Minnesotans For Sustainability

 

Home ] Up ] Feedback Please ] Table of Contents ] Search MFS ] MFS News ]

Sustainable Society:  A society that balances the environment, other life forms, and human interactions over an indefinite time period.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Per Capita Costs of Population Growth to Local Communities*

 

Appendix A

Method and Comprehensive Table

 

The following provides a more detailed description of the methodology as well as a more comprehensive presentation in the accompanying table of the results of this report on the public costs of population growth in major cities and urban areas of the United States.

Method

This report builds upon a study, "The Real Cost of Growth in Oregon," by Eben V. Fodor of Energy & Environmental Planning Associates (EEPA), in the journal Population and Environment, March 1997. The method used in the EEPA study and its key findings are summarized as follows.1

The study is based on a representative three-bedroom, single-family house on a modest 6,000 square foot lot (see Table 1). It is assumed that the house is part of a larger development or subdivision that is located in an urban area on previously undeveloped land with nearby utilities. In this manner, the house is representative of the compact urban development that has minimum cost for urban services.

Table 1: Profile of Hypothetical House

Characteristic

 

House Size

3 Bedrooms

Lot Size

6,000 sq. ft.

Land for Streets (21 % of lot)

1,260 sq. ft.

Development Density

6 units/acre

Occupancy:

 

Total Persons

3.09

School-Age Persons

0.67

 

Source: Occupancy and public school-age children per house is the national average based on the American Housing Survey for a three-bedroom house from Burchell, 1994.2

 

The cost summary in Table 5 provides a tally of all the public infrastructure costs estimated in this study that are associated with the construction of one three-bedroom single-family house. The cost total of $24,502 per house represents only a portion of the total costs .... It is, therefore, only a partial estimate of the full public cost. The cost is representative and is not intended to reflect the actual cost for any particular municipality.

 

Table 5: Growth Cost Summary*
New Single-Family House

Cost Item

Amount

School Facilities

$11,377

Sanitary Sewerage

$ 5,089

Transportation Facilities

$ 4,193

Water System Facilities

$ 2,066

Parks and Recreation Facilities

$ 797

Storm Water Drainage

$ 510

Fire Protection/EMS Facilities

$ 470

Total:

$24,502

*This is a summary of the costs reviewed in this study and is not a complete listing of growth-related costs.

 

As indicated, the summary of costs listed above for new house construction from the EEPA report covers the specified categories only, and is not a complete listing of all population growth-related costs. For example, basic capital costs for public facilities and infrastructure such as police facilities, hospitals and clinics, set-asides for open space, libraries, government facilities, and solid waste disposal plants would have to be calculated and factored in. Environmental and other costs, including intangibles, such as air and water quality, natural resource consumption, loss of wildlife habitat, increased noise and traffic congestion, higher costs of housing and of living in general, public safety and crime, as well as a diminished sense of community and loss of visual and other amenity values, are also not included.

More specifically, for instance, other utility costs, such as electricity, telephone, and television cable service are not included. An example of costs of population growth which are not treated in the Oregon study or this report is the cost of constructing new electric generating plants to serve the needs of new people that are added to a community. The cost of constructing new electric generating plants is approximately $1.50 per watt.3

Utilities sometimes estimate that they must construct 1000 watts of new generating capacity for each added person, but the average generating capacity per person in place in the U.S. in 1995 was 2,700 watts.4 This means that the cost of construction of electric generating plants is between $1,500 and $4,000 per added person! For a home with an average of 3.09 people, this cost per new home then lies in the range of $4,600 to $12,300. These are the costs to purchase the electric generating equipment and do not include operating costs. To these costs must be added the costs of extending the electric distribution system to convey electric power from the new generating plant to the new homes. These costs now are hidden by being included in the electric bills paid by all of the existing rate payers.

By comparison, the EEPA report found that, assuming six houses per acre, the public cost of a developed acre was over $147,000, whereas undeveloped land within urban growth boundaries in Oregon typically ranged from $15,000-$35,000 per acre.

The second input is a report in Housing News prepared by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB).5 The NAHB ranks the affordability of homes in any one specific area according to an index referrer to as the housing opportunity index or HOI. This index takes into account the proportion of homes sold in the specified area that a family earning what constitutes the median income for that area, could afford.6

In the first quarter of 1996, the NAHB ranked 185 specific metropolitan areas. Of these, Racine, Wisconsin was listed as the most affordable. According to the NAHB data, a family in Racine, earning an income of $46,700 (the median income) was able to purchase 89.4 percent of the homes that were actually sold in Racine during the study period. To compare, a family in San Francisco was found to have a higher median income ($61,300), but could only afford to purchase 26.4 percent of the homes actually sold in San Francisco. Overall, the national median income per household was found to be $41,600 and a family with the national income was found to be able to afford 67.5 percent of the homes actually sold throughout the nation.

The only Oregon communities listed in the NAHB study were Portland-Vancouver and Salem. The public costs for new house construction of $24,502 in Oregon from the EEPA report is approximately 21% of the average ($116,500) of the two listed median sales prices in Oregon in the NAHB study.

Assumptions

Thus, for the purposes of the following table, it is assumed that the representative public costs of the selected infrastructure factors, per house, is 21% of the median sales price of homes in each community. The assumption means that if it costs twice as much to build a house in community A as in community B, then it costs twice as much to build a school, etc., in A as in B. At best, this is only approximate. It is thought that the numbers arising from the application of this assumption are more likely low than high. To obtain per capita public costs, this 21% of the median sales price is divided by the assumed number of 3.1 persons per home.

Table

Explanation of Columns:

  • Column B is the name of the city or cluster of cities as listed by the NAHB; if the cities involve regions in two or more states, cities are listed in each state.
  • Column C is the state.
  • Column D is the National Affordability Rank given by the NAHB. Low numbers indicate the most affordable locations.
  • Column E is the percent of the houses that are affordable for the median income in an area, as determined by the NAHB.
  • Column F is the median household income in the city, as reported by the NAHB.
  • Column G is the median sales price of homes in the city, as reported by the NAHB.
  • Column H is 21 % of the median sales price, which is the estimated public cost per home. The 21% was the ratio of public costs from the Oregon study to the median sales price of homes in Oregon. Note that this percentage does not include the costs of expanding electric, telephone and other utilities.
  • Column I is the growth cost of column H as a percentage of the median income.
  • Column J is the growth cost of column H divided by the assumed number of 3.1 persons per home, to get the growth cost per person. It is probable that the figures in columns H and J are lower than the actual total costs.

 

Table: Per Capita Costs of Population Growth to Local Communities

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

 

Public Costs Per House

State

Nat

% of H's

Median

Median

21% of

Growth

Cost

 

In Oregon, October 1995

 

Aff'd-

Aff'dbl

Income

Sales

Median

Cost as

Per

 

$24,502

 

Ability

For

 

Price

Sales

% of

Added

 

Assume 3.1 People Per House

 

Rank

Median

 

 

Price

Median Income

Person

 

 

 

 

Income

($000)

($000)

($000)

 

($000)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Portland-Vancouver

OR

179

40.4%

44.4

133.0

28.0

63%

9.0

 

Salem

OR

165

53.0%

37.8

100.0

21.0

56%

6.8

 

Average

OR

 

 

 

116.5

24.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ $24,502 / $116,500 = 0.2103; 21.03% ]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

Birmingham

AL

128

65.1%

38.2

103.0

21.7

57%

7.0

2

Columbus, GA-AL

AL

110

69.2%

34.3

89.0

18.7

55%

6.0

3

Mobile

AL

150

59.5%

33.4

100.0

21.0

63%

6.8

4

Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers

AR

158

56.5%

36.0

100.0

21.0

58%

6.8

5

Little Rock-North Little Rock

AR

104

70.5%

39.0

95.0

20.0

51 %

6.4

6

Memphis, TN-AR-MS

AR

76

74.5%

39.5

83.0

17.5

44%

5.6

7

Las Vegas, NV-AZ

AZ

70

75.0%

45.0

118.0

24.8

55%

8.0

8

Phoenix-Mesa

AZ

100

70.9%

45.0

120.0

25.2

56%

8.1

9

Tucson

AZ

152

58.7%

37.8

112.0

23.6

62%

7.6

10

Bakersfield

CA

93

71.8%

36.9

90.0

18.9

51%

6.1

11

Chico-Paradise

CA

164

53.6%

32.8

101.0

21.2

65%

6.9

12

Fresno

CA

157

56.8%

35.0

105.0

22.1

63%

7.1

13

Los Angeles-Long Beach

CA

166

52.9%

46.9

158.0

33.2

71 %

10.7

14

Merced

CA

133

63.6%

33.5

96.0

20.2

60%

6.5

15

Modesto

CA

48

78.0%

39.8

106.0

22.3

56%

7.2

16

Oakland

CA

168

51.6%

58.4

195.0

41.0

70%

13.2

17

Orange County

CA

142

61.3%

61.3

188.0

39.5

64%

12.8

18

Redding

CA

161

55.1 %

34.8

107.0

22.5

65%

7.3

19

Riverside-San Bernadino

CA

84

73.3%

43.3

112.0

23.6

54%

7.6

20

Sacramento

CA

125

65.6%

46.4

135.0

28.4

61 %

9.2

21

Salinas

CA

183

34.6%

43.0

168.0

35.3

82%

11.4

22

San Diego

CA

175

47.0%

46.6

163.0

34.3

74%

11.1

23

San Francisco

CA

185

26.4%

61.3

275.0

57.8

94%

18.7

24

San Jose

CA

173

48.3%

67.4

237.0

49.8

74%

16.1

25

San Luis Obispo-Atascadero-Paso Robles

CA

176

45.3%

43.3

153.0

32.2

74%

10.4

26

Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Lompoc

CA

169

50.4%

48.3

165.5

34.8

72%

11.2

27

Santa Cruz-Watsonville

CA

182

35.8%

53.1

209.0

44.0

83%

14.2

28

Santa Rosa

CA

180

40.1 %

49.2

184.5

38.8

79%

12.5

29

Stockton-Lodi

CA

149

59.9%

41.5

129.0

27.1

65%

8.8

30

Vallejo-Fairfield-Napa

CA

141

61.6%

49.2

152.0

32.0

65%

10.3

31

Ventura

CA

154

57.9%

59.1

188.0

39.5

67%

12.8

32

Visalia-Tulare-Porterville

CA

133

63.6%

31.2

90.0

18.9

61 %

6.1

33

Yolo

CA

148

60.2%

46.2

144.0

30.3

66%

9.8

34

Yuba City

CA

144

61.0%

32.4

99.5

20.9

65%

6.7

35

Boulder-Longmont

CO

116

58.3

58.3

151.0

31.8

54%

10.2

36

Colorado Springs

CO

114

43.0

43.0

118.0

24.8

58%

8.0

37

Denver

CO

77

53.1

53.1

126.0

26.5

50%

8.5

38

Fort Collins-Loveland

CO

143

47.8

47.8

135.0

28.4

59%

9.2

39

Greeley

CO

146

39.0

39.0

114.0

24.0

61 %

7.7

40

Pueblo

CO

139

33.1

33.1

89.0

18.7

57%

6.0

41

Danbury

CT

167

71.4

71.4

220.0

46.3

65%

14.9

42

Hartford

CT

52

55.6

55.6

125.0

26.3

47%

8.5

43

New Haven-Meriden

CT

48

54.3

54.3

122.0

25.7

47%

8.3

44

New London-Norwich, CT-RI

CT

91

48.7

48.7

120.0

25.2

52%

8.1

45

Waterbury

CT

122

52.0

52.0

128.5

27.0

52%

8.7

46

Worcester, Ma-CT

CT

74

47.9

47.9

115.0

24.2

50%

7.8

47

Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV

DC

30

68.3

68.3

144.0

30.3

44%

9.8

48

Wilmington-Newark, De-MD

DE

11

55.5

55.5

118.0

24.8

45%

8.0

49

Daytona Beach

FL

35

36.2

36.2

75.0

15.8

44%

5.1

50

Fort Lauderdale

FL

79

46.6

46.6

100.0

21.0

45%

6.8

51

Fort Myers-Cape Coral

FL

64

40.1

40.1

85.0

17.9

45%

5.8

52

Fort Walton Beach

FL

46

39.2

39.2

86.0

18.1

46%

5.8

53

Ft. Pierce-Port St. Lucie

FL

51

42.7

42.7

80.0

16.8

39%

5.4

54

Gainesville

FL

45

38.4

38.4

77.0

16.2

42%

5.2

55

Jacksonville

FL

28

43.0

43.0

89.0

18.7

44%

6.0

56

Lakeland-Winter Haven

FL

7

35.9

35.9

70.0

14.7

41 %

4.7

57

Melbourne-Titusville-Palm Bay

FL

5

43.9

43.9

80.0

16.8

38%

5.4

58

Miami

FL

130

38.3

38.3

95.0

20.0

52%

6.4

59

Naples

FL

123

48.8

48.8

120.0

25.2

52%

8.1

60

Ocala

FL

18

31.9

31.9

65.0

13.7

43%

4.4

61

Orlando

FL

37

41.9

41.9

90.0

18.9

45%

6.1

62

Pensacola

FL

9

37.2

37.2

80.0

16.8

45%

5.4

63

Punta Gorda

FL

23

35.7

35.7

71.0

14.9

42%

4.8

64

Sarasota-Bradenton

FL

95

41.0

41.0

92.0

19.3

47%

6.2

65

Tallahassee

FL

41

42.9

42.9

90.0

18.9

44%

6.1

66

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater

FL

52

39.4

39.4

78.0

16.4

42%

5.3

67

W. Palm Beach-Boca Raton

FL

92

48.0

48.0

113.0

23.8

50%

7.7

68

Atlanta

GA

43

52.1

52.1

115.0

24.2

46%

7.8

69

Columbus, GA-AL

GA

110

34.3

34.3

89.0

18.7

55%

6.0

70

Macon

GA

16

40.1

40.1

86.0

18.1

45%

5.8

71

Honolulu

HI

181

55.9

55.9

229.0

48.2

86%

15.5

72

Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL

IA

23

41.2

41.2

71.0

14.9

36%

4.8

73

Des Moines

IA

26

48.3

48.3

87.0

18.3

38%

5.9

74

Omaha, NE-LA

IA

90

45.9

45.9

91.5

19.2

42%

6.2

75

Champaign-Urbana

IL

18

45.0

45.0

85.0

17.9

40%

5.8

76

Chicago

IL

124

54.1

54.1

137.0

28.8

53%

9.3

77

Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL

IL

23

81.4%

41.2

71.0

14.9

36%

4.8

78

Peoria-Pekin

IL

12

82.9%

43.6

75.0

15.8

36%

5.1

79

Rockford

IL

27

80.7%

44.0

87.0

18.3

42%

5.9

80

Springfield

IL

37

79.3%

47.7

87.0

18.3

38%

5.9

(81

St. Louis, MO-IL

IL

58

77.0%

46.9

96.0

20.2

43%

6.5

82

Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN

IN

62

76.4%

46.7

96.0

20.2

43%

6.5

83

Elkhart-Goshen

IN

3

88.3%

43.5

90.0

18.9

44%

6.1

84

Fort Wayne

IN

20

82.0%

44.2

91.0

19.1

43%

6.2

85

Indianapolis

IN

99

71.0%

46.6

120.0

25.2

54%

8.1

86

Louisville, KY-IN

IN

98

71.2%

39.7

90.5

19.0

48%

6.1

87

South Bend

IN

59

76.9%

42.5

85.0

17.9

42%

5.8

88

Kansas City, MO-KS

KS

6

85.4%

47.7

91.0

19.1

40%

6.2

89

Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN

KY

62

76.4%

46.7

96.0

20.2

43%

6.5

90

Lexington

KY

72

74.8%

39.6

90.0

18.9

48%

6.1

91

Louisville, KY-IN

KY

98

71.2%

39.7

90.5

19.0

48%

6.1

92

Baton Rouge

LA

8

84.5%

39.3

83.0

17.5

44%

5.6

93

Houma

LA

34

79.5%

29.6

73.0

15.4

52%

5.0

94

Lafayette

LA

79

74.2%

33.3

86.0

18.1

54%

5.8

95

New Orleans

LA

81

74.1%

35.5

80.0

16.8

47%

5.4

96

Shreveport-Bossier City

LA

82

73.6%

33.2

77.5

16.3

49%

5.3

97

Barnstable-Yarmouth

MA

145

60.9%

42.4

123.0

25.9

61 %

8.3

98

Boston, MA-NH

MA

105

70.4%

56.5

140.0

29.4

52%

9.5

99

Lawrence, MA-NH

MA

126

65.4%

52.7

144.5

30.4

58%

9.8

100

Lowell, MA-NH

MA

163

54.9%

55.8

170.0

35.8

64%

11.5

101

New Bedford

MA

162

55.0%

38.8

120.0

25.2

65%

8.1

102

Pittsfield

MA

94

71.6%

42.1

98.0

20.6

49%

6.6

103

Springfield

MA

55

77.3%

42.7

100.0

21.0

49%

6.8

104

Worcester, MA-CT

MA

74

74.6%

47.9

115.0

24.2

50%

7.8

105

Baltimore

MD

89

72.6%

52.4

125.0

26.3

50%

8.5

106

Hagerstown

MD

63

75.8%

40.4

104.0

21.9

54%

7.1

107

Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV

MD

30

80.3%

68.3

144.0

30.3

44%

9.8

108

Wilmington-Newark, DE-MD

MD

11

83.3%

55.5

118.0

24.8

45%

8.0

109

Portsmouth-Rochester, NH-ME

ME

153

58.1%

45.5

130.0

27.3

60%

8.8

110

Ann Arbor

MI

138

61.9%

54.9

132.0

27.8

51 %

9.0

111

Benton Harbor

MI

112

68.4%

41.6

91.0

19.1

46%

6.2

112

Detroit

MI

136

62.8%

50.1

113.0

23.8

47%

7.7

113

Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland

MI

52

77.6%

45.1

86.0

18.1

40%

5.8

114

Kalamazoo-Battle Creek

MI

85

73.1%

41.2

76.5

16.1

39%

5.2

115

Lansing-East Lansing

MI

43

78.6%

46.1

86.0

18.1

39%

5.8

116

Duluth-Superior, MN-WI

MN

12

82.9%

38.6

72.0

15.1

39%

4.9

117

Fargo-Moorhead, ND-MN

MN

96

71.3%

42.1

101.0

21.2

50%

6.9

118

Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI

MN

20

82.0%

54.6

107.0

22.5

41%

7.3

119

Kansas City, MO-KS

MO

6

85.4%

47.7

91.0

19.1

40%

6.2

120

St. Louis, MO-IL

MO

58

77.0%

46.9

96.0

20.2

43%

6.5

121

Biloxi-Gulfport-Pascagoula

MS

87

72.8%

31.9

72.0

15.1

47%

4.9

122

Hattiesburg

MS

115

67.8%

29.0

72.0

15.1

52%

4.9

123

Memphis, TN-AR-MS

MS

76

74.5%

39.5

83.0

17.5

44%

5.6

124

Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point

NC

118

67.3%

42.2

111.0

23.3

55%

7.5

125

Norfolk-Va. Beach-Newport News, VA-NC

NC

56

77.1%

42.1

95.0

20.0

47%

6.4

126

Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill

NC

127

65.2%

50.7

133.0

28.0

55%

9.0

127

Fargo-Moorhead, ND-MN

ND

96

71.3%

42.1

101.0

21.2

50%

6.9

128

Lincoln

NE

20

82.0%

46.6

86.0

18.1

39%

5.8

129

Omaha, NE-IA

NE

90

72.4%

45.9

91.5

19.2

42%

6.2

130

Boston, MA-NH

NH

105

70.4%

56.5

140.0

29.4

52%

9.5

131

Lawrence, MA-NH

NH

126

65.4%

52.7

144.5

30.4

58%

9.8

132

Lowell, Ma-NH

NH

163

54.9%

55.8

170.0

35.8

64%

11.5

133

Nashua

NH

17

82.3%

56.9

116.0

24.4

43%

7.9

134

Portsmouth-Rochester, NH-ME

NH

153

58.1%

45.5

130.0

27.3

60%

8.8

135

Atlantic--Cape May

NJ

64

75.7%

44.4

93.5

19.7

44%

6.3

136

Bergen-Passaic

NJ

129

64.7%

63.4

164.5

34.6

55%

11.2

137

Jersey City

NJ

172

49.3%

43.1

129.0

27.1

63%

8.8

138

Middlesex-Somerset-Hunterdon

NJ

132

64.1%

67.4

168.0

35.3

52%

11.4

139

Newark

NJ

137

62.4%

60.5

157.0

33.0

55%

10.7

140

Philadelphia, PA-NJ

NJ

147

60.4%

49.3

131.0

27.5

56%

8.9

141

Trenton

NJ

106

70.0%

58.5

124.0

26.1

45%

8.4

142

Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton

NJ

2

89.1%

41.5

75.0

15.8

38%

5.1

143

Albuquerque

NM

171

49.7%

42.0

139.0

29.2

70%

9.4

144

Las Vegas, NV-AZ

NV

70

75.0%

45.0

118.0

24.8

55%

8.0

145

Reno

NV

109

69.4%

50.2

136.0

28.6

57%

9.2

146

Albany-Schnectady-Troy

NY

14

82.8%

45.3

90.0

18.9

42%

6.1

147

Binghampton

NY

15

82.7%

40.1

83.0

17.5

44%

5.6

148

Buffalo-Niagara Falls

NY

113

68.1%

40.9

96.0

20.2

49%

6.5

149

Nassau-Suffolk

NY

117

67.5%

66.5

164.0

34.5

52%

11.1

150

New York

NY

178

42.3%

45.8

165.0

34.7

76%

11.2

151

Rochester

NY

108

69.9%

45.5

101.0

21.2

47%

6.9

152

Syracuse

NY

64

75.7%

41.8

88.0

18.5

44%

6.0

153

Akron

OH

100

70.9%

42.8

90.0

18.9

44%

6.1

154

Canton-Massillon

OH

56

77.1%

39.7

83.0

17.5

44%

5.6

155

Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN

OH

62

76.4%

46.7

96.0

20.2

43%

6.5

156

Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria

OH

68

75.2%

44.6

93.0

19.6

44%

6.3

157

Columbus

OH

64

75.7%

46.2

107.0

22.5

49%

7.3

158

Dayton-Springfield

OH

23

81.4%

44.3

85.0

17.9

40%

5.8

159

Hamilton-Middletown

OH

31

80.2%

46.7

96.5

20.3

43%

6.5

160

Lima

OH

4

86.8%

40.0

68.0

14.3

36%

4.6

161

Mansfield

OH

10

83.7%

37.3

69.0

14.5

39%

4.7

162

Toledo

OH

61

76.6%

42.8

80.0

16.8

39%

5.4

163

Youngstown-Warren

OH

47

78.3%

36.7

70.0

14.7

40%

4.7

164

Oklahoma City

OK

32

79.7%

38.3

76.0

16.0

42%

5.2

165

Tulsa

OK

71

74.9%

38.4

83.0

17.5

45%

5.6

166

Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA

OR

179

40.4%

44.4

133.0

28.0

63%

9.0

167

Salem

OR

165

53.0%

37.8

100.0

21.0

56%

6.8

168

Allentown-Beth Lehem-Easton

PA

68

75.2%

43.8

95.0

20.0

46%

6.4

169

Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle

PA

39

79.0%

43.4

93.0

19.6

45%

6.3

170

Lancaster

PA

28

80.6%

43.3

102.0

21.5

50%

6.9

171

Philadelphia, PA-NJ

PA

147

60.4%

49.3

131.0

27.5

56%

8.9

172

Pittsburgh

PA

100

70.9%

38.2

76.0

16.0

42%

5.2

173

Reading

PA

42

78.7%

43.1

97.0

20.4

47%

6.6

174

State College

PA

156

57.1 %

38.5

105.0

22.1

57%

7.1

175

Williamsport

PA

48

78.0%

34.1

70.0

14.7

43%

4.7

176

New London-Norwich, CT-RI

RI

91

72.3%

48.7

120.0

25.2

52%

8.1

177

Providence-Warwick-Pawtucket

RI

74

74.6%

44.3

106.0

22.3

50%

7.2

178

Charleston-North Charleston

SC

103

70.7%

38.7

93.0

19.6

51 %

6.3

179

Columbia

SC

35

79.4%

43.1

90.0

18.9

44%

6.1

180

Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson

SC

83

73.5%

40.3

92.0

19.3

48%

6.2

181

Johnson City-Kingsport-Bristol, TN-VA

TN

96

71.3%

31.7

75.0

15.8

50%

5.1

182

Knoxville

TN

77

74.4%

37.4

85.0

17.9

48%

5.8

183

Memphis, TN-AR-MS

TN

76

74.5%

39.5

83.0

17.5

44%

5.6

184

Nashville

TN

87

72.8%

43.2

105.0

22.1

51 %

7.1

185

Amarillo

TX

120

67.0%

36.4

82.0

17.2

47%

5.6

186

Austin-San Marcos

TX

170

49.8%

44.9

131.0

27.5

61 %

8.9

187

Beaumont-Port Arthur

TX

39

79.0%

37.3

73.0

15.4

41%

5.0

188

Brazoria

TX

59

76.9%

46.9

100.0

21.0

45%

6.8

189

Corpus Christi

TX

151

59.0%

35.2

92.0

19.3

55%

6.2

190

Dallas

TX

140

61.7%

48.3

124.0

26.1

54%

8.4

191

El Paso

TX

177

43.7%

28.9

88.0

18.5

64%

6.0

192

Fort Worth-Arlington

TX

106

70.0%

47.5

105.0

22.1

46%

7.1

193

Houston

TX

118

67.3%

46.0

99.0

20.8

45%

6.7

194

Laredo

TX

184

28.1 %

24.9

87.0

18.3

73%

5.9

195

Lubbock

TX

111

68.7%

36.3

85.0

17.9

49%

5.8

196

San Antonio

TX

160

55.2%

36.0

99.0

20.8

58%

6.7

197

Tyler

TX

120

67.0%

38.2

93.0

19.6

51 %

6.3

198

Provo-Orem

UT

174

48.2%

40.1

135.0

28.4

71 %

9.2

199

Salt Lake City-Ogden

UT

155

57.5%

45.5

137.0

28.8

63%

9.3

200

Johnson City-Kingsport-Bristol, TN-VA

VA

96

71.3%

31.7

75.0

15.8

50%

5.1

201

Norfolk-Va. Beach-Newport News, VA-NC

VA

56

77.1%

42.1

95.0

20.0

47%

6.4

202

Richmond-Petersburg

VA

32

79.7%

49.3

107.0

22.5

46%

7.3

203

Washington, DC-MD-VA-WY

VA

30

80.3%

68.3

144.0

30.3

44%

9.8

204

Burlington

VT

85

73.1 %

47.3

110.0

23.1

49%

7.5

205

Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA

WA

179

40.4%

44.4

133.0

28.0

63%

9.0

206

Seattle-Bellevue-Everett

WA

135

63.0%

52.8

153.0

32.2

61 %

10.4

207

Tacoma

WA

131

64.2%

43.3

120.0

25.2

58%

8.1

208

Yakima

WA

159

55.8%

32.8

94.0

19.8

60%

6.4

209

Duluth-Superior, MN-WI

WI

12

82.9%

38.6

72.0

15.1

39%

4.9

210

Milwaukee-Waukesha

WI

73

74.7%

48.7

93.0

19.6

40%

6.3

211

Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI

WI

20

82.0%

54.6

107.0

22.5

41%

7.3

212

Racine

WI

1

89.4%

46.7

76.0

16.0

34%

5.2

213

Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV

WV

30

80.3%

68.3

144.0

30.3

44%

9.8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National Average

 

 

67.5%

41.6

118.0

24.8

60%

8.0


Endnotes

1. Pp. 377-378, 385-386, Population and Environment 18(4) March, 1997. Energy & Environmental Planning Associates,394 East 32nd Ave., Eugene, Oregon, 97405, (503) 345-8245.
2. Burchell, Robert W., David Listokin, William R. Dolphin, Development Impact Assessment Handbook, Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C., 1994.
3. Thus it costs approximately $6 to construct sufficient generating capacity to supply electric power continuously to operate a traditional 4 watt electric clock.
4. Annual Energy Review. 1995. (DOE/EIA - 0384(95)), Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, Table 8-8, p.245.
5. National Association of Home Builders, 1201 15th Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20005-2800, 822-0254. The report was released June 26, 1996.
6. It is noted that the HOI also considers differences in property insurance rates for each area.

______
* "Per Capita Costs of Population Growth to Local Communities", Starting Point: A Network Report. Carrying Capacity Network. April, 1997

 

Home ] Up ]

Please send mail to webmaster@mnforsustain.org with questions or comments about this web site. Minnesotans For Sustainability (MFS) is not affiliated with any government body, private, or corporate entity. Copyright 2002 Minnesotans For Sustainability