Chapter 4
FACTS, FIGURES and DEMOGRAPHICS
To effectively plan for future transportation needs, it is necessary to be responsive to regional
demographic forecasts. Recent trends affecting transportation include: increased vehicles and
trips, decrease in population, fewer households, longer commutes, and increased vehicle miles
traveled. Transportation planning needs consider emerging trends that will affect the future
transportation system in the HOCTS study area. These emerging trends differ from existing
trends and include lifestyle changes, deteriorating infrastructure, less funding available, an aging
population, and concern for climate change. This chapter presents a snapshot of the metropolitan
planning area in terms of the most current statistics available for population, employment,
primary commuting travel patterns, and land use patterns.
4.1 POPULATION TRENDS
The 2010 decennial Census found the population of our region has stabilized after decades of
decline. Previously, between the years 1970 and 2000, the total regional population dropped from
340,670 to about 299,896 people. This represents a loss of about 12% in population over that 30
year period. However, when the 2010 Census counts were released, the total regional population
was found to be 299,397, this is less than two tenths of a percent drop from the 2000 population.
The population, for all intents and purposes, has stabilized from the previous 30 years which saw
the loss of several major employers, including the closure of Griffiss Air Force Base.
Figure 4.1, Herkimer-Oneida County Regional Population Change 1950 to 2010
HOCTS
Chapter 4
32
In terms of individual counties in the region, the population of Oneida County in the 2010 Census
was 234,878. This represents a minimal loss of about three tenths of a percent or approximately 600
people. The Population of Herkimer County in the 2010 census actually reported an increase in
population of .1%, or approximately 100 people, to 64,519 residents.
Figure 4.2, Herkimer and Oneida Counties’ Population Changes (1950 to 2010)
Oneida County
Most of the towns within Oneida County did not see population increases between 2000 and 2010;
in fact two out of three saw population declines. These towns make up most of the northern part of
the county. In addition three towns in the southeastern corner of the County (Paris, Bridgewater, and
Sangerfield) saw a population drop over the last ten years.
HOCTS
Chapter 4
33
Oneida County Population Change1
 One city and eight towns saw population increases from 2000 to 2010:
o The City of Utica (2.6)%
*All of the areas in the box are
o The Town of Deerfield (9.4%)
partially or completely located
o The Town of New Hartford (4.7%)
within the urbanized area.
o The Town of Kirkland (1.7%)
o The Town of Whitestown (0.2%)
o The Town of Augusta (2.7%)
o The Town of Annsville (1.9%)
o The Town of Vernon (1.4%)
o The Town of Marshall (0.2%)
With the exception of Annesville in the northwestern corner of the county, all of these
municipalities are connected in a swath from Vernon and Augusta in the southwestern corner to
Utica and Deerfield in the eastern part of the county. This swath aligns with general employment
hubs and the highway network alignment.
Two cities and eighteen towns saw population decreases from 2000 to 2010, most notably the cities
of Rome (-3.5%) and Sherrill (-2.4%). It should be noted that the population decrease in Rome has
resulted in the area being an urban cluster. The classification impacts the MPO because federal
funding is based on urban areas.

The towns which saw greater than 5% population decrease are:
o The Town of Forestport (-9.3%)
o The Town of Bridgewater (-8.9%)
o The Town of Ava (-6.5%)
o The Town of Vienna (-6.5%)
o The Town of Lee (-5.7%)
o The Town of Florence (-5.6%)
o The Town of Steuben (-5.3%)
o The Town of Marcy (-5.1%) – A portion of this township is within the Urbanized Area.
The majority of these townships are located in either the northern half or southern tip of the county.
All are in the suburban to rural portions of the two-county planning area.

1
The only villages to have a population increase are:
o The Village of New York Mills (4.3%)
o The Village of Yorkville (0.5%)
o The Village of Oriskany Falls (4.9%)
o The Village of Vernon (1.5%)
*These areas are partially or completely
located within the urbanized area.
Source: 2010 U.S. Census
HOCTS
Chapter 4
34
Herkimer County Population Change2
Herkimer County does not have any area of population concentration large enough to meet the
qualifications for a U.S. Census Urbanized Area. However, there are areas of population which
meet the qualifications of urban cluster. Ultimately, the HOCTS Metropolitan Planning Area
Boundary encompasses both counties. As such, the two counties are always evaluated as a
regional whole for transportation planning purposes.

Thirteen towns saw population increases from 2000 to 2010. Towns seeing 5% or greater
population increase were:
o The Town of Ohio (8.7%)
o The Town of Norway (7.2%)
o The Town of Manheim (5.1%)
o The Town of Newport (5.0%)
All of these municipalities are in the northern-to-central portion of the county and located within
categorically defined rural area.

The county’s sole city and six towns saw population decreases from 2000 to 2010:
o The City of Little Falls (-4.7%)
*These areas are partially or completely
o The Town of German Flatts (-2.7%)
located within the urbanized area.
o
o
o
o
o
The Town of Webb (-5.5%)
The Town of Danube (-5.4%)
The Town of Winfield (-5.3%)
The Town of Columbia (-3.1%)
The Town of Stark (-1.3%)
These municipalities are located in the northern tip of the county and then generally in the
southern portion below the NYS Thruway.

2
Five of the county’s ten villages saw population increases:
o The Village of Poland (12.6%)
o The Village of Herkimer (3.3%)
o The Village of Mohawk (2.7%)
o The Village of Frankfort (2.4%)
o The Village of Dolgeville (1.8%)
Source: 2010 U.S. Census
HOCTS
Chapter 4
35
Population Forecasting
Based on population projections provided by the Cornell Program on Applied Demographics,
Oneida County may see a slight decrease in its population over the projected 20-year period.
Likewise, the overall population for Herkimer County is projected to decrease slightly.
Figure 4.3 Population Projections, 2010 - 2025
County
2010 Actual 2020 Estimate 2025 Estimate 2030 Estimate
Oneida
Herkimer
234,878
64,519
232,007
62,261
229,967
60,455
226,871
58,167
2035 Estimate
222,718
55,424
Source: Cornell Program on Applied Demographics, 2014
HOCTS
Chapter 4
36
Figure 4.4, Map of Herkimer County Population Shift, 2000 – 2010
HOCTS
Chapter 4
37
Figure 4.5, Map of Oneida County Population Shift, 2000 – 2010
HOCTS
Chapter 4
38
Poverty Existing in the Herkimer-Oneida Population
Combined, the region has 15.3% of its population living below the poverty line in 2012. Among
children under the age of 18, nearly one in four (23.8%) are in poverty; among the elderly age 65
and over, about one in twelve (8.1%) live below poverty. As many as 17% of all households
receive food stamps or SNAP benefits in the region according to 2012 ACS data.
Figure 4.6, Percent of Population Living in Poverty
Percent of Population Living in Poverty
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
2000 Census
8%
2012 ACS
6%
4%
2%
0%
Oneida County
Herkimer County
Sources: U.S. Census (2000), American Communities Survey (2012)
HOCTS
Chapter 4
39
Figure 4.7, Map of Individuals in Poverty by Percent (Herkimer County)
HOCTS
Chapter 4
40
Figure 4.8, Map of Individuals in Poverty by Percent (Oneida County)
HOCTS
Chapter 4
41
Representation of Elderly and People with Disabilities
Other populations important to the transportation demographic profile are the elderly, people
with disabilities, and households without vehicles.
Figure 4.9, Percent of the Population 65 or Older
Percent of the Population 65 or Older
Total Population
Population 65 and Over
100.00%
Regionally
17.20%
100.00%
Oneida
16.80%
100.00%
Herkimer
17.30%
Source: American Communities Survey (2010-2012)
(Approximately 11,000 in Herkimer County, and 39,000 in Oneida County).
The median age in the region is now above 40 years of age for the first time in demographic
history for both counties. The median age is 42.6 years old in Herkimer County and 41.3 years
old in Oneida County.
People identifying themselves as having disabilities in the ACS comprise about 14.1% of the
regional population, or nearly 41,000 residents. Further breakdown shows roughly 33,000 of
these live in Oneida County, with almost 8,000 Herkimer County.
Within the two counties, more than a third of all elderly people (35.9%) claimed to have a
disability in the 2012 ACS. Further breakdown shows 32.6% in Herkimer County and 37.1% in
Oneida County.
About 15,000 households in Herkimer and Oneida Counties lack any vehicle for transportation
purposes. This lack of transportation is slightly different within each county however. In
Herkimer County one in ten households (9.9%) do not have any vehicles. In Oneida County
about one in seven (13.5%) lack any vehicle present.
HOCTS
Chapter 4
42
Figure 4.10, Selected Demographics for the HOCTS Planning Area
Population Diversity
According to the 2012 ACS One Year Estimates, there are approximately 40,000 people in our
region who qualify as being of “minority” racial status (that is to say they identify themselves as
something other than “white non-Hispanic”). The vast majority of those, more than 37,000,
reside in Oneida County; about 3,000 live in Herkimer County. While the percent of the
population identifying itself as being black has remained relatively stable, the Asian population
has nearly tripled in the area, with more than 8,000 residents saying they are of Asian descent.
Culturally, the percent of respondents saying they are Hispanic has grown by more than 50%,
from some 8,000 in the Census 2000 to more than 12,000 in the 2012 ACS.
The changing of racial status, as part of the ACS, now have begun to reflect immigration and
refugee populations that have settled or been relocated to Oneida and Herkimer Counties. The
immigrants/refugees, primarily settle within the City of Utica, and are initially dependent on
social services. The cultural differences and language barriers of this growing immigrant/refugee
population create significant barriers for securing employment, accessing public transportation
and obtaining personal transportation. In the last ten years, nearly 4,000 refugees have been
relocated to Utica and the Mohawk Valley. Since its inception, more than 14,000 people have
come to the region through the Mohawk Valley Resource Center for Refugees.
HOCTS
Chapter 4
43
Refugee Population
Utica is the home of the Mohawk Valley Resource Center for Refugees (MVRCR), one of the
largest resettlement agencies in the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service network.
According to the Mohawk Valley Resource Center for Refugees, Utica is one of few selected
cities in the U. S. accepting refugees. Due to its cultural diversity, affordable housing and
generous spirit, the community provides a foundation where these new Americans can find
safety, freedom and the opportunity for a better life. MVRCR boasts that Oneida County has the
fourth highest concentration of refugees (about 4% of the total population) in the United States,
and the City of Utica refugees make up over 11% of the total population. MVRCR recognizes
that the region is poised to become a leader as a multi-cultural institute and remains a nationally
recognized leader in refugee services. Since its inception, MVRCR has assisted refugees from
more than 31 countries, including Bosnia, Cambodia, Czechoslovakia, Haiti, Hungary, Laos,
Poland, Romania, the former Soviet Union, Vietnam, Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran,
China, Burma and others. Today the refugee population being resettled is increasingly diverse
with individuals and families from Latin America, the former Soviet Union, Afghanistan, Burma,
Somalia and Liberia.
Limited English Proficiency (LEP)
According to the Civil Rights Office at the U.S. Department of Transportation, individuals who do
not speak English as their primary language and who have a limited ability to read, speak, write, or
understand English can be Limited English Proficient, or “LEP”. These individuals may be entitled
language assistance with respect to a particular type of service, benefit, or encounter.
The enactment of Executive Order 13166: Improving Access to Services for Persons With Limited
English Proficiency (LEP) August 16, 2000, was to clarify Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
by ensuring accessibility to all federally conducted programs and activities to individuals whom
English is not their primary language and who might have a limited ability to read, speak, write or
understand English.
Executive Order 13166 applies to all federal agencies and all programs and all operations of entities
that receive funding from the federal government, including state agencies, local agencies and
governments including the MPO, private and non-profit entities and subrecipients.
Local LEP Efforts
The Mohawk Valley Resource Center for Refugees (MVRCR) in Utica, NY is actively working
to fulfill new strategic directions for the center reflecting the presence and needs of the growing
refugee and non-refugee immigrants in our community, estimated future growth to be
approximately 15% of Utica’s population.
MVRCR seeks to enhance the provision of culturally and linguistically appropriate services in
the community. The center’s objective is to provide fee-based cross-cultural competence training
and technical assistance. The program is designed to help educators, service providers and
business managers, effectively deliver service to clients and manage personnel from different
cultural backgrounds. HOCTS has worked with MVRCR to address the needs of refugee
populations through the use of JARC funds.
HOCTS
Chapter 4
44
Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Statistics
The NYSDOT Region 2, which includes Oneida and Herkimer Counties, has 13,540 LEP
residents (3%), giving it the 8th most LEP residents of the 11 NYSDOT regions.3
Figures 4-3 and 4-4 show two counties in Region 2 having significant LEP populations:
Montgomery and Oneida (4% of the total population); Herkimer and Madison Counties also
have notable LEP population. Of the 62 counties in New York State, Oneida County has the 16th
highest LEP population. In Montgomery and Oneida Counties, almost 70 percent of the LEP
population lives in the largest city. Utica maintains 6,101 (11%) LEP population. Outside of
New York City, Utica has the 8th largest LEP population of any city in New York State.
Utica’s LEP population mostly comes from the European nation of Bosnia (3,319), where an
Indo-European language is spoken. A wave of Bosnians immigrated to Utica between 1992 and
1995. Currently, refugees from the Asian nation of Burma (560) are moving to Utica. According
to data provided by the NYS Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, other common
refugee groups in Utica are Ukrainian (453), Vietnamese (412) and Belarusian (361).
Figure 4.11, LEP Population, NYSDOT Region 2 by County
COUNTY
Fulton
Hamilton
Herkimer
Madison
Montgomery
Oneida
Total
Spanish
267
9
207
414
1,155
2,178
4,497
Indo-European
381
12
733
353
590
5,374
7,824
Asian-Pacific
83
2
50
112
93
1,237
1,660
All Others
18
3
4
65
21
179
308
Total
749
26
994
944
1,859
8,968
14,289
All Others
0
18
0
0
25
23
0
127
Total
1,283
341
96
85
175
843
4
6,101
Source: NYSDOT
Figure 4.12, LEP Population, NYSDOT Region 2 by City
CITY
Amsterdam
Gloversville
Johnstown
Little Falls
Oneida
Rome
Sherrill
Utica
Spanish
904
88
24
16
104
319
4
1,098
Indo-European
328
187
56
59
38
430
0
3,907
Asian-Pacific
51
48
16
10
8
71
0
969
Source: NYSDOT
4.2 TRAVEL TRENDS AND EMPLOYMENT
In March of 2000, a “Statewide Attitudinal and Preference Survey” funded by New York State
Metropolitan Planning Organizations, was part of a statewide initiative to attain public input for
transportation planning purposes. The surveyed region of Central New York was comprised of ten
3
NYSDOT Region 2 consists of Herkimer, Oneida, Madison, Hamilton, Fulton and Montgomery Counties
HOCTS
Chapter 4
45
counties: Oneida, Herkimer, Madison, Wayne, Seneca, Cayuga, Tompkins, Oswego, Onondaga,
and Cortland.
According to the survey, in the Central New York region 86.4% of the respondents surveyed
commute on a daily basis. The primary reason for their commute is to get to work and the
household vehicle is the clear mode choice. Respondents who commute by car commented that
convenience and lack of alternative transportation options are the major reasons for using their car
instead of public transportation. However, out of the 300 Central New York residents surveyed,
240 or 80% indicated that carpooling would be an option if there were more Park and Ride locations
in their area.
The American Communities Survey profiles provide a basis for comparing 2010 travel
characteristics for the region with data from 1990 and 2000. The vast majority of people commuting
to work continue to do so alone in their personal vehicle. According to ACS data for the year 2010,
more than four out of five workers drive their own cars, alone, to work each day
Figure 4.13, Percent of Commuters Driving to Work Alone
Percent of Commuters Driving to Work Alone
1990
2010
84%
81%
77%
75%
Herkimer
Oneida
Source: American Communities Survey (2010)
Alternative means of transportation are available but are utilized less now than in the past:
carpooling, public transportation and walking all show declines over the last 20 years. The only
alternative to driving alone that remains similar to what it was in 1990, or in the case of Herkimer
County, shows some increase, is the number of people working from their own homes at around
five percent. In Oneida County the percent of the employees working from home remains at around
two and a half percent.
HOCTS
Chapter 4
46
Figure 4.14, Transportation to Work: Alternatives to Driving Alone (2010)
Figure 4.15, Means of Transportation to Work 1990-2010
This twenty-year comparison reveals a drop in the occurrence of commuters carpooling to work.
The use of public transportation also appears to have decreased regionally. The existing urban
transit system is located primarily in Utica, Rome, and suburban areas of Oneida County. This
urban system connects to a rural transit system which serves Herkimer, Little Falls, the southern
portion of Herkimer County and rural areas of Oneida County.
HOCTS
Chapter 4
47
Travel Time to Work
Based on the most recent ACS data in 2012, the travel times to work for employees in the UticaRome MSA is identical to what was found in the Census 2000. In both cases 58% of workers travel
less than twenty minutes to get to work. Approximately 33% spend between twenty and forty five
minutes traveling to work. The remaining 9% travel more than 45 minutes to get to work.
Figure 4.16, Travel Time to Work, 2012
Regional Labor Market Travel Patterns
The majority of workers in both Herkimer and Oneida Counties work in their County of residence –
55% and 88% of workers age 16 or older, respectively.4
Vehicle Miles Traveled
According to the Federal Highway Association (FHWA), there was a 23% increase in Vehicle
Miles Traveled (VMT) in the Herkimer-Oneida Counties Urbanized Area from 1990 to 2000. While
VMT increased, population in the Urbanized Area decreased. Although population has declined,
factors such as multiple-vehicle households, more trips per household, increase in the number of
eligible drivers per household, and living further away from work all contribute to the increase in
VMT. The nature of the population in the Metropolitan Planning Area has shown that people are
very split in where they live related to where they work. Trends have shown that people within the
MPA generally choose to live in rural areas where their commute time directly reflects their
mileage. Or as many others choose, a commute of less than 20 minutes is easily achievable due to
4
U.S. Census 2000.
HOCTS
Chapter 4
48
minimal congestion and affordable housing stock near employment centers. Ultimately this pattern
of commuting times and vehicle miles traveled is unlikely to change. Historic trends have shown
that the planning area population will continue to:
 Choose their residence location based more on desire and less on employment location
 Easily travel throughout the transportation network due to minimal congestion and traffic
concerns
 Live in this area and commute to larger economic centers in the state
Figure 4.17, Map of the Percent of Employees who Work in their County of Residence
HOCTS
Chapter 4
49
Occupational Projections
According to the New York State Department of Labor’s “Occupational Projections 2010 –
2020,” employment for the Mohawk Valley Region for “all occupations” for the ten-year period
is projected to increase from 220,620 to 234,560, a 6.3% change.
Listed below are the occupations projected to have the most annual openings from 2010 – 2020.
The total employment openings include openings due to growth as well as the need to replace
people exiting the occupation. However, please note openings do NOT necessarily equate to
the fastest growing jobs – office and administrative support jobs show the largest number
of annual openings, but only 120 out of the 880 projected annual job openings are new jobs
(representing growth). In comparison, half of all personal care and service jobs (250 out of
500) are projected to actually be new jobs. The growth rate for these jobs is greater than for the
administrative assistant jobs.
Figure 4.18, Annual Projected Employment Openings, Mohawk Valley (2010-2020)
HOCTS
Chapter 4
50
For contrast purposes, the chart below shows the fastest growing jobs based on new job creation.
These are all occupational categories projected to have double digit growth over the next decade.
Figure 4.19, Growth of Occupations in the Mohawk Valley, 2010 - 2020
Total Employment
Occupational Category
Personal Care and Service Occupations
Healthcare Support Occupations
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations
Computer and Mathematical Occupations
Community and Social Service Occupations
Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations
2010
10,820
9,210
14,410
3,030
5,350
16,230
2020
13,350
11,140
16,520
3,380
5,950
18,040
Total 10 Year
Job Growth
2,530
1,930
2,110
350
600
1,810
Percent
Growth
23.4%
21.0%
14.6%
11.6%
11.2%
11.2%
Source: NYS DOL
Welfare-To-Work
The region’s welfare-to-work effort has been successful in dealing with many adults, leaving those
still needing services the hardest to serve due to barriers to employment that include ex-offender
status, disability status and refugee status.
Health services remain the major employment sector that can hire and place new workers, but for
those with the barriers mentioned above, entry level jobs are difficult to obtain. Geographically, job
growth remains concentrated outside of the core cities where the most people live, however there
have been efforts on the part of CENTRO to address this by adding routes to suburban areas, such
as shopping malls, that are also major entry-level employers.
Addressing these barriers has resulted in a number of partnerships between the Workforce
Investment Board and Social Services to develop programs that focus on the populations with the
greatest needs. For example, the Wheels to Work program, which involves the Workforce
Investment Board (WIB), Department of Social Services (DSS), and Resource Center for
Independent Living (RCIL), can help individuals who need private transportation to get to and from
work meet the cost of a down payment on a car and arrange the financing.
Because many potential job seekers come with skills deficits, the WIB and DSS are partners in a
Wage Subsidy program that offers a small number of cases a wage subsidy for a period of time,
which makes it much easier for an employer to “take a chance” on a welfare-to-work customer.
A mix of training and support is offered to young adults with disabilities between the ages of 16 and
25 through the WIB’s CareerStart program, funded by a federal grant. By increasing the numbers of
young adults with disabilities attached to the workforce, this project can help young adults who are
able to be self-supporting.
One of the most interesting chapters of the regional welfare-to-work effort began in the summer of
2009 as the WIB and a coalition of more than 30 partners began implementation of the Career
Pathways project, a regional effort that covers six counties including Herkimer and Oneida. The
program seeks to provide entry-level training and jobs for individuals with barriers to employment
HOCTS
Chapter 4
51
and is designed to also provide training that will allow clients to enter employment with the skills
they need to handle not just their first job, but future opportunities as well.
4.3 LAND USE TRENDS
General Land Use Patterns
People are drawn to Herkimer and Oneida County by the area’s affordability, quality of life and
cultural amenities. Within the two counties there are 45 towns, 29 villages and 4 cities. Land use
in Herkimer and Oneida Counties consists of immense areas of forest, agriculture and other
undeveloped land. Developed land consists of relatively small urban/village centers that have
sprawling suburban residential development.
Urbanized land uses in Herkimer County are primarily located within a few miles of the NYS
Thruway/Erie Canal corridor, and NYS Routes 5, 5S, 8 and 12. In Oneida County, suburban
residential and commercial development extends outward from the City of Utica along NYS
highway corridors. Because of the accessible highway system, with Albany 90 miles east,
Syracuse 50 miles west, Binghamton 80 miles south, and the Canadian border 100 miles north,
the region exemplifies that real estate axiom… “location, location, location.” Herkimer and
Oneida Counties are an excellent and cost efficient alternative for commercial development and
business expansion.
Within the Mohawk Valley there is such diversity that one can choose from urban living to
rural/country settings. There are single family residences, multi-family units, seasonal getaways,
condos, townhouses and senior citizen housing complexes for rent or purchase. Within the region
a family can live on a farm, choose a large acreage residential setting, live on a picturesque
village street, a Victorian urban home, or move into a newly developed suburban neighborhood.
Business properties are also available at great rates and in exceptional locations. The greatest
mix of residential densities and housing types are within the cities and villages of Herkimer and
Oneida Counties. Single-family housing is the dominant type of residential use. However, twofamily and, to a lesser extent, multi-family housing is more common in the Utica urbanized area.
Low-density housing and sub-divisions are located in suburban and rural outlying areas.
Individuals residing in outlying rural developments may generate higher levels of Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) than individuals who reside in an urbanized setting.
New Housing Units in Oneida and Herkimer Counties
New Housing “starts” information provided by the 2012 ACS provides an indication of growth or
migration patterns within a certain geographic area. A simple measure of these patterns can be seen
when looking at new construction housing. Generally, new built housing corresponds directly with
population growth and economic growth.
HOCTS
Chapter 4
52
Figure 4.20, Top Five Towns in Herkimer County with New Housing (Built 1990 to 2012)
Figure 4.21, Top Five Towns in Oneida County with New Housing (Built 1990 to 2012)
HOCTS
Chapter 4
53
Urban Sprawl and Transportation Impacts
As a result of upstate sprawl, people have been leaving cities and villages and moving out to less
urbanized areas. The "new" housing starts statistics noted above underscores this point in
Herkimer-Oneida Counties.
A critical impact of upstate sprawl is the decline in city tax base and a dramatic decline in cities’
assessed property value. As a result, cities bond for many of their infrastructure or economic
development improvements, increasing municipal debt load and compounding the problems
associated with a shrinking tax base. If projects funded by the bonds fail to increase cities’ tax
base, future taxpayers will be burdened with continued rate increases.
The impact of sprawl on transportation infrastructure is becoming more apparent as the
population continues to migrate to more rural and suburban communities. The out-migration
places an increased demand on the local road system. As a result, towns are faced with people
living in scattered, low-density areas beyond traditional municipal services areas. This is directly
linked to transportation infrastructure and the associated maintenance to maintain the facilities in
a good state of repair.
Sprawl Measured
In 2014, Smart Growth America released Sprawl Index scores for all metropolitan counties in the
United States. This research contends that people in higher scoring metro areas have more
transportation options than people in lower scoring metro areas. In addition to conducting this
analysis at the metro-area level, the researchers also examined this question at the county level,
where the findings and their implications relate a clearer picture of everyday life.
o Smart Growth America concludes that high-scoring counties have lower rates of car
ownership. For every 10 percent increase in an index score, car ownership decreases by
3.8 percent.
o High-scoring counties have higher rates of walking. For every 10 percent increase in an
index score, the proportion of people who choose to walk as a mode of transportation
increases by 6.6 percent.
o More people in high-scoring counties ride public transit. For every 10 percent increase in
an index score, the proportion of transit users in the county increases by 24 percent.
o People in high-scoring counties spend less time driving. For every 10 percent increase in
an index score at the county level, people spend on average 3.5 percent less time driving.
The following are the 2014 Sprawl Index Composite Scores for all counties in New York.
Herkimer and Oneida Counties have been highlighted.
HOCTS
Chapter 4
54
Figure 4.22, Composite Urban Sprawl Measurements (2014)
NYS MSA County
Index Composite
Score
Rank
(out of 36)
124.04
224.01
109.84
114.63
105.40
114.70
87.62
265.20
77.11
79.49
114.04
147.65
425.15
100.81
101.76
120.80
84.03
97.65
75.78
89.40
88.21
204.16
99.41
152.34
112.27
92.70
116.78
71.39
113.48
74.00
104.82
99.22
123.51
72.33
74.62
129.58
8
3
17
13
18
12
28
2
31
30
14
6
1
21
20
10
29
24
32
26
27
4
22
5
16
25
11
36
15
34
19
23
9
35
33
7
Albany County
Bronx County
Broome County
Chemung County
Dutchess County
Erie County
Herkimer County
Kings County
Livingston County
Madison County
Monroe County
Nassau County
New York County
Niagara County
Oneida County
Onondaga County
Ontario County
Orange County
Orleans County
Oswego County
Putnam County
Queens County
Rensselaer County
Richmond County
Rockland County
Saratoga County
Schenectady County
Schoharie County
Suffolk County
Tioga County
Tompkins County
Ulster County
Warren County
Washington County
Wayne County
Westchester County
Source: Smart Growth America 2014
HOCTS
Chapter 4
55
4.4 SUMMARY
HOCTS continues to plan for the future transportation system in the two-county area by being
responsive to existing and future regional demographic forecasts and transportation needs.
The two-county population has nearly stabilized for the first time in 30 years. The increase in the
refugee population into the urbanized area is the largest contributing factor of the population
stabilization. At the same time the disabled, low-income, and the elderly constitute a significant and
growing portion of the population. As the population continues to shift from urbanized areas to
rural and outlying suburban communities, growth in the populations noted creates a larger demand
for transit services and transportation infrastructure to support the population’s movements
between their residences, employment and services.
Land Use
It is the goal of HOCTS to promote efficient land use practices by working with local
municipalities to improve the coordination of land use and transportation investment. Coordination
will result in the development and implementation of projects that effectively anticipate and
address the transportation implications of new development and redevelopment. Efficient,
coordinated land use policies promote access management on the local and state highway system
and the use of public/private financing in the development of transportation investments.
Transportation demand management and system management techniques will go a long way in
improving mobility throughout the transportation system.
Mobility & Economic Development
A major component of this strategy involves coordinating access to land development, while
preserving the flow of traffic on the surrounding road system in terms of safety, capacity and
speed. It also involves the promotion of transit and other non-motorized modes of travel. An
effective capital program involves a reconciliation of these interests to maximize the potential
benefits. A well connected region has transportation networks with many links, numerous modal
options and meets the identified needs of the population using it.
HOCTS
Chapter 4
56