View
221
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
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
Planning.Maryland.gov
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
Planning.Maryland.gov
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
Planning.Maryland.gov
DRAFT
•Only germane objectives• Indicators legitimately measure progress• Likely continued data availability•Within reasonable purview/ responsibilities of PlanMD, Commission, MDP
SCREENING CRITERIA
Planning.Maryland.gov
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will Commission use them?•Measures/ benchmarks appropriate for different regions, jurisdictions, scales• Incomplete, out-of-date or inadequate data•Overly generous or miserly indicators•Mistakes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
Planning.Maryland.gov
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
Planning.Maryland.gov
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
Planning.Maryland.gov
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:
Planning.Maryland.gov
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).
Planning.Maryland.gov
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.
Planning.Maryland.gov
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
Planning.Maryland.gov
DRAFT
*Includes single family (detached, duplexes, townhouses, and condos) but not apartments/multifamily units.
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
Source: MdProperty View
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.
Planning.Maryland.gov
DRAFT
BALTIMORE & CAPITAL REGIONS
Source: MdProperty View
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
*Includes single family (detached, duplexes, townhouses, and condos) but not apartments/multifamily units.
Planning.Maryland.gov
DRAFT
*Includes single family (detached, duplexes, townhouses, and condos) but not apartments/multifamily units.
BALTIMORE & CAPITAL REGIONS
Source: MdProperty View
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%0.24507630103039 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.
Planning.Maryland.gov
DRAFTSource: MdProperty View
WESTERN & SOUTHERN MARYLAND REGIONS
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 1999-2012PARCELS IN & ACRES OUTSIDE PFAS*
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
*Includes single family (detached, duplexes, townhouses, and condos) but not apartments/multifamily units.
Planning.Maryland.gov
DRAFT
*Includes single family (detached, duplexes, townhouses, and condos) but not apartments/multifamily units.
Source: MdProperty View
WESTERN & SOUTHERN REGIONS
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 1999-2012PARCELS IN & ACRES OUTSIDE PFAS*
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
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.
Planning.Maryland.gov
DRAFT
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 1999-2012PARCELS IN & ACRES OUTSIDE PFAS*
Source: MdProperty View
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%
Percent Parcels Inside PFAs Percent Parcels Outside PFAs Percent Acres Inside PFAs Percent Acres Outside PFA2,011 Parcels
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
*Includes single family (detached, duplexes, townhouses, and condos) but not apartments/multifamily units.
Planning.Maryland.gov
DRAFT
*Includes single family (detached, duplexes, townhouses, and condos) but not apartments/multifamily units.
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 1999-2012PARCELS IN & ACRES OUTSIDE PFAS*
Source: MdProperty View
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%
Percent Parcels Inside PFAs Percent Parcels Outside PFAs Percent Acres Inside PFAs Percent Acres Outside PFA2,011 Parcels
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.
Planning.Maryland.gov
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
Planning.Maryland.gov
DRAFT
*Includes both single family (detached, duplexes, townhomes and condos) and apartments/multifamily units.
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
Planning.Maryland.gov
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
*Includes both single family (detached, duplexes, townhomes and condos) and apartments/multifamily units.
Planning.Maryland.gov
DRAFT
*Includes both single family (detached, duplexes, townhomes and condos) and apartments/multifamily units.
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.
Planning.Maryland.gov
DRAFT
COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT, 2001-2012PARCELS & ACRES DEVELOPED INSIDE/OUTSIDE PFAS
Source: MdProperty View
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
Planning.Maryland.gov
DRAFT
COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT, 2001-2012PARCELS & ACRES DEVELOPED INSIDE/OUTSIDE PFAS
Source: MdProperty View
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.
Planning.Maryland.gov
DRAFT
DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES:
• 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
Planning.Maryland.gov
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.
Planning.Maryland.gov
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
Maximum Total Score=40
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.
Planning.Maryland.gov
DRAFT
DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES:
• 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
Planning.Maryland.gov
DRAFT
COMPOSITE: ACCOMMODATE SOCIO-ECONOMICALLY DIVERSE POPULATION
Maximum Total Score=40
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).
Planning.Maryland.gov
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
Maximum Total Score=40
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
Planning.Maryland.gov
DRAFT
AGRICULTURAL & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE OBJECTIVES
Planning.Maryland.gov
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
Planning.Maryland.gov
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
Planning.Maryland.gov
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
Source: MdProperty View, Maryland Department of Planning
*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
Planning.Maryland.gov
DRAFT
OVERALL STABILITY OF RESOURCE LANDS*, 2012
Source: MdProperty View, Maryland Department of Planning
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
*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
Planning.Maryland.gov
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
Source: MdProperty View, Maryland Department of Planning
*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
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.
Planning.Maryland.gov
DRAFT
SOCIO-ECONOMIC EQUITY OBJECTIVES
Planning.Maryland.gov
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
Planning.Maryland.gov
DRAFT
COMPOSITE: LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS HAVE ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING, HOUSING +
TRANSPORTATION, & RENT*
Maximum Total Score=40
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.
Planning.Maryland.gov
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
Maximum Total Score=40
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*
Planning.Maryland.gov
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
Planning.Maryland.gov
DRAFT
CONCENTRATIONS OF VULNERABLE POPULATION, 2012
Source: 2007 – 2012 American Community Survey
Planning.Maryland.gov
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.
Planning.Maryland.gov
DRAFT
SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION - LAND USE OBJECTIVES
Planning.Maryland.gov
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
Planning.Maryland.gov
DRAFT
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES
Planning.Maryland.gov
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.
Planning.Maryland.gov
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*
Source: MdProperty View
*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
Source: MdProperty View
*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
Planning.Maryland.gov
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.
Planning.Maryland.gov
DRAFT
PERCENT CHANGE IN NUMBER OF JOBS IN PFAS2010-2011
Source: LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics 2011.
Statewide
Western Maryland Region
Capital Region
Baltimore Region
Lower Eastern Shore Region
Upper Eastern Shore Region
Southern Maryland
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7%
2%
0.5%
1%
2%
3%
4%
7%
Planning.Maryland.gov
DRAFT
PERCENT CHANGE IN NUMBER OF JOBS IN PFAS2010-2011
Source: LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics 2011.
Statewide
Western Maryland Region
Capital Region
Baltimore Region
Lower Eastern Shore Region
Upper Eastern Shore 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.
Planning.Maryland.gov
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.
Planning.Maryland.gov
DRAFT
HOUSING + TRANSPORTATION COSTS IN PFAS,COST ABOVE AFFORDABILITY STANDARD FOR SINGLE
PROFESSIONALS*
Statewide
Southern Maryland Region
Upper Eastern Shore Region
Capital Region
Lower Eastern Shore Region
Baltimore Region
Western Maryland 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.
Planning.Maryland.gov
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
Lower Eastern Shore Region
Upper Eastern Shore Region
Western Maryland Region
Southern Maryland Region
Baltimore Region
Capital Region
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
18%
48%
42%
36%
26%
17%
16%
Planning.Maryland.gov
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
Planning.Maryland.gov
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.
Planning.Maryland.gov
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
Planning.Maryland.gov
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.
Planning.Maryland.gov
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.
Planning.Maryland.gov
DRAFT
WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY
Planning.Maryland.gov
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.
Planning.Maryland.gov
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
Planning.Maryland.gov
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.
Planning.Maryland.gov
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.
Planning.Maryland.gov
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
Planning.Maryland.gov
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
Planning.Maryland.gov
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
Planning.Maryland.gov
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
Planning.Maryland.gov
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.
Recommended