New Jersey Future Blog
Lead by Example: Equitably Addressing the Toxic Lead Issues in Your Town
July 7th, 2022 by Heather Sorge
Lead-contaminated paint, water, and soil disproportionately affect young children, causing serious medical and behavioral issues into adulthood, and low-income communities and/or communities of color are most at risk, due to systemic inequities. However, these issues can be prevented by targeting the sources of lead and remediating them.
Lead impacts our entire state, and we have a unique opportunity to address it. What is lead and where is it negatively impacting community health? Once identified, what should cities and municipalities be required to do and when? What are some success stories and some of the obstacles that cities and towns have faced when conducting remediation? These questions were addressed in a session titled “Lead by Example: Equitably Addressing the Toxic Lead Issues in Your Town” at the 2022 NJ Planning and Redevelopment Conference, co-hosted by New Jersey Future and the New Jersey Chapter of the American Planning Association.
Moderated by Rashan Prailow, founder of Think Group LLC, & Co-Chair of Lead-Free NJ, the panel included Kareem Adeem, director of Newark Department of Water & Sewer Utilities’; Michael Venezia, mayor of Bloomfield Township; Ruth Ann Norton, president & CEO of the Green & Healthy Homes Initiative (GHHI); and Shereyl Snider, community organizer with Urban Promise Trenton and the East Trenton Collaborative.
Kareen Adeem began the session by sharing Newark’s journey, and success, in completing their lead service line (LSL) replacement program which began in 2019 and removed over 23,000 LSL’s, impacting 315,000 residents in 31,000 households. Adeem touted the project as one that invested Newark’s physical and human infrastructure by creating jobs and opportunities within the community and improving public health.
Ruth Ann Norton of GHHI spoke of the need to, “advance lead in every program we can to ensure we end its toxic legacy and the stranglehold it has had on health, economic, and social outcomes for far too many communities throughout the state and nation.” Norton went on to say that New Jersey has set a guidepost by aligning our normal lead hazard control, lead abatement activities, testing in water, soil, and paint, and the ability to deliver a lead-free future for New Jerseyans. She stated that equity must be measured along the following yardsticks: children’s ability to attend school healthy and ready to learn, housing stability in a given area or neighborhood,, health care funding t for managed care for hospitals and Medicare, unemployment and a strong jobs framework to maintain local infrastructure, and denormalizing the , expectation that children in low-income housing will be poisoned by lead because it typically is older, distressed housing.
Lead has a significant adverse impact on children’s brain development and can impact learning, behavior, and health of both children and adults affecting how you earn, learn and compete for a lifetime. Risk assessment, testing, and remediation are critical to an area’s success and addressing it is something that mayors and officials can do to make a difference. Mayor Venezia spoke to how Bloomfield Township works with landlords and renters to inspect rentals to develop a plan to remediate lead paint issues, which has had great success. Additionally, when lead was found in Bloomfield Township’s water, the Township developed and implemented plans to address the LSLs, at no cost to residents, through various funding sources.
In Trenton, Shereyl Snider is helping residents advocate for continuation of their LSL program which unfortunately stalled. Snider has been holding listening sessions for residents and working closely with Trenton’s mayor and other advocates to get the word out on the harmful effects of lead to residents through door-knocking, handing out materials, and speaking to residents one-on-one. The East Trenton Collaborative’s work also includes engaging legislators, as well as city and county officials, by pushing for education, testing, and lead remediation with no customer cost share.
It is important that county, city, and town officials understand state mandates and funding opportunities, and work to identify and remediate lead-related issues. Our panelists agreed that accountability, transparency, and communication are the true keys to success. Investing in human capital and including residents in the process of bettering their community will ultimately help ensure healthy, productive, and engaged communities for our future.
“Addressing lead is a moral compass issue for this country around many ill conceived and unjust policies of the past, which gives us a platform to do the right things and do them better.” -Ruth Ann Norton, President & CEO, GHHI
Centering Small Business in Post-Pandemic Redevelopment
July 7th, 2022 by Hannah Reynolds
“Think about culture [and] what curating a downtown really means,” invited Natalie Pineiro, executive director of the Downtown Somerville Alliance, at the 2022 NJ Planning and Redevelopment Conference, hosted by New Jersey Future and the New Jersey chapter of the American Planning Association. Pineiro’s comment implored viewers of the breakout session, The Business of Redevelopment, to consider the importance of including diverse voices in planning for downtown revitalization and redevelopment of communities, especially small business owners and community members.
The panel, hosted by Leslie Anderson, the President and CEO of the New Jersey Redevelopment Authority, featured a lineup of four impressive speakers including Pineiro; Elnardo Webster, partner at Inglesino, Webster, Wyciskala, & Taylor, LLC; Karim Hutson,
founder and managing member of Genesis Companies; and Michele Delisfort, principal and managing partner of Nishuane Group, LLC and mayor of Union Township. Throughout the session, all four speakers highlighted the disconnect between profit-driven developers and small business owners lacking the financial resources to pay rent in downtown communities. Repeatedly, the panelists referred to the lack of a ‘universal language’ when it comes to communicating across stakeholder groups: landlords and developers, community members and customers, small business owners, and municipal leaders.
Michele Delisfort, of Nishuane Group, explained that—in her experience with public planning pre- and post-COVID-19—the pandemic shifted relationships between developers, municipalities, and small businesses. In the past, the triparty relationships were often adversarial in nature; the pandemic necessitated greater flexibility as municipal governments sought to work with developers to increase accessibility of rent and to develop and revitalize their communities by encouraging walkable streets and an abundance of small businesses in the downtown areas. In navigating these sometimes contentious collaborations, Delisfort insisted that town leadership had to be flexible and community-driven, with a deep understanding of where the community is in terms of goals and vision.
The pandemic presented other challenges, as well. Karim Hutson, a developer, operator, and business owner with Genesis Companies, explained that COVID-19 has led to far more uncertainty when it comes to development projects. For one, the timing of completion of development projects tends to be more variable than in pre-pandemic times, with shortages of supplies amplifying this uncertainty. Further, Hutson told viewers that uncertainty around the budget and costs of development posed a hindrance to projects, as developers saw spectacular increases in operating costs, the cost of supplies, and insurance prices. These high prices put pressure on the net cash flow associated with developments, thus incentivizing landlords to raise rent to meet the high costs tied to development and owning property. By sourcing supplies and hiring other businesses that are local, developers could contribute to values of community development and sustainable growth. Hutson argued that prioritizing sustainability and long-term community value in development and leasing of property was necessary in order to support both developers and small businesses in communities.
“We are not actually out of the pandemic yet,” Elnardo Webster of Inglesino, Webster, Wyciskala, & Taylor, LLC said during the panel. Webster explained that many of the challenges and negative externalities of the pandemic, including supply chain disruptions, still-remote work schedules, prohibitively expensive real estate, and reduced staffing capacity, were still present even now, nearly two and a half years since the initial Stay At Home public health protocols. Webster proposed that requesting subsidies for affordable rental units for retail could offer support for small businesses that could not otherwise afford rental spaces. This offers a small, local business-focused approach to development that could support the revitalization and redevelopment of downtowns and community centers, a value echoed by many of the panelists.
Altogether, the panel offered a diverse array of perspectives and insightful understandings of how small businesses fit in with community-wide goals at redevelopment. Especially as we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic, it is crucial to keep development accessible for small and local businesses, if goals at revitalization are to be accomplished. As decisions on development and planning of urban downtowns are made, the panelists emphasized the importance of not only allowing all stakeholders a seat at the table, especially small business owners, but also of ensuring that these underrepresented parties are supported by decision makers with intimate familiarity with their needs. Through open communication and collaboration, hopefully a more universal language for discussing redevelopment can bring together the diverse groups of stakeholders involved in community development planning.
Award-Winning Map Shows Water-Related Environmental Justice Issues in New Jersey
June 30th, 2022 by Guest Author
By Drew Curtis, Pablo Herreros Cantis, Bill Cesanek, Rachel Dawn Davis, Amy Goldsmith, and Andrew Tabas
Download the Spanish Translation. (Español)
The Summer 2021 floods in New Jersey, none more widespread and damaging than following Hurricane Ida, showed the damage that stormwater can wreak on communities. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) anticipates that rainfall intensity will increase due to climate change, meaning that flooding will become more frequent. To prepare for future floods, it is essential to understand which areas are at risk of flooding and which communities are in harm’s way.
Jersey Water Works (JWW) developed the NJ Water Risk and Equity Map to gather data on water risks and to understand the potential inequities tied to them. By water risks, we mean a group of public health- and safety- related challenges that are relevant to New Jersey’s communities (such as flooding, lead in drinking water, and surface water quality). The map allows users to explore data showing the different water risks considered, with the aim of helping both NJ residents and decision makers visualize the communities that are most affected by them. Showing the distribution of water-related risks can motivate local and state government officials, advocates, and residents to seek to address these issues.
In 2022, the Water Risk Equity Map was selected for the Water Data Prize in the Equity Category. Read more in this press release!
These two case studies show how the map can be used to understand water and equity issues in New Jersey.
Case Study 1: Visualizing the Impact of Hurricane Sandy on Jersey City’s Overburdened Communities
The first case study examines the impact that Superstorm Sandy had in Jersey City.
Use the search to find Jersey City.
Load the layer that shows the areas inundated due to Sandy by clicking on the “Map Layers” button → “Water Risk Data” → “Flood Risk Data” → “Sandy Surge Extent”. Displaying the layer shows that a substantial part of Jersey City was impacted by Hurricane Sandy.
It is possible to change the basemap and the transparency of the layer so that it is easier to read the names of the streets that were affected by the storm. To do this, click on the “Basemaps” panel on the left side of the screen. To change the layer’s transparency, slide the button on the upper right under the Layer Control panel.
Now that the layer’s setting and the basemap have been configured, it is possible to zoom into any particular area of interest. For example, we can zoom into the area known as Mill Creek. As the image below shows, Mill Creek was severely affected by Hurricane Sandy, and is known to be a breach point for flooding during storm surge events. The area is also exposed to Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) discharges, and has several polluted and federally-recognized Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cleanup sites. CSO outfalls, known polluted sites, and EPA cleanup sites can be added to the map by accessing the layers under “Map Layers” → “Water Risk Data” → “CSO/MS4 Outfalls and Polluted Sites.”
Finally, the tool includes socioeconomic data relevant to identifying vulnerable communities. For example, it is possible to display overburdened communities (as defined by NJDEP). NJDEP defines “overburdened communities” as areas with 35% or more low-income households, 40% or more Black, Indigenous, or People of Color (BIPOC) residents, or 40% or more limited English proficiency households. As the legend shows, Jersey City has several overburdened communities due to areas that meet the threshold for BIPOC residents, low-income households, or both.
If the Hurricane Sandy surge extent area is reactivated, it becomes clear that many of these vulnerable communities were directly impacted by flooding during the superstorm. The case of Jersey City is comparably different to its neighbor municipality Hoboken, which, while severely affected by Superstorm Sandy, shows a much lower amount of overburdened communities.
Case Study 2: Hotspots in South Jersey
The second case study examines South Jersey with the aid of the new “hotspot” layer. Hotspots are areas where overburdened communities face high levels of water risks. The map identifies two types of hotspots: Flooding Environmental Justice (EJ) Hotspots and Water Infrastructure Environmental Justice (EJ) Hotspots. (For an explanation of the data that is included in these hotspots, visit our Introduction page.)
First, pull up the Hotspots layer. Areas in blue are Flooding EJ Hotspots, areas in yellow are Water Infrastructure EJ Hotspots, and areas in green are both.
Second, zoom in on South Jersey. As you can see, there are Flooding EJ Hotspots in Vineland, Bridgeton, and Willingboro, among other areas in New Jersey. There are Water Infrastructure EJ Hotspots around Atlantic City. Some areas are both Flooding EJ Hotspots and Water Infrastructure EJ Hotspots, including Camden, Toms River, and parts of Cape May County.
Third, add the area of the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer to determine which of these areas are near the drinking water aquifer.
These hotspots are a way to start to explore trends in the data. Remember that many decisions go into building these hotspots. For example, the map highlights overburdened communities to draw attention to environmental justice issues, which means that areas that experience water risks but do not have overburdened communities are not labeled as hotspots. Also, the combination of layers that are included in the analysis necessarily chooses some layers (like the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain) while leaving out others (like brownfields). The Water Risk Equity Map Subcommittee determined the layers that it wanted to include in the hotspot analysis. Map users are encouraged to explore the layers that are most important to them.
To explore the layers that are a priority for you, head to the map and try it out!
Mapping is a powerful tool that can shed light on the environmental risks faced by our society. We hope that you find the Water Risk Equity Map to be an informative tool that is useful in your education and outreach efforts.
Street View: Fostering an Inclusive Community Through Complete and Green Streets
June 29th, 2022 by Aishwarya Devarajan
Colorful Crosswalks in Hoboken, New Jersey. Photo Credit: Andrew Tabas
From a satellite view, our streets, our towns, and our lives look picturesque. In reality, we know they are much messier than that. A quick glance at the street view and we see the reality of our towns in a muddy pair of childrens’ boots, hesitating to get on the school bus as a car closely zips behind them; in a little boy and his wheelchair-assisted grandma walking their dog on the gradually shortening shoulder of the road; in a man walking to his car with tires submerged in five inches of stormwater; in a woman looking up from her phone’s weather app which warns her of the poor local air quality as she reaches into her bag to grab her inhaler. As our streets get busier, filled with more stormwater and traffic pollution, and become increasingly inaccessible, implementing complete and green streets (CGS), as well as retrofitting green infrastructure, in our communities is imperative.
Polluted Stormwater Flooding on a Street in Trenton, New Jersey. Photo Credit: Andrew Tabas
CGS offer opportunities for urban and rural localities to manage stormwater, increase transportation options, support the local economy, and encourage active communities. Feasible implementation requires support from and collaboration between local, state, and federal governments.
Butterfly on a Joe Pye Weed in a Rain Garden. Photo Credit: Aishwarya Devarajan
At the Local Level:
Municipalities can pass ordinances and resolutions to support CGS in their area. These often formalize CGS efforts in a locality and commit to a longer investment. With appropriate planning and collaboration between departments, municipalities can save on much of the cost and work towards the same goal. For example, CGS elements, such as permeable roadways, can be added to a street at the time that the roadway needs to be dug up to access the pipes beneath it. Further, creating a long-term maintenance and funding plan will ensure the sustainability of these projects and reduce long-term repair costs. Retrofitting existing infrastructure with green infrastructure elements can also reduce costs while still maximizing benefits in multi-modal transportation and accessibility, stormwater management, traffic calming, community value and aesthetics.
Public support is essential for successful projects. An educational complete streets demo lab can help all ages of the community to engage with and visualize CGS in their town, and to learn more about the benefits of implementing CGS projects. According to the Collinswood Complete Streets Lab, these demonstrations use “low-cost materials like hay bales, straw, temporary paint and traffic cones, to test out infrastructure in a real-world setting, before investing in a permanent project” to capture local feedback.
At the State Level:
In their Model Complete and Green Streets Policy Guide, NJDOT recommends best practices for CGS and also references their own 2009 CGS policy requiring that “future NJDOT roadway improvement projects include safe accommodations for all users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, transit riders and the mobility-impaired.” This was a great start and NJDOT can do much more. Although NJDOT created this model policy, it is not a policy that NJDOT models.
The recently-enacted Safe Passing Law aims to protect all road users by requiring motorists to “maintain reasonable and safe distance when overtaking pedestrians and certain bicycles.” Further elements of CGS are encouraged and guided through NJDEP’s green infrastructure requirements.
Organizations at the state level that support CGS efforts include:
- Sustainable Jersey
- New Jersey Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Council
- Complete Streets Summit
- Jersey Water Works
- New Jersey Future’s Green Infrastructure Municipal Toolkit
At the Federal Level:
Similar to the state level, CGS are not mandated by the federal government. CGS street advocates can turn to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Administration for safety guidelines, as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, for further resources.
Local funding efforts can be supported by grants at the state and federal level. Creativity is encouraged as towns can apply for non-CGS specific grants aimed at components that CGS tackle. For example, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s transportation alternatives set aside grant, administered by NJDOT, is aimed at environmental mitigation efforts to address stormwater management which aligns with CGS’ effective management of stormwater runoff and flooding.
Bioretention area inside the Waterfront South rain gardens in Camden, New Jersey. Photo Credit: Jersey Water Works NJ Green Streets Case Studies
Bigger Picture on Smaller Scales
A functional, sustainable, and economical CGS requires that municipal departments work together, guided by clearly-defined stages and steps that can be found in the town’s CGS ordinance or the many resources available. Fostering inclusive communities through CGS is an achievable goal. By strategically collaborating, together we can create safer communities for all.
We would like to thank our interviewees in NJ, VA, and MI for their time and information.
One Year Later: How NJ Municipalities Have Implemented DEP’s Stormwater Management Rules
June 27th, 2022 by Sasha Weber
It has been just over a year since New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s (NJDEP) 2020 amendment to the Stormwater Management Rule (NJAC 7:8) took effect. Since March 2, 2021, NJ municipalities have been required to utilize green infrastructure—systems that mimic natural hydrologic processes to capture and reuse stormwater—as a stormwater management technique on all new public and private major developments (see our March 2021 article for an overview of the new stormwater rules). Localities carry out these requirements through their Stormwater Control Ordinances.
Once enacted, Stormwater Control Ordinances set a threshold for the size of an individual development project. If the project disturbs more than one acre of land, NJDEP requires that it employ green infrastructure. If it disturbs less than one acre of land, green infrastructure is not required.
As of August 2021, 291 New Jersey municipalities have updated their Stormwater Control Ordinances to meet these green infrastructure requirements. Several of these localities have gone above and beyond to further protect their communities from flooding and pollution associated with inadequately managed stormwater.
Stormwater Control Ordinances can be used to require green infrastructure. Image Credit: Andrew Tabas
What Constitutes “Above and Beyond?”
In the Enhanced Model Stormwater Ordinance for Municipalities, New Jersey Future (NJF) highlights several steps that municipalities can take to further enhance their Stormwater Control Ordinances and go above and beyond DEP’s requirements. These recommendations for advancement include redefining the threshold for “Major Development;” adding a definition and requirements for “Minor Development;” requiring stormwater management on existing (not just new) impervious surfaces; requiring infiltration of a specific volume of stormwater onsite; and reducing “maximum contributory drainage areas.” All of these changes would increase the amount of green infrastructure in localities.
Case Studies
Curious how some municipalities have implemented and/or gone above and beyond NJDEP’s requirements to reap the benefits of green infrastructure? Check out the following case studies to learn how these requirements are put into action.
Princeton
Princeton defines “major development” as development that disturbs ½ acre or more land or includes 5,000 square feet of impervious surfaces. This requires green infrastructure on more sites than would have been required under NJDEP’s standard definition. Additionally, Princeton requires green infrastructure on “minor development projects.” Regarding the definition of Minor Development by Princeton, Jim Purcell, Princeton’s Assistant Municipal Engineer, shared that “400 square feet “came from an analysis of other municipalities and our own threshold of 500 [square feet]. Another town uses 250, so we settled on 400.”
Since the state requirements went into effect, Princeton has approved a number of projects that implement green infrastructure. For example, there is a recently-dedicated Habitat for Humanity house in Princeton which utilizes several rain barrels, and the municipality also has a rain garden with an underdrain.
Jersey City
Like Princeton, Jersey City also goes above NJDEP’s requirements by employing a definition for “minor development” and modifying the state’s definition of Major Development. Where the NJDEP begins the green infrastructure requirement with projects that disturb more than one acre (43,560 square feet) of land in its Major Development definition, Jersey City includes projects starting at 5,000 square feet in the Minor Development definition. Lindsey Sigmund, an Environmental Planner for Jersey City, worked with the Jersey City Municipal Utilities Authority (JCMUA) to develop this definition.
A recently-approved warehouse for 440 Warehouse Developers LLC with several bioretention basins highlights the new stormwater management requirements.
Green infrastructure in Hoboken, NJ captures stormwater while making streets more welcoming. Photo credit: Andrew Tabas.
Hamilton
Hamilton, the largest suburb of Trenton, located within the Delaware River Watershed, meets NJDEP’s requirements in their 2021 Stormwater Control Ordinance. A proposal by Vessel RE Holdings LLC for a multi-family housing development consisting of 60 apartment units across five buildings is considered a Major Development. As such, the project’s Engineering Review from April 2022 notes that the development “includes a combined extended detention and infiltration system to address quantity, quality, and recharge.
For more information and resources on green infrastructure, visit New Jersey Future’s Mainstreaming Green Infrastructure website.
Making Savvy, Successful Stormwater Solutions: Why the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) Permit Renewal Matters
June 24th, 2022 by New Jersey Future staff
By Andrew Tabas and Bree Callahan
As New Jersey faces increasing rainfall due to climate change and widespread water pollution, effective stormwater management becomes an increasingly important tactic for promoting healthy streams and improved water quality. When it rains, water hits impervious surfaces like streets and roofs, runs into storm drains, and then moves from pipes into rivers, streams, and other waterways. As the water moves along this path, it picks up contaminants like oil and pesticides. However, by treating stormwater at the source, before the contaminants are carried to local waterways, contamination can be effectively mitigated and water quality can be preserved. Green infrastructure, including rain gardens, green roofs, and porous pavement, treats stormwater at the source, which improves water quality.
Storm drains collect stormwater and convey it to nearby waterways. The “Dump No Waste: Drains to Waterways” text is an example of public education. The trash caught in the drain shows the importance of regular maintenance. Photo credit: Andrew Tabas. Location: Trenton, NJ.
For 456 municipalities across the state, the Tier A Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Permit (MS4 Permit) outlines rules to reduce water pollution conveyed from storm drains to waterways. For example, the permit prohibits illicit discharges of contaminated water into storm drains. Therefore, the MS4 Permit is a tool that can be used to improve the water quality of New Jersey’s rivers, streams, and lakes.
Every five years, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection updates the MS4 permit, which serves as an opportunity to improve its requirements. The current permit, which went into effect on Jan. 1, 2018, does not do enough to address water quality issues for several reasons. First, the 2018 MS4 Permit does not require municipalities to take actions to reduce runoff from existing development. Second, the 2018 MS4 Permit does not require towns to inventory and manage its stormwater infrastructure, including green infrastructure. Third, the 2018 MS4 Permit fails to address New Jersey’s many impaired streams identified through the Total Maximum Daily Load program adequately. Given the existing permit’s shortcomings, the permit renewal scheduled for Jan. 1, 2023 is a critical opportunity to improve water quality across New Jersey.
Stormwater picks up oil, trash, and other contaminants. If this stormwater is conveyed to streams without treatment, it brings the contaminants with it. Photo credit: Andrew Tabas. Location: Bordentown, NJ.
To meaningfully improve water quality in our state, New Jersey Future is advocating for the following to be incorporated in the 2023 permit renewal:
- Consistent emphasis on green infrastructure best management practices as viable and often preferable methods to reduce the amount of stormwater in the storm sewer system.
- Requirement for municipalities to develop results-driven Watershed Improvement Plans that include metrics for water quality and/or flooding improvements.
- Robust technical assistance, training, monitoring, and enforcement to support and incentivize communities to proactively and efficiently manage and minimize their stormwater.
Pipes convey stormwater from impervious surfaces into the Delaware River. Photo credit: Andrew Tabas. Location: Trenton, NJ.
To fund these improvements, New Jersey localities now have the option to establish stormwater utilities. Similar to any other utilities, such as water or gas, stormwater utilities are a dedicated funding mechanism used to pay solely for stormwater management. Property owners are charged a user fee based on the amount of stormwater that their property contributes to the stormwater system. Throughout the United States, stormwater utilities are widely considered the most equitable and stable approach for funding stormwater management programs.
In the past few years, loss of life, impaired water quality, interruptions in business, and millions of dollars worth of property damage have made it clear that the incentives for making smart stormwater decisions have never been higher. New Jersey Future and our partners support a stronger MS4 Permit to improve water quality, build resilience, and reduce risk. Stay tuned for NJDEP’s release of the final draft permit this summer to submit your comments to NJDEP!
Young People are Leaving New Jersey: Exploring Potential Explanatory Variables
June 22nd, 2022 by Tim Evans
With the youngest members of the demographically large Millennial generation (roughly, those born between 1981 and 1996) aging into young adulthood, the number of people between the ages of 25 and 44 increased nationwide by 3.5% between 2015 and 2019.1 In New Jersey, however, the population in this age range declined by 1.2% over the same time period, with high housing costs appearing as a major motivating factor. New Jersey is not producing enough housing, and in particular, not enough of the kind of housing that young adults are looking for–that is, alternatives to the single-family detached home. The lack of supply relative to demand is pushing housing prices and rents upward, causing young adults to leave New Jersey in search of cheaper housing elsewhere.
That is the conclusion of a report prepared by students in a Princeton University class titled “Wall Street and Silicon Valley: Place in the American Economy.” Aaron Shkuda, Project Manager of the Princeton-Mellon Initiative in Architecture, Urbanism, and the Humanities, was the instructor for the class. Tim Evans, New Jersey Future’s Director of Research, served as class advisor.
The students examined the change in New Jersey’s young adult population between 2015 and 2019 compared to the national rate of change and to changes in a selection of other states, chosen to represent both states with housing markets similar to New Jersey’s and less-expensive states that are attracting in-migrants from other parts of the country. In addition to New Jersey, the states included in the study were California, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington.
The students also conducted an analysis at the metropolitan level, comparing the seven metropolitan areas that are partly or entirely contained within New Jersey with major metropolitan areas from the other states included in the state-level analysis, plus Atlanta, Chicago, and Washington, DC. Every one of New Jersey’s 21 counties is included in a metropolitan area. The following metropolitan areas contain the listed New Jersey counties:
- New York—Newark—Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA: Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Hunterdon, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic, Somerset, Sussex, Union
- Philadelphia—Camden—Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD: Burlington, Camden, Gloucester, Salem
- Allentown—Bethlehem—Easton, PA-NJ: Warren
- Trenton—Princeton, NJ: Mercer
- Atlantic City—Hammonton, NJ: Atlantic
- Vineland—Bridgeton, NJ: Cumberland
- Ocean City, NJ: Cape May
In exploring potential reasons for differences in the growth rates in the young adult population, the students looked at the following variables from the 2015 and 2019 iterations of the one-year American Community Survey:
- Total number of housing units
- Number of housing units of a type other than single-family detached
- Median home value
- Median rent
In each case, New Jersey and its component metropolitan areas lagged the nation in terms of housing production, with the result that its housing costs are well above the national average. The pattern was similar in other Northeastern states and in California, where constrained housing supplies are keeping prices high and appear to be incentivizing young adults to move out of state. The analysis points to a need for New Jersey to supply more housing, and specifically more of the types of housing that young adults can afford. Otherwise, young adults will likely continue to move to other states in search of lower housing costs.
Download the full report.
__________________
1Estimates are from the 2015 and 2019 versions of the one-year American Community Survey
State Guidance for Locating Warehouses is Here
June 10th, 2022 by Peter Kasabach
Photo Credit: Canva
The Office of Planning Advocacy, the staff for the State Planning Commission, has issued first-of-its-kind guidance on where and how warehouses should be located in New Jersey. The guidance will be useful for municipalities looking to direct warehouse development to optimum sites and away from sites that are not appropriate for the community; for community members looking to protect their quality of life while still benefiting from development; for developers looking to meet the growing demand to build warehouses; for counties looking to support good municipal planning; and for state agencies and decision makers looking to further the sustainable, equitable, and practical siting of warehouses through new laws, regulations, and investment decisions.
In recent years, New Jersey has seen an increase in warehouse development. This increase is putting pressure on communities that are already overburdened with pollution, communities soon to be negatively affected by new truck traffic that did not exist before, and on our state’s remaining open spaces. It is critical that the state plan for this new demand in its logistics sector. Critical to this planning is the inclusion of community voices from our urban communities that have been fighting for better air quality and less truck traffic for years.
The new state warehouse guidance can be found at the Office of Planning Advocacy’s website (under Reference Materials section). The office will be accepting public comments by email (warehouses
sos
njgov) until July 29th. The guidance will then go to the State Planning Commission to be adopted. The Office of Planning Advocacy will review comments before bringing a final copy of the guidance to the August 3rd meeting of the State Planning Commission for the Commission’s approval. The guidance will then go to the State Planning Commission to be adopted. Once adopted, we expect that government agencies and decision makers will put in place the rules, regulations, and investment planning necessary to effectively implement the guidance.
We Need a Better Way of Measuring How Much People Drive—And Why
May 23rd, 2022 by Tim Evans
People driving cars and trucks from one place to another is not only a big contributor to New Jersey’s carbon footprint, but also leads to many hours wasted behind the wheel and many dollars spent to build and maintain the state’s road network. In New Jersey, the average licensed driver drives about 33 miles a day. While transportation planners and the general public are aware that daily life involves a lot of driving, the reasons for all this vehicular travel are less widely understood. A better way of measuring vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) would provide some insight into the problem—and what to do about it.
The Transportation and Land Use Connection
The transportation sector accounts for 41% of New Jersey’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (according to the NJDEP Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory), mainly from cars and trucks burning gasoline and emitting CO2 as they move people and goods around the state. One of the potential avenues for mitigating climate change through the reduction of carbon emissions is to reduce the amount that people need to drive, a strategy that—unlike simply electrifying the vehicle fleet—would also pay multiple other dividends. Less driving would result in less traffic congestion and the waste and aggravation it entails, fewer tax dollars spent on building and maintaining roads, and fewer hours logged behind the wheel for New Jersey’s drivers, allowing more time for leisure and entertainment.
So how might we reduce the number of miles the average person needs to drive? To answer this question, we need to understand the factors that incentivize driving in the first place, particularly in the relationship between land development and transportation. Decisions about where to locate homes, offices, stores, schools, and other public spaces in relation to each other have profound and lasting effects on travel behavior. The farther apart we build different types of destinations, the more vehicular travel will be required to access them. Conversely, when destinations are closer together, car trips get shorter, and some trips can be taken without needing a car at all, whether by non-motorized means or by public transportation, which functions much more efficiently when major destinations are clustered within walking distance of stations.
In other words, travel behavior is a function of land use decisions, and vice versa. Putting destinations farther apart creates a greater need to drive, and the more people drive, the more new development will be built to accommodate car travel. Although this relationship between travel behavior and land use makes intuitive sense, it is not currently the basis on which car travel is measured and interpreted.
We Care About Where People Drive, but Not About Why People Drive
It is often said that a society measures what it cares about, and cares about what it measures. Governments do make efforts to measure driving, but the metrics are primarily based on roads and how many vehicles use them, rather than on the drivers of those vehicles and where they live. The New Jersey Department of Transportation page about measuring VMT explains that “New Jersey’s official estimate of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is a product of the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) Program. VMT is a measurement of the amount of traffic on a given mile of roadway. Deriving New Jersey’s VMT estimate involves multiplying the traffic volume on each HPMS section, the section length and expansion factor then summing the product to yield VMT for any desired aggregation level.”
One might infer from its use of traffic counts to measure VMT that the state has an interest in the amount of traffic on its roadways and how extensively those roadways are used, which can indicate where roadway maintenance and improvements are most needed. But measuring VMT based on traffic volumes at particular points on the road network rather than on where vehicle trips originate suggests that our main interests are not so focused on why people drive in the first place. It is difficult to quantify how land development patterns influence travel behavior—and thus difficult to imagine how to reduce the need to drive—if vehicular travel cannot be linked to where drivers live. In order to develop a better understanding of the features of the built environment that prompt people to drive—and to implement land use policies that will allow for less driving in the future— an alternate approach to measuring VMT becomes necessary.
The Value of VMT Data for Explaining Travel Behavior
Fortunately, we already have a device for measuring travel at the level of the individual vehicle: the odometer. Two of New Jersey’s neighbors—Pennsylvania and Delaware—collect odometer readings annually or bi-annually as part of the vehicle registration renewal process. Massachusetts even conducted a Vehicle Census between 2009 and 2014 that made VMT data compiled from odometer readings available at the municipal level. New Jersey’s Motor Vehicle Commission could easily start collecting odometer readings as part of the administrative process and provide the aggregated data to the appropriate state agencies for purposes of studying VMT and monitoring success in reducing it.
Such data would enable miles driven to be associated with residential locations rather than with road segments. Annual odometer readings, when combined with the address at which the vehicle is registered, would allow annual VMT to be tallied by place, ideally at a unit of geography for which data are available to describe some aspects of the built environment. Per-capita VMT for a given unit of geography could be compared to indicators like housing density, mix of uses (residential, retail, etc.), access to public transportation, and other land-use variables that might be expected to affect how much daily travel is likely to take place by car. Examining the relationship between development patterns and driving could yield insights into what kinds of land use solutions might be effective in reducing people’s need to drive.
Aggregating miles traveled by the geographic area of driver residence would also facilitate the modeling of travel behavior as a function of development patterns for purposes of transportation planning. Observing actual driver behavior for different kinds of places would allow transportation planners to anticipate the amount of new VMT likely to be generated by new development of a specific type and density. By combining information about the surrounding development patterns with the approach of the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual, transportation professionals could not only estimate the number of trips likely to be generated by a given land-use type (as facilitated by the Manual), but could also better anticipate both the average trip length of automobile trips and the number of trips that might be taken by non-vehicular means, based on observed travel behavior in places with similar density, mix of uses, and street network connectivity.
Modeling driving behavior as a function of the land development characteristics of where people live, work, and shop would be critical to any effort to estimate the VMT or GHG impacts of new development, as California and Colorado now require, and New Jersey ought to consider.
Being able to observe differences in per-capita VMT among different parts of New Jersey could be helpful in setting realistic VMT reduction targets, by demonstrating possibilities under different land-use scenarios. For example, transportation and land-use professionals could make inferences along these lines: If we could increase the number of New Jerseyans living in places with development patterns similar to, say, Montclair by X%, we could expect to decrease per-capita VMT by Y%, given the observed travel behavior of people already living in such places.
Making Sure Electric Vehicles Pay Their Way
In addition to its potential to inform a GHG reduction strategy based on reducing VMT, measuring VMT based on individual vehicles rather than traffic volumes also has implications for a strategy focused on electrification of the vehicle fleet. Electric vehicles (EVs) figure prominently in the Murphy administration’s (and most of the rest of the world’s) plan for reining in our carbon emissions. But widespread adoption of EVs represents a looming conundrum in terms of raising revenue to pay for our road network: EVs do not burn gasoline and hence do not pay gasoline taxes. Given that these vehicles will continue to use the road network, imposing wear and tear and contributing to congestion right alongside their gasoline-burning peers, how do we ensure that the owners of electric vehicles continue to pay their fair share?
One promising option is a VMT tax, which would collect a per-mile fee from the owner of each vehicle based on the number of miles driven each year. Oregon launched a voluntary program in 2015 to test the concept and is now considering making it mandatory for certain types of vehicles starting in 2026. Utah joined Oregon and started its own pilot program in 2020. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which passed last year, includes a pilot program to encourage additional states to implement VMT taxes.
Collecting such fees is impossible if VMT is not tracked at the level of the individual vehicle. Measuring VMT from odometer readings rather than from traffic counts would thus help advance two key prongs of a holistic GHG reduction strategy—the decarbonization of travel and the reduction of the need to travel in the first place. The data would shed light on the relationship between land development patterns and travel behavior, thereby pointing toward land-use solutions that would reduce the need to drive, while at the same time addressing the uncertainties about transportation revenues that will be a vexing byproduct of vehicle electrification. If we care about reducing GHG emissions from the transportation sector, it makes sense to start measuring VMT the right way.
Supporting Equitable Access to Transit and Active Transportation
May 23rd, 2022 by Hannah Reynolds
Photo Credit: Emily Eckart
Content warning: This blog post contains discussion of sexual harassment and assault, especially as experienced by women and members of the LGBTQ+ community. If you or someone you know has experienced sexual violence of any kind, you can call 1-800-601-7200, a New Jersey statewide hotline for survivors of sexual violence, for support.
Creating opportunities for more people to walk, bike, and take public transit is a critical element of growing and developing smarter. As we improve infrastructure and programs to accomplish this goal, we must make sure that we are improving access for everyone, especially those who have traditionally been, and continue to be, excluded or made to feel less safe in these spaces.
Last year, a Philadelphia man sexually assaulted a woman on a SEPTA train, making national headlines. Just last month, another perpetrator of sexual violence on a SEPTA train was identified. Such threats to safety on public transit may seem like one-off incidents, unfortunate occurrences that were mostly due to being at “the wrong place at the wrong time.” However, violent crime, especially related to gender identity, is pervasive even closer to home. Across New Jersey in 2018, there were nearly 6,000 incidents of crime (excluding fare evasion) reported to NJ Transit Police, including 24 different forms of sex-based crime. As a result, public transportation emerges as a disproportionately dangerous space for female riders, resulting in inequitable utilization of transportation on the basis of sex and gender identity. In order to promote use of these affordable and sustainable modes of transit within cities and communities, it becomes imperative to ensure equitable access by actively acknowledging and addressing the disproportionate risk women face.
Indeed, women and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) communities face particularly high rates of harassment, violence, and inequity when it comes to use of public transit and other modes of transportation. Of the 63% of NYC public transit riders who report experiences of sexual harassment on the subway, 99% identify as female. Furthermore, in a survey of nonbinary and transgender individuals, 34% of respondents reported experiencing some form of discrimination or harm as a result of their gender presentation while using public transit. Clearly, for those who do not identify as cisgender men, harassment and discrimination in public spaces and public transportation becomes a commonplace risk that women, transgender, and nonbinary people are forced to live with. Through all of this, safety emerges as a major barrier to sustainable, affordable transportation within cities for women— especially those in the LGBTQ+ community— and transgender people of color, low-income individuals, and people with disabilities, among other marginalized community members.
In addition to the safety risks posed by public transit options such as trains, buses, and subways, street infrastructure can also contribute considerably to the danger experienced by women and gender-nonconforming people moving within and between communities. Simply existing as a woman or gender-nonconforming person in public spaces can lead to violence, injury, and even death. An estimated 65% of women have experienced street harassment in their lives; public spaces like sidewalks and buses are commonly the first place that teenage girls experience street harassment, from as young as middle-school age. In fact, teen girls have fewer safe, public spaces designed specifically for their use, as compared with their male peers, who often opt to hang out at skateparks, basketball courts, and other male-dominated spaces. In 2015, 14 women were attacked and murdered by men after rejecting their advances, demonstrating a detrimental disrespect for women’s space and comfort that is tacitly accepted in society. On a similar note, for women who opt to bike, one University of Minnesota study suggests that drivers are more likely to invade the space of female bikers than male bikers, demonstrating that even utilizing personal modes of transportation poses a greater risk of harm for women. As a result, it becomes clear that women and gender-nonconforming people are disproportionately discouraged from using public spaces and transit infrastructure. But even if women are at elevated risk when traveling by foot or public transit, these modes of transit offer opportunity for sustainable and affordable mobility within communities. In other words, in order to uphold use of these promising modes of transportation by all people of all backgrounds, efforts to enhance accessibility regardless of gender presentation must be a serious consideration.
Meanwhile, cost acts as another major barrier to access to affordable, efficient, and sustainable transportation options for women, transgender, and nonbinary people. As a result of these ever-present risks of harassment or assault on transit, many women and LGBTQ+ community members opt to take more expensive, inconvenient, and less environmentally friendly transportation options in order to avoid the risks of dangerous—albeit cheaper and more efficient—public transit. Similarly, low-income women are more likely to take public transit or walk to destinations than men and more affluent women, as many of these women lack the means to afford more expensive or less time-consuming transportation options. Low-income women are therefore at greater risk of experiencing physical or sexual violence in these spaces. At the same time, women who live further from urban centers, especially in rural and suburban communities, may find that public transit options are limited, expensive, and inconvenient. Consequently, inequitable access to public transportation becomes not only a matter of gender equity, but an issue of socioeconomic and geographic relevance.
In seeking solutions to make safer, more accessible, and more sustainable public transportation and spaces for women and non-cisgender people, we should prioritize solutions that also make these spaces safer for other traditionally marginalized groups. Especially as our country undergoes a national reckoning in terms of race and police accountability, solutions for equitable transportation options must consider which solutions are most just, equitable, and safe for all women and gender-nonconforming individuals, including people of color, queer people, people with disabilities, and unhoused peoples. In an interview from The Gender Policy report, a person named Janelle demonstrated the importance of considering multiple demographic and social factors in efforts at keeping women and gender-nonconforming people safe, explaining, “I do not feel safe with any police officers, ever. I don’t trust the police, just based on my personal history with them, but also being Black and trans and queer and disabled.”
While perhaps more surveillance will not be effective in decreasing crime or increasing perceptions of safety, as indicated by such concerns around policing, opportunities for sustainable, equitable, safe communities for women and gender-nonconforming people emerge in terms of infrastructure. Within public spaces, the establishment of wider sidewalks and better lit streets, more green spaces, well-maintained parks, enforced speed limits, and dedicated bike lanes (perhaps with a buffer of parked cars to protect bikers) and other transportation infrastructure can help facilitate safe, affordable, and sustainable transportation options for women, such as biking and walking. Creating walkable and bikeable cities has the potential to prevent up to 23 gigatons of carbon dioxide from being emitted in the U.S. alone by midcentury. Furthermore, by creating public transit schedules that accommodate the schedules of care workers and offering transit options that are accessible for older adults and young children in strollers, caregivers—who are predominantly women—can more easily access forms of public transit that are presently designed around the needs of working men. Altogether, the establishment of reliable, affordable, safe, and accessible infrastructure has the opportunity to not only promote gender equity within communities, but also to implement more sustainable modes of travel for the future.
Perhaps most importantly, in order to ensure that women, transgender, and nonbinary people can both access and feel safe in their use of public spaces and transit options, it is crucial to actively solicit their perspectives throughout public planning efforts. In considering areas for investment, such as biking infrastructure, it is important to consider not only where there are the biggest risks for safety, but also who opts not to use such infrastructure due to danger or inaccessibility, especially women and other historically and presently excluded populations. Currently, there is a lack of female, transgender, and nonbinary representation throughout public planning efforts, despite their unique lived experiences related to safety, fear, and inaccessibility of public spaces and transportation. Moving forward, it is crucial to prioritize representation of women and gender-nonconforming people within conversations about public planning and transportation infrastructure, rather than keeping public transit as it is: designed for men, by men. By adapting the planning and design of our communities to the concerns of those who face the most risk, our communities become safer and more accessible for everyone, improving the quality of transit options for all people.
