pct SF and MF Units Built Inside PFA


DRAFT


Source: Md PropertyView and U.S. Census Bureau

Baltim

ore

Regio

n

Capita

l Reg

ion

Sout

hern

Mar

ylan

d Reg

ion

Wes

tern

Mar

ylan

d Reg

ion

Upper

Eas

tern

Sho

re R

egio

n

Lower

Eas

tern

Sho

re R

egio

n

Maryl

and

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

80%76%

61%

46%

63%58%

72%

88%83%

67%

53%

68% 68%

80%

Pct SF Units Built Inside PFAs Pct SF and MF Units Built Inside PFA

Implications for Sustainable Growth Objectives:Generally, the percent of all units developed in PFAs exceeds the percent of single family units by about 5 to 10 percent per region. Most apartment/multifamily units are built inside PFAs. Their effect on percentages of acres developed in versus outside PFAs, if it could be calculated, is probably very small, on the order of a few percentage points. It does not substantially affect the implications of development in and outside PFAs, but probably does reflect higher proportion of multifamily units developed recently in some areas.

COMPARISON OF PERCENT OF RESIDENTIAL PARCELS VERSUS TOTAL UNITS* BUILT INSIDE PFAS, 2007-2012


DRAFT

MEASURING PROGRESS, 1999-2012PERCENT TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS BUILT IN PFAS*

Source: MdProperty View & U.S. Census Bureau

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 201120%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Baltimore Region Capital Region Southern Maryland Region

Western Maryland Region Upper Eastern Shore Region Lower Eastern Shore Region

Maryland



DRAFT


1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 201120%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Baltimore Region Capital Region Southern Maryland Region

Western Maryland Region Upper Eastern Shore Region Lower Eastern Shore Region

Maryland

MEASURING PROGRESS, 1999-2012PERCENT RESIDENTIAL UNITS BUILT IN PFAS*

Source: MdProperty View & U.S. Census Bureau

Implications for Sustainable Growth Objectives: Percent of total new units in (versus out of) PFAs statewide has fluctuated around 80% since 1999. The last 8 years, largely coincident with the economic downturn, suggests possible improvements, particularly in the metro regions, where multifamily construction has increased as a percent of total units.


DRAFT

COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT, 2001-2012PARCELS & ACRES DEVELOPED INSIDE/OUTSIDE PFAS


Western

Mary-land

Southern

Mary-land

Bal-timore Re-gion

Lower East-ern

Shore

Upper East-ern

Shore

Capi-

tal Re-gion

Statewide

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.832 0.833576642335766

0.920292801952013

0.8544217687074830.847154471544716

0.9342977697408080.894084673255642

0.168 0.1664233576642340.0797071980479870.1455782312925170.1528455284552850.0657022302591923

0.105915326744358

33%

43%

99%

66%

98% 100% 99%67% 57%1%

34% 2% 1%

Parcels Inside PFA Parcels Outside PFA Acres Inside PFA Acres Outside PFA

2,159,917 Acres

6,239 Parcels

5,389 Acres

446 Parcels

3,226 Acres

228,066 Acres

2,670 Acres

83,992 Acres

1,836,573 Acres

685 Parcels

2,244 Parcels

735 Parcels

571 Parcels

1,558 Parcels


DRAFT

COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT, 2001-2012PARCELS & ACRES DEVELOPED INSIDE/OUTSIDE PFAS


Western

Mary-land

Southern

Mary-land

Bal-timore Re-gion

Lowe

r East-ern

Shore

Up-per

East-ern

Shore

Cap-

ital Re-gion

Statewide

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.832 0.833576642335766

0.920292801952013

0.8544217687074830.847154471544716

0.9342977697408080.894084673255642

0.168 0.1664233576642340.0797071980479870.1455782312925170.1528455284552850.06570223025919230.105915326744358

33%

43%

99%

66%

98% 100% 99%67% 57%1%

34% 2% 1%

Parcels Inside PFA Parcels Outside PFA Acres Inside PFA Acres Outside PFA

2,159,917 Acres

6,239 Parcels

5,389 Acres

446 Parcels

3,226 Acres

228,066 Acres

2,670 Acres

83,992 Acres

1,836,573 Acres

685 Parcels

2,244 Parcels

735 Parcels

571 Parcels

1,558 Parcels

Implications for Sustainable Growth ObjectivesGenerally, the inverse relation between % developed parcels in and % developed acres outside PFAs is similar to but much less pronounced than for residential development. It is completely absent in Baltimore, Upper Eastern Shore, and Capital Regions. More commercial and institutional establishments away from communities in PFAs means more land consumed and natural resources impacted; more infrastructure costs; and more driving and GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions to move between home, jobs, and other regular destinations.


DRAFT


• Accommodate the vast majority of development in Priority Funding Areas (PFAs), and minimize development pressure on resource and environmentally sensitive lands• Accommodate mixed uses in a walkable environment within PFAs• PFAs provide a range of housing types, densities, sizes and values and accommodate socio-economically diverse population


DRAFT

COMPOSITE: MIXED USE - WALKABLE ENVIRONMENT IN PFAS

Maximum Total Score=40

Source: MdProperty View , Maryland Department of Planning

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

66

60

48

39 39 38

59

Composite of 4 equally weighted indicators: proximity of residential parcels to transit, recreation, and commercial establishments, & access to jobs by

walk/transit.0 = least supportive, 100 = most supportive of Sustainable Growth

Objective(s).

*Note: data on local transit services is being updated, ETA 12/14. Updates will likely improve proximity of residences to transit measures & decrease the job access metric in some areas.


DRAFT

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

87

78

63

51 51 50

78

COMPOSITE: MIXED USE - WALKABLE ENVIRONMENT IN PFAS


Source: MdProperty View, Maryland Department of Planning

Implications for Sustainable Growth Objectives: Walkable environments provide walk access to most daily destinations along local roads, trails, or via transit. Important destinations include commercial and retail establishments, recreation facilities, jobs, and many others.

Overall, each of the regions has one or more shortcomings as measured in mixed use - walkability. Related land use and travel patterns underlie the need to leave one’s community generally by car to reach many or most regular destinations.

Measures of recent progress do not indicate any widespread improvement, which may be occurring in discrete locations.

Note: proximity to commercial for this metric is too “generous” and does not adequately measure progress toward the objective. We are exploring ways to improve it.


DRAFT


• Accommodate the vast majority of development in Priority Funding Areas (PFAs), and minimize development pressure on resource and environmentally sensitive lands• Accommodate mixed uses in a walkable environment within PFAs• Accommodate socio-economically diverse population: PFAs provide a mix of housing types and affordable costs of living


DRAFT

COMPOSITE: ACCOMMODATE SOCIO-ECONOMICALLY DIVERSE POPULATION


Sources: Center for Neighborhood Technology, HUD AMI (2007-2011). 2008 – 2012 American Community Survey. MdProperty View housing sales data, Maryland Department of Education

Wes

tern

Mar

ylan

d Reg

ion

Baltim

ore

Regio

n

Capita

l Reg

ion

Lower

Eas

tern

Sho

re R

egio

n

Sout

hern

Mar

ylan

d Reg

ion

Upper

Eas

tern

Sho

re R

egio

n

Stat

ewid

e0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

62 60

5248

4340

55

Composite of 6 equally weighted indicators: housing diversity, housing affordability & affordability of combined housing/transportation costs (both for

single & 2 income HH’s), rent affordability. 0 = least supportive, 100 = most supportive of Sustainable Growth Objective(s).


DRAFT

Wes

tern

Mar

ylan

d Reg

ion

Baltim

ore

Regio

n

Capita

l Reg

ion

Lower

Eas

tern

Sho

re R

egio

n

Sout

hern

Mar

ylan

d Reg

ion

Upper

Eas

tern

Sho

re R

egio

n

Stat

ewid

e0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

6260

5248

4340

55

ACCOMMODATE SOCIO-ECONOMICALLY DIVERSE POPULATION


Implications for Sustainable Growth Objectives: Combining metrics for housing, costs, & ability to accommodate diverse population suggests that many elements of this indicator must be addressed throughout the State.

Shortcomings vary among regions and income groups. Needs vary from more alternatives to single-family detached housing, and better balance between costs of housing, rental and transportation costs and the incomes of single professionals and two income households.

Recent measures of progress not yet available, to be determined.

Shortcomings and solutions must be examined & sought by region and jurisdiction.

Sources: Center for Neighborhood Technology, HUD AMI (2007-2011). 2008 – 2012 American Community Survey. MdProperty View housing sales data, Maryland Department of Education


DRAFT

AGRICULTURAL & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE OBJECTIVES


DRAFT

AGRICULTURAL & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE OBJECTIVES

Outside PFAs/ inside target conservation areas, residential fragmentation of resource lands & vulnerability to and threat from additional subdivision and development are minimized by local land use plans, zoning and other tools.

Land use stability is maximized in these areas, providing time to achieve conservation goals before resources are excessively compromised by development

The preceding objectives are maximized in Priority Preservation Areas, Rural Legacy Areas, and other PlanMaryland Natural and Water Resource areas


DRAFT

OVERALL STABILITY* OF RESOURCE LANDS, 2012

*Fragmentation, Vulnerability and Threat are considered together to estimate land use stability through zoning, preservation and land use tools, in light of development threat and conservation goals. Implementation of Septic Growth Tier IV areas in Garrett, Somerset, Harford, and possibly Prince George’s counties may significantly reduce vulnerability and increase stability of rural lands from what is shown Source: MdProperty View, Maryland Department of

Planning


DRAFT

OVERALL STABILITY OF RESOURCE LANDS, 2012

Southern Maryland Region

Baltimore Region (excluding Baltimore

City)

Western Maryland Region

Statewide

Capital Region

Upper Eastern Shore Region

Lower Eastern Shore Region

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

19%

28%

32%

37%

41%

45%

49%

38%

27%

44%

34%

25%

36%

34%

43%

46%

24%

29%

33%

19%

17%

Highly Stable Moderately Stable Unstable


*Fragmentation, Vulnerability and Threat are considered together to estimate land use stability through zoning, preservation and land use tools, in light of development threat and conservation goals. Implementation of Septic Growth Tier IV areas in Garrett, Somerset, Harford, and possibly Prince George’s counties may significantly reduce vulnerability and increase stability of rural lands from what is shown


DRAFT

OVERALL STABILITY OF RESOURCE LANDS*, 2012


Kent

Wor

cest

er

Allega

ny

Dorch

este

r

Carol

ine

Fred

erick

Montg

omer

y

Baltim

ore

Queen

Ann

e's

Cecil

Talb

ot

Som

erse

t

Anne

Arund

el

Carro

ll

Calve

rt

Was

hing

ton

Harfo

rd

Howar

d

Charle

s

Prin

ce G

eorg

e's

Garre

tt

St. M

ary'

s

Wico

mico

Stat

ewid

e0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%74%

72%

67%

63%

57%

51%

41%

38%

34%

33%

31%

28%

28%

27%

26%

25%

20%

19%

18%

16%

16%

16%

14%

36%

17%

17%

20% 28%

26%

27%

20%

24%

53%

27%

53%

54%

25% 29%

32% 3

8%

29%

26%

44%

28%

61%

34%

51% 33%

9%

11%

13%

9%

18%

22%

39%

39%

13%

40%

16%

18%

47%

44%

42%

36%

51%

54%

38%

56%

23%

50%

35%

30%

Highly Stable Moderate & Special Unstable



DRAFT

OVERALL STABILITY OF RESOURCE LANDS, 2012


Baltimore Region (excluding Baltimore

City)


Statewide

Capital Region



0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

19%

28%

32%

37%

41%

45%

49%

38%

27%

44%

34%

25%

36%

34%

43%

46%

24%

29%

33%

19%

17%

Highly Stable Moderately Stable Unstable



Implications for Sustainable Growth Objectives: Statewide, public return on conservation investment is not well supported by land use tools on between 30 and 60% of the land outside PFAs.

By region, as little as 19% and as much as 50% is highly stable assuming market pressures don’t change, providing time for easement & land acquisition to achieve state & local goals before the land resource is excessively compromised.

By county, % highly stable land ranges from 14 to 74%.

Past development, vulnerability and recent market threat all contribute to this measure.

Septic Growth Tier implementation may improve these measures in some counties.


DRAFT

SOCIO-ECONOMIC EQUITY OBJECTIVES


DRAFT

SOCIO-ECONOMIC EQUITY OBJECTIVES• Lower income households have access to Affordable housing Affordable combined housing and transportation costs

Jobs commensurate with education & training

• Populations of poverty and high risk are not geographically concentrated and isolated


DRAFT

COMPOSITE: LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS HAVE ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING, HOUSING +

TRANSPORTATION, & RENT*


Data source: American Community Survey 2008-2012 and 2011 LEHD

Wes

tern

Mar

ylan

d Reg

ion

Baltim

ore

Regio

n

Capita

l Reg

ion

Lower

Eas

tern

Sho

re R

egio

n

Sout

hern

Mar

ylan

d Reg

ion

Upper

Eas

tern

Sho

re R

egio

n

Stat

ewid

e0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

64 6257

51 4945

59

Composite of 3 indicators, each weighted equally: affordable housing, affordable combined housing + transportation costs, & affordable rent. 0 = least supportive,

100 = most supportive of Sustainable Growth Objective(s).

*Household income = 50% of HUD’s Area Median Income (AMI), 2007-2011. Standard for affordable H+T Cost is 45% of income. Estimated H+T Cost from Center for Neighborhood Technology. Rent rates from ACS 2008-2012. Home sales from MPV 2007-2012.


DRAFT

Wes

tern

Mar

ylan

d Reg

ion

Baltim

ore

Regio

n

Capita

l Reg

ion

Lower

Eas

tern

Sho

re R

egio

n

Sout

hern

Mar

ylan

d Reg

ion

Upper

Eas

tern

Sho

re R

egio

n

Stat

ewid

e0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

64 62

57

51 4945

59


Implications for Sustainable Growth Objectives: Access to affordable housing, transportation and rent is fundamental to quality of life for low income population. All are in short supply statewide and in every region.

Data source: American Community Survey 2008-2012 and 2011 LEHD

COMPOSITE: LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS HAVE ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING, HOUSING +

TRANSPORTATION, & RENT*


DRAFT

SOCIO-ECONOMIC EQUITY OBJECTIVES• Lower income households have access to Affordable housing Affordable combined housing and transportation costs

Jobs commensurate with education & training

• Populations of poverty and high risk are not geographically concentrated and isolated


DRAFT

CONCENTRATIONS OF VULNERABLE POPULATION, 2012

Source: 2007 – 2012 American Community Survey


DRAFT

CONCENTRATIONS OF VULNERABLE POPULATION, 2012

Source: 2007 – 2012 American Community Survey

Implications for Sustainable Growth Objectives: There are clear concentrations of vulnerable, relatively isolated populations in the metro regions and in parts of Southern Maryland, Western Maryland and the Eastern Shore.


DRAFT

SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION - LAND USE OBJECTIVES


DRAFT

TRANSPORTATION – LAND USE OBJECTIVES

• Transportation, growth and redevelopment are planned and implemented in concert to Enhance connectivity within and between PFAs Increase multimodal travel Reduce travel times, vehicle miles traveled,

and greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources


DRAFT

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES


DRAFT

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES• The value of residential, commercial, and

industrial real estate in PFAs is stable or increasing

• The number of jobs in PFAs is stable or increasing• Household income is commensurate with costs of

living• A diverse, educated, skilled workforce is available

for current and potential employers• Physical assets (infrastructure) in PFAs have

potential to support new business and employers • The business environment for agricultural, forestry

and other resource based industries is stable or improving

• Land use outside PFAs and within designated resource conservation areas is stable and supports resource based and compatible.


DRAFT

AVERAGE ASSESSED VALUE OF REAL ESTATE PROPERTIES, 2001- 2011*

* Residential average data axis is on the right, commercial and industrial axis is on the left. All comparative data to planning areas is inside PFAs unless otherwise noted.

Source: MdPropertyView

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

$400,000

$450,000

Industrial Commercial/Institutional Residential

Com

merc

ial &

Industr

ial V

alu

e

Resid

enti

al V

alu

e

Aggregate Improvement to Land Value Ratios by Region2012 Values of Improved Commercial Parcels During 3 Periods of Time*


*Ratio is the sum of assessed 2012 improvement values divided by the sum of land values for all assessed commercial and institutional parcels.

Baltimore Capital Lower Eastern Shore Southern Maryland Upper Eastern Shore Western Maryland0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

2.10 2.221.93

2.39

1.97

3.05

2.47

3.31

3.69

3.00

2.28

4.02

5.62

4.02

4.815.11

2.62

6.27

1985-1997 1998-2005 2006-2012


*Ratio is the median of all parcels’ individual ratios of 2012 assessed improvement value divided by land value.

Baltim

ore

Regio

n

Capita

l Reg

ion

Lower

Eas

tern

Sho

re

Sout

hern

Mar

ylan

d

Upper

Eas

tern

Sho

re

Wes

tern

Mar

ylan

d

Stat

ewid

e0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

1.22

1.77 1.68

1.341.09

2.67

1.331.51 1.49

1.872.00

1.45

2.79

1.731.84

2.092.31

2.52 2.52

4.05

2.26

1985-1997 1998-2005 2006-2012

Median Improvement to Land Value Ratios by Region2012 Values of Commercial Parcels Improved During 3 Periods of Time *

Implications for Sustainable Growth Objectives: Average values of residential properties have slowly risen slowly over time, while those of commercial and industrial property values have been more erratic, some of which may be due to three year assessment cycles.

Improvement to land value ratios for commercial properties in all regions are increasingly higher for more recently improved properties, both in aggregate and as measured by median ratios of individual properties.

Together, the data suggest that the value of developed properties in PFAs is generally stable or increasing, and that development remains somewhat attractive to markets.

We are currently calculating improvement/ land value ratios over time based on year-specific assessed values, adjusted for inflation. This may indicate if developed properties are being increasingly used for their economic development potential over time.

The value of residential, commercial, and industrial real estate in PFAs is stable or

increasing


DRAFT


industrial real estate in PFAs is stable or increasing• The number of jobs in PFAs is stable or

increasing• Household income is commensurate with costs of







DRAFT

PERCENT CHANGE IN NUMBER OF JOBS IN PFAS2010-2011

Source: LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics 2011.

Statewide


Capital Region

Baltimore Region



Southern Maryland

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7%

2%

0.5%

1%

2%

3%

4%

7%


DRAFT

PERCENT CHANGE IN NUMBER OF JOBS IN PFAS2010-2011

Source: LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics 2011.

Statewide


Capital Region

Baltimore Region



Southern Maryland

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7%

2%

0.5%

1%

2%

3%

4%

7%

Implications for Sustainable Growth Objectives: The number of jobs in PFAs increased slightly (Western MD) to modestly (Southern MD) from 2010 to 2011.

Comparable data is not available before 2010. 2012 data will be available shortly.


DRAFT


industrial real estate in PFAs is stable or increasing• The number of jobs in PFAs is stable or increasing• Household income is commensurate with

costs of living• A diverse, educated, skilled workforce is available






DRAFT

HOUSING + TRANSPORTATION COSTS IN PFAS,COST ABOVE AFFORDABILITY STANDARD FOR SINGLE

PROFESSIONALS*

Statewide



Capital Region


Baltimore Region


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

35%

57%

52%

40%

33%

27%

13%

Source: Maryland Department of Education, Maryland Department of Planning

*Household income = Median Teacher’s Salary (2011) for each region. Standard for affordability H+T Cost is 45% of income. Estimated H+T Cost from Center for Neighborhood Technology. Percent shows by how much estimated costs exceeds the standard for affordability.


DRAFT

HOUSING + TRANSPORTATION COSTS IN PFAS,COST ABOVE AFFORDABILITY STANDARD FOR TWO

INCOME HOUSEHOLDS*

*Household income = 80% of HUD’s Area Median Income (AMI), 2007-2011. Standard for affordable H+T Cost is 45% of income. Estimated H+T Cost from Center for Neighborhood Technology. Percent show by how much estimated costs exceeds the standard for affordability.

Statewide





Baltimore Region

Capital Region

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

18%

48%

42%

36%

26%

17%

16%


Implications for Sustainable Growth Objectives: For both single professionals and two-income households, combined costs exceed affordability in all regions, quite substantially in some.

Household income is commensurate with costs of living – Affordability of

Housing & Transportation Cost


DRAFT


industrial real estate in PFAs is stable or increasing• The number of jobs in PFAs is stable or increasing• Household income is commensurate with costs of

living• A diverse, educated, skilled workforce is

available for current and potential employers

• Physical assets (infrastructure) in PFAs have potential to support new business and employers

• The business environment for agricultural, forestry and other resource based industries is stable or improving



DRAFT

JOB/ WORKFORCE BALANCE FOR PFA RESIDENTS, BY REGION*

*Average ratios of % low, medium, and high skill workers resident in PFAs to % of skill-appropriate jobs accessible via 30 minute auto & 45 minute transit commutes. Value of 1.0 is balance between populations and jobs, higher means imbalance.

Source: 2008 – 2012 American Community Survey, LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics 2010.

Baltim

ore

Regio

n

Capita

l Reg

ion

Lower

Eas

tern

Sho

re R

egio

n

Sout

hern

Mar

ylan

d Reg

ion

Upper

Eas

tern

Sho

re R

egio

n

Wes

tern

Mar

ylan

d Reg

ion

Stat

ewid

e0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

1.91.7

2.32.4 2.5

2.7

1.81.7 1.6

Inco

mple

te D

ata

Inco

mple

te D

ata

Inco

mple

te D

ata

Inco

mple

te D

ata

1.7

Auto Transit


DRAFT

*Average ratios of % low, medium, and high skill workers resident in PFAs to % of skill-appropriate jobs accessible via 30 minute auto & 45 minute transit commutes. Value of 1.0 is balance between populations and jobs, higher means imbalance.

Source: 2008 – 2012 American Community Survey, LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics 2010.

Baltim

ore

Regio

n

Capita

l Reg

ion

Lower

Eas

tern

Sho

re R

egio

n

Sout

hern

Mar

ylan

d Reg

ion

Upper

Eas

tern

Sho

re R

egio

n

Wes

tern

Mar

ylan

d Reg

ion

Stat

ewid

e0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

1.91.7

2.32.4 2.5

2.7

1.81.7 1.6

Inco

mple

te D

ata

Inco

mple

te D

ata

Inco

mple

te D

ata

Inco

mple

te D

ata

1.7

Auto Transit

JOB/ WORKFORCE BALANCE FOR PFA RESIDENTS, BY REGION*

Implications for Sustainable Growth Objectives: There is considerable imbalance between workforce populations and transportation-accessible, skill-appropriate jobs statewide and in all regions. The greatest imbalance is outside the metro areas, but it is considerable within those areas also.


DRAFT





potential to support new business and employers

• The business environment for agricultural, forestry and other resource based industries is stable or improving



DRAFT

WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY


DRAFT

TRANSIT-BASED JOB ACCESSIBILITY FROM PFAS IN 45 MINUTES (AS % OF JOBS ACCESSIBLE BY AUTO ALONE)*

Source: Maryland State Transportation Model

Baltimore Region

Capital Region

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%

5%

3%

16%

12%

Drive & Transit Walk & Transit

*Source: Analysis by SMZ (state modeling zone) aggregated by PFA, county, & region. Data not yet available outside metro regions.


DRAFT

CONSOLIDATED TRANSPORTATION PLAN FUNDING*

*SHA, MTA, MAA, MPA, MVA, and MDTA’s major projects are classified per the CTP’s statewide project-funding summary. Multijurisdictional projects are SHA and MDTA projects that cross multiple jurisdictions. They are shown separately, but are also reflected in regional figures based on the proportion of the project in the region.

Source: Maryland FY 2013-2018 Consolidated Transportation Program (CTP)

Statewide

Multi

Western Maryland

Upper Eastern Shore

Southern Maryland

Lower Eastern Shore

Capital Region

Baltimore Region

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

29%

28%

10%

14%

6%

11%

45%

14%

31%

79%

35%

7%

36%

59%

2%

86%

9%

34%

46%

20%

41%

9%

50%

55%

3%

1%

34%6%

Safety & Maintenance In PFAs Safety & Maintenance Outside PFAs Safety & Maintenance Not Specified Capacity In PFAs

Capacity Outside PFAs Capacity not Specified


Economic Development – Physical assets (infrastructure) in PFAs have potential to

support new business and employersImplications for Sustainable Growth Objectives: Most WWTPs have adequate capacity for expected growth. Possible shortfalls exist in several regions and counties. A deficiency seems likely during the next 20 years in Saint Mary’s County.

Transit infrastructure, which plays a key role supporting many economic development & other sustainability objectives, is severely lacking in the metropolitan region where it has the most potential benefit. This cannot be corrected through transportation projects, without adapting the land use pattern.

Considerable CTP spending for capacity improvements occurs outside PFAs in several regions & statewide. But some of these projects undoubtedly connect PFAs.

Overall, infrastructure is supporting smart growth up to a point, but far more is needed if smart and sustainable growth and conservation are to be achieved.


DRAFT





potential to support new business and employers • The business environment for agricultural,

forestry and other resource based industries is stable or improving



DRAFT

AVERAGE FARM REAL ESTATE VALUE AND SIZE

Source: United States Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Average Real Estate Value per Operating Unit Average Farm Size

Valu

e in T

housands

Siz

e in A

cre

s


DRAFT

CASH RENTS PAID FOR CROP AND PASTURE LAND

Source: United States Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

Irrigated Non-Irrigated Pasture

Dollars

per

Acre


DRAFT

CASH RECEIPTS BY COMMODITY GROUP

Source: United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

All Broiler, Dairy, Other Livestock Grain, Feed, Oil Crops All Veg, Fruit, Nuts

All Greenhouse and Floriculture

Dollars

In T

housands


DRAFT

PERSONAL INCOME BY RESOURCE SECTOR

Source: United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

Farming Forestry, fishing, and related activities Mining


Economic Development – Physical assets (infrastructure) in PFAs have potential to

support new business and employersImplications for Sustainable Growth Objectives: Most WWTPs have adequate capacity for expected growth. Possible shortfalls exist in several regions and counties. A deficiency seems likely during the next 20 years in Saint Mary’s County.

Transit infrastructure, which plays a key role supporting many economic development & other sustainability objectives, is severely lacking in the metropolitan region where it has the most potential benefit. This cannot be corrected through transportation projects, without adapting the land use pattern.

Considerable CTP spending for capacity improvements occurs outside PFAs in several regions & statewide. But some of these projects undoubtedly connect PFAs.

Overall, infrastructure is supporting smart growth up to a point, but far more is needed if smart and sustainable growth and conservation are to be achieved.

sustainable growth and conservation indicators

Documents