Hey everyone, I have a couple of questions. First what was/is the max population of the following cities, I have some, but could you help me with the rest?

Cleveland 914,000

Columbus 7??,???

Cincinnati 5??,???

Toledo ?

Akron?

Dayton?

Yougstown?

 

Also there are rumors and truth to some of those rumors, that the US Census was way off for a number of cities. Which central cities in Ohio and the US in general do you see making gains in 2010?

Cincinnati was 503,000 in 1950 so it could have been higher around 1949..1948...etc.

Cincinnati: 1950: 503,998

Columbus will still probably make gains, although you could argue that those gains won't really be in the "central" city, but in the suburban portions of the city.  I don't think any other city will make gains.  We'll be lucky if the rest don't lose too embarrassingly large a percentage of their pops.

Akron's peak was in 1960 at 290,351. 

I believe Youngstown peaked at about 170,000???.... correct me if I'm wrong

Youngstown:

 

LARGEST: 1950: 168,330

Now: Just around 80,000

 

Mahoning County Population of 1950: 250,000

Mahoning County Population Now: 250,000

Dayton's peak census population was in 1960: 262,332

yeah, Dayton actually was experiencing infill construction in late 1940s into the 1950s on old pre-depression plats.

Cincinnati will be an interesting situation come next Census time.  The center city has been gaining in population (downtown and uptown for the most part), while other neighborhoods continue to struggle (Price Hill, Walnut Hills, etc).  I would imagine that those would negate one another, and not to expect any kind of gain unless you see a major housing development start soon (The Banks or whatever)

I understand all the cities/major counties are losing population and I know where they're going, but what I don't understand is what's replacing the houses that are being sold and left??? For example, if you live in a county and you move out of the county, your home or apartment would be replaced by somebody else, am I not mistaken? All other things constant, minor new residential developments are always happening in Clev/Cincy/Colu/Dayton/Toledo. The only thing I can guess is that inner-city's are having a lot of homes razed and torn down or that large families are moving away and being replaced by single occupancy households. And another thing, if it's the inner-city's that are losing population the most, then how would that explain the boom in neighboring counties.. A given example would be in Cleveland (where I live): Cleveland's population continues to decline while Avon continues to grow. How many inner-city families living in a $50,000 home are actually leaving the city and really moving to Avon into a $300,000 home?? Once again, I don't understand this whole population trends thing.. I guess inner-city could move to suburbs, suburb people move out of county, and in the end, the inner-city house becomes vacant, thus reducing inner-city population but increasing out of county population at the same time. Just some thoughts..

I think it's mostly from sibling moving out and choose to live in the suburbs. And also first time buyers buy newer homes out in the suburbs. I sware here where i live(Montgomery rd) i can count 20+ apartment s for rent. Just multiply that 100's of times over across the county.

Suburban shift still in motion

Butler and Warren growing as Hamilton Co. losses mount

BY GREGORY KORTE | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER

 

On any given day, 30 more people move out of Hamilton County than move in.

 

That's the fastest rate of departure of any county in Ohio, according to new county-by-county population estimates to be released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. The estimates cover the period from July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005.

 

If not for that exodus, Hamilton County would be growing. Births outstripped deaths by a 3-2 ratio, - enough for what would have been a population gain of about 4,000. But the departure of almost 11,000 people in that year led to an overall loss of just short of 7,000 people.

 

E-mail [email protected]

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060316/NEWS01/603160378

Warren, Butler grow on

Census update confirms mass influx, 2000-2005

BY JENNIFER EDWARDS | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER

 

LEBANON - Warren County's 23 percent population growth in the past five years makes it one of the nation's 100 fastest-growing counties. But that's no surprise to county leaders and residents.

 

In fact, the county's previous ranking on that list was 45th place.

 

New population statistics from the U.S. Census revealed that Warren County now ranks 92nd among the fastest growing counties. The county had 196,622 residents in July 2005, up from 159,042 in April 2000.

 

E-mail [email protected].

 

www.enquirer.com

Boone grows by 13 daily

County's 4.8% jump in one year ranks 49th in U.S.

BY MIKE RUTLEDGE | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER

 

BURLINGTON - Kentucky gained 31,570 new residents last year, and 15 percent of them were in Boone County. Between July 1, 2004, and July 1, 2005, Boone grew by about 13 people on the average day, or 4,841 through the year, according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates released today. That's a 4.8 percent jump in 12 months, ranking Boone the country's 49th-quickest-growing county by percentage, according to Census calculations. A year earlier, Boone ranked 70th.

 

"You're our state's shining star, in terms of population growth," said Kentucky's state demographer, Michael Price, based at the University of Louisville.

 

E-mail [email protected]

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060316/NEWS0103/603160403

More sobering news

 

Ohio growth remains flat over 5 years

Most areas lose more residents than they attract, census reports. Medina only local bright spot

 

By David KnoxBeacon Journal staff writer

 

More than half of Ohio's counties saw more residents pack up and leave than newcomers arrive during the last five years. In eight counties, more people died than were born, while births outstripped deaths by fewer than 1,000 in 46 more counties. These are some of the sobering statistics found in the latest population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau.

 

www.ohio.com

 

    I hate to break it to you folks, but I think you ain't seen nothin' yet. Just wait until 2030.....

 

    :-o

 

 

gggrrrrr.  There has to be things our leaders can do.  I am so SICK of reading these kinds of things and knowing our leaders arent doing anything to help the situation.  gggrrr

"We don't want to be another Hamilton County," said Warren County Commissioner Mike Kilburn. "We still want to have the pleasantries of a rural environment that made this area so attractive to begin with."

 

"We are on the right track because this is all we think about and we know this is coming," said Warren County Commissioner Dave Young.

 

The county is in excellent financial shape, is trying to attract more businesses and consistently rolls back taxes for residents, Young said.

 

Well you can't just expect your dear old town to stay very rural and country-like when you encourage all these businesses to come.  These suburbs see businesses and big office parks/HQs as a way to get a boost in tax revenue.  But do they not think that a whole lot of other people are not going to want to move there too to be near jobs and businesses?

 

You can't live in your sparsly-populated pastoral paradise and still expect to be close to everything at the same time and have no traffic.  And if it is that way, it won't last for long-- you can't have your cake and it too, and I wish more people would understand that.

 

IMO, if everyone were made to choose between living in a rural setting and being close to shops; restaurants;and work, I think people would rather be close to things.

I don't see Warren County doing much to retain "the pleasantries of a rural environment".  A bunch of jawboning by politicians for he NMBYs.

 

Warren is going to be a mess.  They pretty much repeated the same crappy development pattern in Springboro, beteen I-75 and Springboro Pike, that you can see in Montogomery County by the Dayton Mall.....bad example up the road, and they just repeated it.

 

 

 

 

gggrrrrr.  There has to be things our leaders can do.  I am so SICK of reading these kinds of things and knowing our leaders arent doing anything to help the situation.  gggrrr

 

Well, what do you want them to do? 

We don't want to be another Hamilton County... We still want to have the pleasantries of a rural environment that made this area so attractive to begin with.

 

<Rant>

 

Please Mr. Kilburn, you act as though Hamilton County is the crappiest little crap hole on this side of the Mason-Dixon Line. I wouldn't change being a Hamilton County for the world. We're both extremely urban and extremely rural, and at the pace we are going it will likely stay that way for some time to come. With the unrestrained growth going on in Warren County it won't be too long until you too see in some parts of your county what you currently see of Hamilton County. I'd never exchange my 11 minute downtown commute for a 30-40 minute commute if I lived in your apparently "saintly" county. I'd never exchange the large lot I live for a tiny, miniscle 0.2 acre lot that developers can build on in your "Rural" county. A 0.2 acre lot seems a lot like suburbia to me, and not a rural thing. I'd never give up our excellent library and park systems for... I don't know. I don't know what I'd do if I didn't have easy access to Miami Whitewater Forest or Winton Woods, they are most excellent parks that allow me to hike, bike, run, and play frisbee golf.

 

You, Mr. Kilburn, act as though your county is the best darn county in the area, but let's face it, it's really not. In 50 years your successors will be pulling their hair out over what you and your fellow commissioners have allowed to happened, and I can assure you that perhaps then it will be the council members of the combined Cincinnati-Hamilton County (I can dream, right) are pointing their fingers at your soon to be monstrosity and laughing.

 

</Rant>

 

In all seriousness, in time I have this strange feeling that in ten years you are going to hear about how they are being oppressed by traffic and taxes. It's funny how the things they seeked to escape by heading to suburbia will come back full circle and bite them in the ass. And when this happens, you can be sure that people will whine and complain about how the government should bend over backwards to make things better, and when they can't make things better with out raising taxes even higher you may see people start to look elsewhere to live. Where? Brown County? Dearborn County? Gallatin County? Hamilton County? Western Butler County? Who knows, but 20 years down the road we may find out.

 

 

Hey I have an idea! Lets stop building stadiums that don't do sh*t for the local economy!  Spend a billion dollars on developing small businesses in the city instead, because people tend to move where there are jobs, and housing stock gets built where there's a population increase.

Hey I have an idea! Lets stop building stadiums that don't do sh*t for the local economy!  Spend a billion dollars on developing small businesses in the city instead, because people tend to move where there are jobs, and housing stock gets built where there's a population increase.

We have programs for that, but businesses still steal and not pay back loans.

"We don't want to be another Hamilton County," said Warren County Commissioner Mike Kilburn. "We still want to have the pleasantries of a rural environment that made this area so attractive to begin with."

 

These northern counties will actually be worse than Hamilton County.  These counties do not have the infrastructure to support the growht that they are practically encouraging, nor do they have the business tax base to support its residents.

 

You will not be another Hamilton County....YOU WILL BE WORSE!!!!

 

gggrrrrr.  There has to be things our leaders can do.  I am so SICK of reading these kinds of things and knowing our leaders arent doing anything to help the situation.  gggrrr

 

Well, what do you want them to do? 

 

SOMETHING!  lol

We (The political leaders state wide) should get together and start a raiding expedition stealing major corporations from all over the nation!!

Hey I have an idea! Lets stop building stadiums that don't do sh*t for the local economy!  Spend a billion dollars on developing small businesses in the city instead, because people tend to move where there are jobs, and housing stock gets built where there's a population increase.

We have programs for that, but businesses still steal and not pay back loans.

If Hamilton County and the City of Cincinnati spent all that stadium money on economic development by creating bigger incentives, grants and loans, to recruit businesses here, it would make a big difference.  Sure theres people that run off with the money, or don't pay back loans but that's a risk with any loan. When cities prosper or decline, it's usually a result of the state of the job market.  Give people a good reason to relocate to Cincinnati and they will.  The problem is that outside of the city, you can acquire land much cheaper and have more control over the government. My uncle's company is projected to be a 350 million dollar company in the next few years and he is purposely having his operations in rural part of Wisconsin. Why? Land is 2 thousand dollars an acre, the city/county government kisses your ass because you're bringing in jobs to a dead area and you can do whatever you want.  If cities want their major corporations to stay, and have new corporations coming in, they're gonna have to give them a good reason.

Actually, after listening to a fellow geographer (from Massachutsus) speak down here at LSU today.  It's not recruiting outsiders that local (or state) officials should be doing, but helping/keeping businesses that have started up here, up and running (and not going elsewhere).  Be it as simple as zoning (for home businesses) to the "dreaded tax code."

 

That could take up the "something" that several of you have bemoaned local politicians not doing in this thread.

That's "Massachusetts", I've been there enough to spot misspellings. :-D

A given example would be in Cleveland (where I live): Cleveland's population continues to decline while Avon continues to grow. How many inner-city families living in a $50,000 home are actually leaving the city and really moving to Avon into a $300,000 home??

 

Check out some of the housing trends analyses done by Tom Bier at CSU. To summarize it:

 

West Side Example:

1. Developer builds new homes on former cornfield in Avon, as son of deceased farmer couldn't afford to pay estate tax and wasn't excited about becoming a farmer himself;

 

2. Middle- to upper-class North Olmsted or Fairview Park resident wants new house, feeling of moving up in the world, quieter surroundings, bigger rooms in house for things like massive entertainment center and computer desks, lower taxes (because Avon has space to build things that add to taxbase whereas NO or FP have little room nor money to raze/rebuild so they have to raise tax rates);

 

3. House in North Olmsted or Fairview Park goes on the market. Middle-class resident of Lakewood or Cleveland's West Park buys the home, seeking better schools for their kids (while Lakewood schools are pretty decent, their high school is getting rough);

 

4. House in Lakewood or West Park goes on the market. House doesn't sell right away. When the price goes down a bit, a businessman buys the home and rents it to a working-class single mother who wants a safer neighborhood for her children where drugs and gangs are rare;

 

5. Rental home left vacant in Clark-Metro, Stockyards or Cudell neighborhood of Cleveland. Owner of home cannot pay expenses of home and the bank forecloses on the mortgage. Tax liens are filed against property. Lead paint is found in home. The house falls into disrepair and despite interest by some in purchasing the home, the myriad of legal and environmental complications involved with the home, it stays empty. Gangs hold drug parties in house. House boarded up by police. Boards are pulled off door by thieves who steal its copper pipes and conduits. Home is set ablaze by kids. Neighborhood complaints result in the city acquiring it at sheriff's auction and demolishing it. Land sits vacant until a decade or more passes and enough homes in the neighborhood suffer the same fate. Developer builds new homes in area.

 

Result: Those who lived in Cleveland moved to inner-ring suburb. Those who lived in inner-ring suburb moved to middle-ring suburb. Those who lived in middle-ring suburb moved to exurb.

 

Now, think about that part. Each time we build a new ring of exurbs in a region that isn't growing in population, the ring of wealth is pushed farther out and the low-income residents ultimately follow on its heels in chasing it. The "ring of despair" as I call it also chases the earlier rings. It leaves trail of blight in its wake. What's more troublesome is that while some communities can slow this process by modernizing (such as through raze/rebuild) their housing stock, there is NOTHING THEY CAN DO TO STOP THEIR DEMISE.

 

The answer lies less in the core city but at the urban fringe, for as long as it keeps getting pushed farther out, it will keep dispersing the region's population, its purchasing power and its taxbases. Those are spread across a tax-supported infrastructure of schools, roads and utilities that's many times larger and more expensive when compared to the population served.

 

Until we figure out a politically acceptable way to rein in development at the urban fringe, communities within high-sprawl, low-growth metro areas don't get to keep their wealth. They only borrow it for about 50 years, only to watch it slip away to the next community farther out from the urban center. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Excellent analysis done by Tom Bier and yourself. It's actually depressing to think about how this sort of thing happens everyday in our major urban cores.

Thanks for posting KJP.  A sad yet excellent ananlysis of how this trend continues on a daily basis.  Even with all the great in-fill projects being added to the urban cores of our cities, there just isn't enough of a wave of people coming back into the cities to stop the heavy bleeding a people leaving. 

 

It's a sad cycle and unfortunately, most people don't see or realize the great strain that it puts on a regions infastructure when the metro area continues to expand.  It just boggles my mind looking at how stagnant the population is in the Cleveland-Akron area, yet there is tons of new housing construction located between the two cities.  It's really depressing to think about what will be left of our cities if this trend does not slow, and unfortunately, there is no forseeable end of the trend that I can see.

Where does the price of gasoline fit into this scenario?  I personally believe that the relatively low price of gasoline that we have enjoyed up until the last couple of years helped people decide to live in an exurb and commute to the city and back.  The low price of gas also made it easy for developers to sell these homes that are miles and miles away from the core of the region.  Now that high gas prices are here to stay, does anybody think that this trend might be reversing itself?

If only heavy restrictions could be placed on suburban/exurban sprawl.

Now that high gas prices are here to stay, does anybody think that this trend might be reversing itself?

I definantly think this will have an effect on people's desire to move to exurbia.  However, we'll just have to wait and see how much of an impact it will have.  I like to think that this will make some people reconsider their lifestyles and decide upon a more sensible, urban lifestyle; however, I can imangine people desparately clinging onto the lifestyles they've become accustomed to, regardless of the price of gasoline.

Where does the price of gasoline fit into this scenario?  I personally believe that the relatively low price of gasoline that we have enjoyed up until the last couple of years helped people decide to live in an exurb and commute to the city and back.  The low price of gas also made it easy for developers to sell these homes that are miles and miles away from the core of the region.  Now that high gas prices are here to stay, does anybody think that this trend might be reversing itself?

I don't think gas would really make a difference unless it was over like 4 dollars a gallon.  I don't think gas is nearly expensive enough right now for people to be concerned about that. 

Now that high gas prices are here to stay, does anybody think that this trend might be reversing itself?

 

It assumes that people are aware of the alternatives and consider them viable. For some, the status of living in a big new home in Avon, Brunswick, Twinsburg, Chesterland or Madison will be tough for them to give up. Some of these folks may consider moving back into the inner ring suburbs a "retreat" from the progress in their lives and will hold out for as long as they can. Some will push their elected officials to create more incentives (tax breaks, energy efficiency initiatives, etc) to enable a continuation of the lifestyle.

 

But think about what all this means for the inner-ring suburbs, especially those where much of their housing stock is comprised of tiny bungalows from the 1940s-60s. People today want rec rooms, home offices and living rooms to fit that armior with the home theater in it. Cleveland at least has vacant land to build contemporary homes; inner ring suburbs typically do not. These issues were spelled out in a report done a couple years by the First Suburbs Consortium on ways to help homeowners modernize or build additions to bungalows.

 

Who knows.... If gas prices keep ticking upward (and if you read my posts in the Peak Oil thread, clearly I believe gas prices will keep trending much higher), older, walkable, transit friendly cities like Cleveland could become the new high-growth areas and the inner-ring suburbs may be left in a state of flux. It's the exurbs that are threatened in a post-Peak Oil environment, but that's probably going to take some time to shake out given people's unwillingness to abruptly change their lifestyles.

 

For the time being, the post-war suburban housing boom remains the institutionalized policy of this nation, even in metro areas that aren't growing in population. It will probably take something dramatic to alter it. Nothing lasts forever.

It's interesting if you look at the energy debate that it is all about ways to make our personal vehicles more efficient (hydrogen, hybrids, CNG).  I haven't heard anyone with a national bully-pulpit make a forceful push for investment in transit or rebuilding of our inner cities.

It's interesting if you look at the energy debate that it is all about ways to make our personal vehicles more efficient (hydrogen, hybrids, CNG).  I haven't heard anyone with a national bully-pulpit make a forceful push for investment in transit or rebuilding of our inner cities.

 

And like I said, what good are those alternatives in the long run if we're just going to wastefully use them up anyway? I wish we had high-speed trains between cities here. No need to drive 2+hours to Cleveland or 1.5 hours to Cincinnati. Why wouldn't you use those?

The first thing that comes to mind in this discussion is gasoline/oil. I definately think it will be the key to reversing the trend. As oil demand rises while oil supply simultaneously decreases, we may just see exurbs collapse - whether slowly or all at once is still unknown. The typical scenario is that oil will not run out completely, but the supply will not be nearly enough for USA/China/India/etc. and so the demand will be too high causing shortages and a huge price increase. Prices will spike way up (probably not 4 dollars a gallon, but perhaps 20 dollars a gallon!), thus preventing most people in the exurbs from using their vehicle anymore, ultimately rendering it useless. Public Transportation is non-existent in the exurbs and taxi services are already very difficult to use when living out in the rural areas. Sure, public transportation can be built and oil/gasoline alternatives can be developed and implemented - but it all takes time, sometimes a LONG time. If oil peaks before the future of transportation is successfully embedded into society, we will most likely all lose, but the exurbs suffering will be far greater. Think about how society would function if cars were suddenly no longer to our avail! Just imagine the immediate impact of a short-term economical collapse. Fortunately, we're seeing more and more people moving to the city and giving up the car for public transportation, walking, and/or biking. Those people set the pace for the future imo.

 

  ^Excellent post, KJP. I share your views on the "ring of despair."

 

    "Where does the price of gasoline fit into this scenario?"

 

    Kunstler and others are predicting an end of suburbia. I agree that the suburban lifestyle is unsustainable in the long run without oil. But what can we expect to see in the short term, say, the next 30 years?

 

    I am led to believe that when KJP's "ring of despair" reaches the 1960's and 1970's subdivisions, we are going to see deterioration on a major scale. Look at either a chart of new home sales per year, or a map showing development by year and you will see that the 1960's and 1970's were the boom years of suburbia. I don't know why that the 1950's homes are called the baby boomer homes; actually, the baby boomers left their parents' houses in the 1960's and 1970's and bought their own houses. The retirement and then death of the baby boomers is going to hit us hard all the way around.

 

    So, back to oil:

 

    In 1955, young families could afford a new house, two new cars, and 3 or 4 kids. Nowadays, slightly older families are still buying the new house and two new cars, but they aren't having as many kids. They say that it costs $100,000 to $300,000 to raise a child these days. Split over 18 years, that's about $5,000 to $15,000 a year.

 

    So, which would you rather have, a kid or a car? Despite what people say about having kids, the fact is that car ownership per capita is still rising while the birth rate is dropping. In the face of higher oil costs, people apparently are choosing to maintain their present lifestyle, except have fewer children.

 

    Fewer children this year means fewer families 20 years from now. And so, the population is about to start dropping. There were fewer children born this year than last year, with no signs of that trend reversing. In fact, the only reason our population is growing at all is because our death rate is low: old people are getting older instead of dying. This won't last forever, of course. The U.S. Census is projecting a peak in Ohio population in 2018, a fact that I keep mentioning on this board but no one seems to believe it.

 

    The other conclusion is that while family size is shrinking, the number of people per house is shrinking. If your community had 10,000 houses with an average of 5 people per house in 1955, and you still have 10,000 houses but with an average of 4 people per house in 1995, you lost 10,000 people, or 20% of your population, in 40 years. Did the local grocery store lose 20% of it's business? How about the local roller rink or movie theater?

 

    As for commuting to the city, remember that businesses are moving out as well. So, in the face of declining oil supplies, people can still commute to work from the exurbs. Instead of driving downtown, they are driving to the outer ring.

 

    I honestly can't predict how all of this will turn out, but I expect big changes!

       As for commuting to the city, remember that businesses are moving out as well. So, in the face of declining oil supplies, people can still commute to work from the exurbs. Instead of driving downtown, they are driving to the outer ring.

 

Excellent points. On the one I've quoted, I think that's something that folks like Kunstler et al haven't given due credit to. The prominence of many edge cities where there are large concentrations of daytime employment populations will likely survive pretty much intact, but will require a change in their land use to ensure their vitality. I can see them adding high-density residential at office campuses, basic retail, putting large surface parking lots into decks with smaller footprints, adding sidewalks and bike paths, etc.

 

One issue that I think bodes well for Ohio is it's ability to grow its own food to feed its own population. Blessed will be those regions where food doesn't have to be transported as far. I think the American Southwest is in trouble, and even the Southeast to some degree, considering that their populations are also too large for their ecosystems to support, based on the sea water that's being drawn "upstream" far inland into freshwater reserviors and underground aquifers. One thing we have plenty of in Ohio is water and farmland, unless we keep paving it over or we decide corn is more important for feeding our cars ethanol than it is for food to feed ourselves.

If only heavy restrictions could be placed on suburban/exurban sprawl.

 

To prevent people from getting depressed and/or feeling powerless to stop, or at least slow urban sprawl, let me suggest some existing tools that can be put into play by local and county governments, regional planning organizations, farmland owners, nonprofit groups and others:

 

1. A farmland owner can petition to have his/her property of at least 10 acres declared an agricultural district as long as the property earns, or will earn $2,500 over a three year span (included predicted future earnings). A local referendum is not required to zone the property as an agricultural district. Instead, the locally elected body (city council, village council, township trustees, etc.). For more information on agricultural districts, visit http://ohioline.osu.edu/cd-fact/1268.html

 

2. Expand Soil & Water Conservation Districts in counties where the loss of natural lands are threatened by sprawling new development. Expand and link up enough districts, and it creates a defacto urban growth boundary around our metro areas. County commissioners have the power to expand the district in their county, and every single one of Ohio's 88 counties has a Soil & Water Conservation District in it. For more information, visit  http://www.ofswcd.org/

 

3. Metropolitan Planning Organizations need to create smart growth planning principles and, just as important, enforce them. The Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency has some terrific planning principles their board enacted a couple of years ago, but they don't enforce them. There has to be consequences for not enforcing the principles, but the natural consequences are too long term for MPO board members to see, not when most are elected mayors, council people or otherwise unable to see past the next election.

 

Here are some important facts to keep in mind when communicating to local governments about controlling sprawl:

 

Too many local officials see new homes getting built and count only the taxes they generate, not the costs they incur. Based on a more accurate measuring stick -- called "NET FISCAL IMPACT" -- the farmland replaced by that subdivision has a net fiscal impact of $1.05 to $1.10 in taxes generated for every $1 of local governmental cost. That's equivalent to what a tax-rich new industry or office park generates.

 

On the other hand, few housing subdivisions generate more taxes than they incur in local governmental costs (garbage pickup, sewers, schools, law enforcement, snow removal, etc.). Housing subdivisions are net fiscal losers!

 

Could you imagine a mayor advocating eliminating a local office park for a housing development? Of course not. But when it comes to eliminating a farm for a housing development, that's exactly what's happening on a net fiscal impact basis. Mayors should lose re-election bids for supporting new housing developments on farmland, but instead the voting public sees their community as growing and prospering. Well, they're half right.

 

 

While gas may get much more expensive per gallon, I don't see it necessarily being the death of exurbia.  Most likely people will just shift to more fuel-efficient vehicles - even shifting from the 15 mpg land freighters like the Ford Excursion to a crossover SUV will double the MPG.  And as hybrids become better, cheaper, and more widely available the mpg could increase by 50-100% again.  So gas prices could go from their current $2.50/gal to $7.50/gal and still leave cost/mile unchanged.  This all assumes people are willing to accept a slightly smaller car - history would suggest they are given the changes in buying behavior after the oil shocks of the 1970s. 

 

Like Eighth & State said, in the long-run the exurbs might not be able to withstand the changes, but that long-run might be many decades away.  Think of how much things have changed in the last several decades - there are going to be a lot of factors (some predictable, like the aging of the population, some completely unforeseeable) that are going to determine the shape of future development. 

 

^With what's probably trillions and trillions of dollars in real estate value sitting in the suburbs, exurbs and on out, I agree - I can't see something like transportation costs bringing all of that down, being the death of exurbia.  Say you drive 25 miles each way, 50 miles/day, 12K miles/year commuting.  If you get 20 miles/gallon, gas at $2.50 = $1,500/year.  Double that, and it's an extra $1500/year...you're paying $250K or $350K or $500K for your house, $30K for your car, and $1500 is going to cause an exodus that causes property values to plummet?  Triple it, quadruple it, folks will find a way to get where they need to go.

 

And the real worry here is that the easier solution will be not for them to move their homes, but rather to move their jobs.  Blue Ash is booming with businesses in part because it's 25 minutes closer to where so many folks live - so many decision makers, in particular.  And I'd bet their primary concern isn't fuel costs, it's time spent in the car...

 

I don't have evidence or studies to back any of that up, so if I very much welcome folks to shoot me down - I'd love to think the city will draw the residents, rather than the other way around - but that's my worry...

While gas may get much more expensive per gallon, I don't see it necessarily being the death of exurbia.  Most likely people will just shift to more fuel-efficient vehicles - even shifting from the 15 mpg land freighters like the Ford Excursion to a crossover SUV will double the MPG.  And as hybrids become better, cheaper, and more widely available the mpg could increase by 50-100% again.  So gas prices could go from their current $2.50/gal to $7.50/gal and still leave cost/mile unchanged.  This all assumes people are willing to accept a slightly smaller car - history would suggest they are given the changes in buying behavior after the oil shocks of the 1970s. 

 

Like Eighth & State said, in the long-run the exurbs might not be able to withstand the changes, but that long-run might be many decades away.   Think of how much things have changed in the last several decades - there are going to be a lot of factors (some predictable, like the aging of the population, some completely unforeseeable) that are going to determine the shape of future development. 

 

 

That's all entirely possible, but you can't forget that India and China are growing very quickly and they also use oil. Whether our country is willing to adapt to higher gas prices won't necessarily solve the problem if other countries don't.

 

^With what's probably trillions and trillions of dollars in real estate value sitting in the suburbs, exurbs and on out, I agree - I can't see something like transportation costs bringing all of that down, being the death of exurbia.  Say you drive 25 miles each way, 50 miles/day, 12K miles/year commuting.  If you get 20 miles/gallon, gas at $2.50 = $1,500/year.  Double that, and it's an extra $1500/year...you're paying $250K or $350K or $500K for your house, $30K for your car, and $1500 is going to cause an exodus that causes property values to plummet?  Triple it, quadruple it, folks will find a way to get where they need to go.

 

And the real worry here is that the easier solution will be not for them to move their homes, but rather to move their jobs.  Blue Ash is booming with businesses in part because it's 25 minutes closer to where so many folks live - so many decision makers, in particular.  And I'd bet their primary concern isn't fuel costs, it's time spent in the car...

 

I don't have evidence or studies to back any of that up, so if I very much welcome folks to shoot me down - I'd love to think the city will draw the residents, rather than the other way around - but that's my worry...

 

Yes, there are some people who could easily afford gasoline at 100 dollars a gallon. But what if demand exceeds supply and you have an oil shortage? That means that gas stations shut down and there is NO gasoline, period. At that point, a black market would most likely form until the shortage goes away. The whole scenario is not pretty and entirely possible. Like you said, gasoline isn't some sort of life threatening expense for most people, so increases in the price of gas will curb some but not nearly all. It's when oil either becomes scarce and/or when demand exceeds supply that the real problems begin.

I believe that high gas prices will definately help bring people back to core regions.  Of course it won't happen overnight, but people might begin to realize how much they are actually spending on gasoline because they live 30 miles from the city.  But something else comes to mind: What about our public transportation systems?  Say for example that gas hits $5.00 per gallon in the near future (which will happen sooner or later).  The cost of getting a pass on RTA would definately increase, not to the point where it would be expensive to get a ticket, but an increase nonetheless just to offset the price of gas.  It might not be worth buying more buses, i.e. the Silver Line, which burn up gas and will add to operating costs for RTA.  Thoghts?   

True.... when fuel prices go up for motor vehicles, that includes buses, and transit systems have been getting nailed on fuel costs.  However, transit companies also have the advantage of being able to buy fuel in bulk under contract to offset future prices hikes.

 

I think this must force transit systems (and the communities they serve) to start looking at both hyrbid-fuel buses (which are more expensive than standard diesel buses) and giving more than lip service to the concept of light rail and commuter rail.

 

From a logistics standpoint, transit authorities are going to have to begin thinking outside the box as far as how they route buses.  The traditional "hub & spoke" system is no longer as effective today, because commuting patterns have changed significantly:

 

.... fewer people making the commute from the burbs to downtown

.... more people making "reverse" commutes

.... more people commuting from suburb to suburb (where few transit systems provide service

.... more people needing "on demand" services like para-transit

 

Another consideration should be to re-think the concept of transit authorities themselves.  Most serve within either city limits or a single county, depending on their taxing district.  But the growth around all of Ohio's cities has pushed well outside of those districts and even into adjoining counties. The answer, it seems is to re-invent transit authories as truly "regional" transit authorities.  At best, right now, most are regional in name only.  For instance:

 

COTA (Central Ohio Transit Authority) serves only Columbus and Franklin County, and yet the most explosive growth has been beyond county lines into Delaware, Licking, Union, Fairfield, Pickaway and Madison Counties.  COTA is simply not set up or equipped to meet the demands brought on by this growth.

 

GCRTA (Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority) is in much the same situation, as is Toledo, Cincinnati....

 

 

The thing about increased gas prices that you have to realize, is that although higher gas prices might convince people to move closer to the city, it would also increase the price of just about anything that you buy. The cost of logistics determines the price of goods, so you are affected by fuel prices in many ways.  We rely on trucks to transport our goods.  If trucking companies have to pay more for gas, they charge businesses more for their shipments, causing prices of goods to go up. Gas prices going way up is not a good thing, and a hybrid Ford Escape is about 10k more than a regular one.  I spend about 50 bucks a week on gas. That's about 2000 a year. I don't know how much gas a hybrid saves exacty, but if it were to give me double the gas mileage that would mean i'd spend 25 a week, or 1000 a year. I would have to use that car for ten years before seeing a return on my investment of 10k. Even more than that, if you consider most people finance their cars and end up paying a lot of interest on that extra 10k.  I don't get the hype behind these hybrids. I think the bio diesel concept is good but I wonder if that depletes us of our natural resources. I know Hydrogen is not feasible because it would cost too much.

I may be a bit high on the 10k extra for a hybrid but I also doubled the gas milage, and I know the hybrid doesn't get anywhere near double on a Ford Escape.