1. How Did Metro Boston Grow? 2000-2010
– Spatial Database Management and Advanced GIS
Final Presentation
Group Members: Amy Jacobi, Eric Schultheis, Nse Umoh, Rob Goodspeed, Samira Thomas
Prof. Joseph Ferreira

2. Presentation Outline Project Goals Process Methodology Results
Conclusions

3. Project goals

4. Project Goals
Evaluate growth patterns in the metro-Boston between 2000 and 2010.
Compare observed growth in the last decade with the MetroFuture scenarios: Let It Be and Winds of Change.
Understand the effect of observed growth on greenhouse gas emissions by private vehicles.

5. Process

6. Evaluating Growth in metro-Boston
Process Map
Allocation to Residential Areas
Allocation to Sensible Geographies
Evaluating Growth in metro-Boston
Input Data
Allocation to 25m Grid
Land Use Polygons
(1999 & 2005)
‘Non-Residential’ Block Finder
Results
Geoprocessing
Allocation to 250m Grid
Census Block Populations
Allocation Model
Allocation to TAZ
VMT
(205m Grid)
MetroFuture Scenarios (TAZs)

7. Methodology

8. Conflicting Topographies: An Example Area

9. Conflicting Topographies

10. Conflicting Topographies

11. The Grid(s)

12. Resolving Conflicts with the Grid (25m)

13. Allocation to Residential Areas
Identify residential and institutional land uses.
Identify blocks that do not intersect residential land use areas.
Land use allocation
Sliver Finder
Integrate Census Blocks (2000, 2010) and residential land uses
Calculate areas, perimeter, and area/perimeter ratio
Eliminate features with areas less than 400 sqm and area/perimeter ratio less than 1
Population/housing unit allocation model (Access)
Paloc= P * (A + L) / 2
A = land use area % of total area of Block, L = land use area % of residential area in Block

14. ArcGIS Models: Allocating to Residential Areas
Model to Identify Block that do not Intersect with Residential Areas
Model to Allocate to Residential Areas

15. Allocation to Residential Areas

16. Allocation to Sensible Geographies
Merge allocated residential areas with ‘missed’ blocks forming an allocated areas polygon file.
Calculate the number of 25m grid centroids that fall in each allocated areas polygon.
Identify allocated areas polygons with no 25m grid centroids.
Convert the allocated areas polygons to 25m grid celss.
Aggregate allocated 25m grid cells to 250m grid cells (add in population missed by 25m grid method).
Aggregate allocated 25m grid cells to TAZs (add in population missed by 25m grid method).

17. ArcGIS Models: Allocating to Sensible Geographies
Model to Merge Habitable Area and Populated Blocks with no Residential Area.
Model to Allocate to 25m Grid and then Aggregate to 250m Grid
(due to resolution of 25m grid, metro-Boston area must be divided into 32 slivers and the model needs to be ran for each sliver )

18. Allocation to Sensible Geographies

19. Comparing 11.521 & MassGIS Allocations

20. The Allocation: A Regional View
Population
Households
Census 2000
Census 2010
Regional Block Data From Census
4,317,333
4,465,821
1,708,415
1,830,499
Grid Cell Allocation
4,292,166
4,426,075
1,707,385
1,808,216
Percent Allocated
99.42%
99.11%
99.4%
98.78%

21. Results

22. Metro Boston Population by Community Type

23. Metro Boston Population Proportion by Community Type

24. Metro Boston Housing Units By Community Type

25. Metro Boston Housing Units Proportion, by Community Type

26. Change in Proportion of Population in CODAs, since 2000

27. Population Change (Percent & Raw) by Town, since 2000

28. Housing Unit Change (Percent & Raw) by Town, since 2000

29. TAZ Population Change (Percent & Raw) for Sub-Areas, since 2000

30. TAZ Population Change (Percent & Raw) for Lincol et al., since 2000

31. TAZ Population Change (Percent & Raw) for Hopkington, since 2000

32. TAZ Population Change (Percent & Raw) for Boston, since 2000

33. TAZ Housiing Unit Change (Percent & Raw) for Sub-Areas, since 2000

34. TAZ Housiing Unit Change (Percent & Raw) for Quincy, since 2000

35. TAZ Housiing Unit Change (Percent & Raw) for Marlborough et al,, since 2000

36. Histogram of Average Household Vehicle Miles Traveled by Grid Cell

37. Average Household Vehicle Miles Traveled by Community Type
Average VMT per Household
Minimum VMT per Household
Maximum VMT per Household
Standard Deviation of VMT per Household
Inner Core
10131
1473
29678
2259
Maturing Suburbs
12100
1074
29948
2571
Regional Urban Centers
12224
1319
28937
2683
Developing Suburbs
13604
1262
29638
2734
Metro Future Region
12845
2827

38. Average Household Vehicle Miles Traveled by Community Type & CODA

39. Average Household Vehicle Miles Traveled by CODA
TAZ TYPE
Average VMT per Household
Minimum VMT per Household
Maximum VMT per Household
Standard Deviation of VMT per Household
Non-CODA
13255
1074
29448
2777
CODA
11682
1301
29948
2638
Metro Future Region
12845
2827

40. Population Change by CODA, since 2000

41. Growth by Average Household Vehicle Miles Traveled Area Type

42. Growth by Average Household Vehicle Miles Traveled Area Type

43. Growth by Average Household Vehicle Miles Traveled Area Type
VMT Type
Average VMT per Household
% of Region (Area)
% of Regional Growth
Very Low
<7000 1% 3%
Low
,000
19%
53%
Medium
10,001-13,000
48%
22%
High
13,001-18,000
30%
17%
Very High
>18,000 2% 5%
The two lowest VMT categories (less than 10,000 miles per Household per year) , which accounted for 20% of the regions land, contained 56% of the region’s growth over the pat decade.
Greenfield development which occurred in 3% of the region’s area, contributed 44% of the population growth for the metro-Boston region. The average household VMT for these cells was over 1,000 miles higher than the average household VMT for the metro-Boston region (13,186 vs. 12,037).

44. Conclusions

45. Conclusions: Broadly Stated
The region grew (both in terms of population and housing units) slower than expected under either scenario.
There was strong growth in the regional urban centers, CODAs, and regional urban centers but this is, from a regional perspective, offset by dispersed growth in developing suburbs .
Greenfield development occurred in only 3% of the metro-Region’s area.

46. The Good,
Population growth in areas with low average household VMTs accounted for 56% of the growth in metro-Boston region since 2010.
There was substantial growth in Boston and regional urban centers.
The Bad,
The percentage growth in developing suburbs is more consistent with Let It Be than Winds of change.
Greenfield development accounted for 44% of the metro-Boston region’s population growth.
The (Somewhat) Ugly.
The largest percentage changes in population and housing unit are occurring in non-CODA and ‘undesirable’ community types.