The NJTPA region gained more than 550,000 residents from 1990 to 2000, leading to the development of new homes, offices, stores, and other facilities throughout the region. Though regional growth has undeniable benefits, the form and location of new development has become a matter of increasing concern. As in most US metropolitan areas, sprawl is the prevailing standard for new development in the NJTPA region.
Sprawl is the phenomenon in which low-density development spreads widely and haphazardly across the landscape. This pattern of development results in a landscape in which homes encroach on farms and natural habitat, and in which businesses are scattered along highways rather than concentrated in urban and regional centers where supporting infrastructure is already in place.
 |
Critics argue that sprawl spoils the character and environment of rural areas. Agricultural land and natural habitat succumb to new development, and small-town charm is overwhelmed by the banality of highway-oriented commercial development. Furthermore, sprawl has serious economic consequences for municipalities. New development at the metropolitan periphery has the effect of draining economic activity away from older city downtowns and neighborhoods, leaving cities with diminished tax bases. Meanwhile, local governments in outlying areas are burdened with the cost of building infrastructure to support new development. In terms of transportation, sprawl makes automobile travel a necessity, because activities are too dispersed for walking or transit to be viable options.
Settled Land
Land used for human settlement increased by 16 sercent from 1986 to 2000 |
 |
American transportation policy has done much to facilitate sprawl. Massive investment in highway systems between the 1930s and the 1980s opened up vast frontiers for new development. Meanwhile, transit systems suffered severe cutbacks, including the abandonment of many rail lines. As a result, much of the development that has occurred in recent decades is scattered in highway-served outlying areas, and is completely auto-oriented.
It should be noted, however, that numerous other factors have operated in conjunction with transportation policy to help foster sprawl. These other factors include inner city poverty and crime, consumer preferences for suburban living, tax policies that favor suburban development, and zoning ordinances that limit the density of development in suburban municipalities.
Density of Settled Land
The density of settled land declined by four percent from 1986 to 2000. |
 |
Land consumption is an important dimension of sprawl. Land used for human settlement accounts for 35 percent of the land in the NJTPA region. Settled land includes all land, with the exception of water, wetlands, forests, agricultural land, and barren land (such as vacant lots).
The amount of settled land in the NJTPA region increased by nearly 140,000 acres from 1986 to 2000, a 16 percent increase, as new development occurred on unspoiled or agricultural land. In Hunterdon, Warren, and Sussex counties, all of which are predominantly rural, settled land increased by more than 30 percent. In absolute numbers, growth in settled land was highest in Monmouth and Somerset counties, each of which gained close to 20,000 acres (see Map 6-1 above).
Some might argue that this growth was unavoidable, given that the region’s population is growing. In fact, the growth in settled land has outpaced population growth. Regionwide, the average number of residents per acre of settled land declined by four percent from 1986 to 2000. With regards to accommodating population, the region’s land is being used less frugally than it was in 1986 (see Map 6-2 above).
The regionwide loss in density is the result of sprawling development at the metropolitan periphery and disinvestment in the urban core. Hunterdon, Warren, and Sussex counties experienced the biggest declines in density — reductions of 10 to 15 percent — as new low-density development has occurred rapidly. Meanwhile, Essex County experienced a three percent reduction in density as a result of population loss in the City of Newark.
Sprawl has troubling implications for the region’s transportation system, because low-density settlement is associated with increased driving (as measured by vehicle-miles traveled, or VMT). In Hudson County, where there are 26 residents per acre of settled land, adult residents drive an average of eight miles per day. In Hunterdon County, where there are two residents per acre of settled land, adult residents drive an average of 27 miles per day (see Figure 8 below).
 |
| Figure 8, Population Density and Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT), by County |
To limit sprawl and promote more sustainable forms of growth, many observers have suggested that new development should be concentrated in compact centers, particularly in existing central cities and town centers. Ideally, these centers should be pedestrian-friendly and transit-accessible.
In fact, New Jersey already features numerous compact neighborhoods and business districts, including older town centers that developed around rail stations, as well as urban and suburban residential areas built at sufficient densities to support bus service. To build upon these assets, the State Development and Redevelopment Plan calls for new development to be concentrated in eight Urban Centers, five of which are in the NJTPA region, as well as in dozens of smaller town and village centers. These centers are to receive priority for public investment, including transportation investment, to support further growth.
The region’s Urban Centers are the cities of Elizabeth, Jersey City, Newark, New Brunswick, and Paterson. Growth in these cities has been mixed. In the 1990s, population in New Brunswick grew by 16 percent, but fell by one percent in Newark (see Figure 9 above). Nevertheless, all five cities performed consistently better in the 1990s than in prior decades, when widespread disinvestment occurred. In the 1980s, population fell by 16 percent in Newark, and grew by only one percent in New Brunswick.
Growth in Urban Centers
Growth in the region's urban centers has been mixed—population in New Brunswick grew by 16 percent in the 1990's, but fell by one percent in Newark.
|
 |
Job growth in the Urban Centers also has been mixed. In the 1990s, employment in Jersey City grew by 22, but declined in Elizabeth, Newark, and Paterson (see Figure 9 below).
Overall, the growth in the Urban Centers continues to lag far behind growth in the NJTPA region as a whole. Collectively, population in the Urban Centers grew by four percent in the 1990s, and employment grew by two percent, compared to 10 percent growth in both population and jobs in the region overall.
"Smart Growth" initiatives in the NJTPA region seek to limit sprawl by coordinating land use and transportation systems. For example, the New Jersey Transit Village Initiative is an effort to foster compact development within walking distance of transit stations. The New Jersey Department of Transportation now conducts thorough studies of land use impacts before undertaking major highway expansion projects. Though some localized success has been achieved, more aggressive measures will be needed to counter the historical trend toward sprawl.
 |
| Figure 9, Population and Job Growth in Urban Centers, 1990-2000 |