Past Efforts

Summary Physical Form Traffic Congestion Environment Air Quality Economic Development Freight Movement Mobility Housing Appendix: Data Sources

Download Report (.pdf) | (.doc)

In 1999, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) began a two-year effort to prepare an updated long-range regional plan - Horizons, The Year 2025 Plan for the Delaware Valley. The 2025 Plan builds upon the extensive work undertaken in preparing Direction 2020, DVRPC's Land Use and Transportation Plan for the Year 2020, which was completed and adopted in 1995. The 2020 Plan set forth a vision for the region that coupled a strong economy and seamless transportation system with a healthy environment and vibrant communities. It envisioned a more efficient, competitive and sustainable region by fostering new development in and around existing communities while easing traffic congestion and enhancing mobility through alternative travel modes and decreased reliance on the single occupancy vehicle. Horizons 2025 will continue this vision and expand upon it, by reviewing and refining the goals and policies of the 2020 Plan and maintaining a 20 year planning horizon.

The 2020 Plan presented a detailed physical plan for future development and transportation facilities in conjunction with goals, policies and recommended actions in eight specific areas. Horizons 2025 will augment this approach by proposing additional development and transportation facilities consistent with the 2020 Plan's established goals, policies and recommended actions in eight specific areas:

This report, Regional Indicators: Measuring Our Progress to 2025, advances the 2020 plan and Horizons 2025 by presenting 26 refined indicators that collectively track the region's progress toward the adopted goals of both plans.

Selecting Meaningful Indicators: The Process

Twenty-seven indicators were originally selected for Regional Indicators: Measuring Our Progress to 2020. The overriding objective at that time was to develop meaningful indicators that would reflect the region's progress toward Direction 2020 goals. Through refinement, the indicators chosen for this report reflect the current goals of Horizons 2025. Each selected indicator must also meet the following criteria:

In addition to these characteristics of the data, the final selection of indicators was balanced so that they would collectively represent all eight issue areas. In order to keep the report widely accessible, highly technical indicators, that would have been of interest to only specialists in a particular discipline, were not included.

Twenty-six indicators were selected through this process and are presented in this report. The document is divided into eight sections, each corresponding to a different issue area. Following a restatement of the adopted goal, each section reviews several indicators that were selected to measure progress toward the goal. A Policy Background section that describes the measure in the context of regional goals and objectives introduces each indicator. The Measurement section identifies the data source, explains how the indicator is constructed and states whether a higher or lower number indicates progress towards goals. Data limitations and other special factors that have a bearing on the interpretation of the data are also identified in this section. Finally, the Results section summarizes recent trends and, where appropriate, compares results in different parts of the region. A comparison of conditions between a baseline year and the latest available year helps to assess whether the region is moving toward or away from the goals.

Data Limitations and Other Caveats

The single largest challenge to developing meaningful regional indicators is that relatively little data is collected at the regional level. Federal, state, county and local governments collect data for their own geographies and often use methodologies that are not directly transferable to other parts of the region. The fact that DVRPC is a bi-state region also posed a data collection challenge. Pennsylvania and New Jersey frequently have different regulations and standards of compliance and, consequently, state level data may not be directly comparable. Data on limitations and definitional issues between Pennsylvania and New Jersey are highlighted in the text and tables, as appropriate.

Use of U.S. Census data also posed a dilemma. While the decennial Census is an extensive data set that provides consistent and detailed coverage across the region, it is taken only once every ten years. With Census 2000 in progress at this stage, Census 1990 data is relatively dated. As a result, DVRPC attempted to collect more recent data from non-Census sources wherever possible. For two indicators, "Average Trip Length" and "Percent of Home to Work Trips in Single Occupant Vehicles," no other reliable data sources were available that could be used to update Census data.

Another consideration for interpreting the indicators is that unusually large changes in the data or sudden turning points may be due to factors unrelated to established goals or regional policies. For example, one-time occurrences (a labor strike) or extraordinary events (extreme weather conditions) may be responsible for short-term changes. These events should not be confused with changes in underlying trends. Special one-time factors are highlighted in the discussion of individual indicators, where relevant.

Finally, it is important to recognize that some goals lend themselves more easily to quantification than others. Concepts like "community character" and a "sustainable environment" may be harder to calculate than changes in traffic counts or number of building permits issued. The fact that they are harder to quantify does not mean that they are less important. Other goals such as air and water quality, while measurable, may be hard to reduce to a single easily understandable number. It must also be noted that DVRPC's land use and transportation plans are primarily physical plans that have limited coverage of other issues in the region, such as the quality of education, healthcare, or crime.

The 26 indicators contained in this report are points in an ongoing assessment of regional goals and policies. Like the eight issue areas, these measures should not be viewed in isolation, but as part of a dynamic system that shed light upon areas of relative progress and need. One indicator cannot accurately describe "how we are doing;" however, the entire series of regional measures allows for a broad region-wide assessment of progress and change.

Interpreting the Indicators

The indicators presented in this report portray a mixed picture of success toward meeting the goals of the year 2020 Plan and Horizons 2025. Of the 26 regional indicators presented here, 11 show an improving trend, 6 represent a decline in conditions, and 9 show mixed results. Highlights of the results:

On Physical Form:
While population growth occurred in the 29 growth centers identified in the 2020 Plan, the City of Philadelphia continues to lose population and the region is still losing farmland at an alarming rate. There is also a significant need for additional parks and recreational open space in the region. Overall, the region's population grew just 0.6% between 1990 and 1995, while the amount of developed land increased an additional 5.2%.

Traffic Congestion:
Auto usage as well as vehicle ownership increased regionally between 1990 and 1995, with total traffic growth of 10% for the period. Despite strong growth in ridership at New Jersey Transit and SEPTA Regional Rail between 1996 and 1999, overall public transit usage declined slightly during this period.

Environment:
Environmental conditions were generally positive as reflected by recycling, water quality and water withdrawal indicators, yet increasing waste generation and energy consumption reflect direct environment impacts.

Air Quality:
Although air quality improved somewhat, increased car ownership and single occupant automobile commutes will yield increasing congestion and declining air quality. From 1990 to 1995, the number of cars in the region increased four times greater than the increase in population.

Economic Development:
Economic development factors were positive overall for the period of 1995 to 1998 as indicated by employment growth, income growth and unemployment rate indicators, yet the City of Philadelphia continued to lose total employment and experience the highest unemployment rate.

Freight:
Freight movement indicators contained mixed results. A significant increase in air cargo and general cargo through the port occurred in the region from 1996 to 1998, but the amount of bulk cargo decreased slightly for the same period.

Mobility:
Investments in roadway maintenance have significantly reduced the percent of highway miles rated in poor condition in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Perhaps as a result, and despite the increase in auto usage, the number of automobile crashes in the region has declined since 1988.

Housing:
Wage growth in the region surpassed the overall rate of inflation and the increase in housing costs between 1995 and 1997, creating a generally more affordable housing market. While housing is still relatively affordable through most of the region, increased housing prices in selected areas may have a direct impact on attracting or retaining homebuyers.

The trends captured by the indicators, though mixed, identify areas where the region is making progress and others that require renewed commitment. Looking across categories, the indicators can also be used to illustrate inter-relationships between variables. For example, these findings support the notion that decentralized growth results in decreased transit usage and increasing auto-usage, but may actually disperse air pollution and improve overall air quality in the short term. In a similar manner, rising income levels will support rising housing prices, but may make certain areas of the region unaffordable to large segments of the population. Considering such trends and relationships identifies those areas where policy intervention may be necessary. Finally, these indicators create the foundation for targeting specific, numerical benchmarks to gauge progress toward selected goals over time.