Acknowledgments

Smart Growth America is the only national organization dedicated to researching, advocating for
and leading coalitions to bring smart growth practices to more communities nationwide. From
providing more sidewalks to ensuring more homes are built near public transportation or that
productive farms remain a part of our communities, smart growth helps make sure people across
the nation can live in great neighborhoods. Learn more at www.smartgrowthamerica.org.
This report is based on original research published by the Metropolitan Research Center at the
University of Utah, prepared for the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health, as
well as the Ford Foundation.
The Metropolitan Research Center conducts basic and applied research on the built
environment at the metropolitan scale, focusing on key forces shaping metropolitan form such as
demographics, environment, technology, design, transportation, arts and culture and governance.
It seeks to expand knowledge in city and metropolitan affairs to improve policy and practice and
educate the general public on important issues facing communities. Learn more at
www.arch.utah.edu/cgi-bin/wordpress-metroresearch/.
This report was made possible with support from the National Institutes of Health and the Ford
Foundation.
Researchers
Reid Ewing, Professor of City and Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah
Shima Hamidi, Graduate Research Assistant, University of Utah
Project team
Sarah Absetz, Policy Associate, Smart Growth America
Geoff Anderson, President and CEO, Smart Growth America
David Berrigan, Applied Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences,
National Cancer Institute
Craig Chester, Press Manager, Smart Growth America
Alex Dodds, Deputy Director of Communications, Smart Growth America
Ilana Preuss, Vice President and Chief of Staff, Smart Growth America
Zaria Tatalovich, Health Statistician and Geospatial Scientist, National Cancer Institute
Special thanks to David Goldberg, Transportation for America; Chris Zimmerman, Smart Growth
America; Gail Meakins, Martin Buchert, and Allison Spain, Metropolitan Research Center; Professor
William Greene, New York University; and James B. Grace, U.S. Geological Survey.

ii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... iv

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1
About the research..................................................................................................................... 1
Measuring sprawl .................................................................................................................... 2
The four factors .......................................................................................................................... 2
Scoring ...................................................................................................................................... 2
The 2014 Sprawl Index rankings ............................................................................................... 4
Most compact, connected metro areas...................................................................................... 4
Most sprawling metro areas ....................................................................................................... 6
What sprawl means for everyday life........................................................................................ 9
Seeking better quality of life .................................................................................................... 12
Santa Barbara, CA ................................................................................................................... 12
Madison, WI ............................................................................................................................. 13
Trenton, NJ .............................................................................................................................. 13
Los Angeles, CA ...................................................................................................................... 14
Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 15
Appendix A: Full 2014 metro area Sprawl Index rankings .................................................... 16
Appendix B: County-level information .................................................................................... 20
County-level findings ................................................................................................................ 20
Appendix C: Quality of life analysis......................................................................................... 43
Endnotes.................................................................................................................................... 45

iii

Executive Summary
Some places in the United States are sprawling out and some places are building in compact,
connected ways. The difference between these two strategies affects the lives of millions of
Americans.
In 2002, Smart Growth America released Measuring Sprawl and Its Impact, a landmark study that
has been widely used by researchers to examine the costs and benefits of sprawling development.
In peer-reviewed research, sprawl has been linked to physical inactivity, obesity, traffic fatalities,
poor air quality, residential energy use, emergency response times, teenage driving, lack of social
capital and private-vehicle commute distances and times.
Measuring Sprawl 2014 updates that research and analyzes development patterns in 221
metropolitan areas and 994 counties in the United States as of 2010, looking to see which
communities are more compact and connected and which are more sprawling. Researchers used
four primary factorsresidential and employment density; neighborhood mix of homes, jobs and
services; strength of activity centers and downtowns; and accessibility of the street networkto
evaluate development in these areas and assign a Sprawl Index score to each. This report includes
a list of the most compact and most sprawling metro areas in the country.
This report also examines how Sprawl Index scores relate to life in that community. The
researchers found that several quality of life factors improve as index scores rise. Individuals in
compact, connected metro areas have greater economic mobility. Individuals in these areas spend
less on the combined cost of housing and transportation, and have greater options for the type of
transportation to take. In addition, individuals in compact, connected metro areas tend to live
longer, safer, healthier lives than their peers in metro areas with sprawl. Obesity is less prevalent in
compact counties, and fatal car crashes are less common.
Finally, this report includes specific examples of how communities are building to be more
connected and walkable, and how policymakers at all levels of government can support their
efforts.

iv

Introduction
As regions grow and develop, residents and their elected leaders have many decisions to make.
What kind of street network should they build, and how extensive should it be? Should
neighborhoods have a mix of homes, shops and offices, or should different types of buildings be
kept separate? Will people be able to walk, ride a bicycle or take public transportation through the
community, or will driving be the only realistic way for people to get around?
Everyone experiences the outcomes associated with these development decisions. How much
families pay for housing and transportation, how long workers spend commuting home, the
economic opportunities in communities and even personal health are all connected to how
neighborhoods and surrounding areas are built.
Measuring Sprawl 2014 analyzes development in 221 metropolitan areas across the United States,
as well as the relationship between development and quality of life indicators in those areas. This
report includes a list of the most compact and most sprawling metro areas in the country.

About the research

In 2002, Smart Growth America released Measuring Sprawl and Its Impact, a landmark study that
has been widely used by researchers to examine the costs and benefits of sprawling development.
That report was made available to researchers and has been used in peer-reviewed research in the
years since. From that original analysis, sprawl has been linked to physical inactivity, obesity, traffic
fatalities, poor air quality, residential energy use, emergency response times, teenage driving, lack
of social capital, and commute distances and times.
Measuring Sprawl 2014 is an update and refinement of that research. This report is based on
research originally published in the Metropolitan Research Center at the University of Utah in April
2014. The University of Utahs report, titled Measuring Urban Sprawl and Validating Sprawl
Measures, represents the most comprehensive effort yet undertaken to define, measure and
evaluate metropolitan sprawl and its impacts. The first peer-reviewed article based on this research
was published in October 2013 in the journal Health & Place.
The data from 2010 used in this analysis are the most recent available. The complete analysis,
methodology and databases included in the University of Utahs research are available at
http://gis.cancer.gov/tools/urban-sprawl/.

Measuring sprawl
This study analyzed development in 193 census-defined Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs)or
metro areasas well as 28 census-defined Metropolitan Divisions, which comprise MSAs, in the
largest 11 MSAs. All of the analyzed areas had at least 200,000 people in 2010. MSAs with
populations less than 200,000 people were not included in the study.1 This study also analyzed
development in 994 metropolitan counties.

The four factors

Development in both MSAs and metropolitan counties was evaluated using four main factors: 1)
development density; 2) land use mix; 3) activity centering; and 4) street accessibility. These factors
are briefly explained below.2
Development density
Development density is measured by combining six major factors: 1) total density of the
urban and suburban census tracts; 2) percent of the population living in low-density
suburban areas; 3) percent of the population living in medium- to high-density areas; 4)
urban density within total built-upon land; 5) the relative concentration of density around the
center of the MSA; and 6) employment density.
Land use mix
Land use mix is also measured through a combination of factors: the balance of jobs to
total population and mix of job types within one mile of census block groups, plus the
WalkScore of the center of each census tract.
Activity centering
The proportion of people and businesses located near each other is also a key variable to
define an area. Activity centering is measured by looking at the range of population and
employment size in different block groups. MSAs with greater variation (i.e., a wider
difference between blocks with a high population and a low one) have greater centering.
This factor also includes a measure of how quickly population density declines from the
center of the MSA, and the proportion of jobs and people within the MSAs central
business district and other employment centers.
Street accessibility
Street accessibility is measured by combining a number of factors regarding the MSAs
street network. The factors are average length of street block; average block size; percent
of blocks that are urban in size; density of street intersections; and percent of four-way or
more intersections, which serves as a measure of street connectivity.

Scoring
Researchers used these factors to evaluate development in all 221 MSAs and 994 counties. These
four factors are combined in equal weight and controlled for population to calculate each areas
Sprawl Index score. The average index is 100, meaning areas with scores higher than 100 tend to
be more compact and connected and areas with scores lower than 100 are more sprawling.

MSA versus county scales

Census-defined MSAs and the Metropolitan Divisions within them include a wide variety of places
within a given region. An MSAs boundaries may include one county (like the Detroit, MI
Metropolitan Division, which includes only Wayne County) or many counties (like the Washington,
DC MSA, which contains 16 counties).3
This difference has a significant impact on how a given region scores on the index, and it is
important to note that these census-defined divisions create some counterintuitive outcomes. For
example, the greater Washington, DC area ranks 91st on the index based on its MSA. Evaluated at
the county level, however, Washington, DC ranks 6th. Many other communities face similar
distinctions between scores at the MSA level versus the county level.
Our findings are presented at the MSA scale because much of the data, such as economic
mobility, is only available at this level. Health data is available at the county level, so in those cases
we provide analysis at that scale. Future versions of this analysis would benefit from economic
mobility, transportation and housing costs and health databases available at more refined scales.
For more information about index scores and findings at the county scale, see Appendix B. For
information about the data sources available at different geographic scales, see Appendix C.

The 2014 Sprawl Index rankings

Based on the index standards described in the previous section, we evaluated development in 221
metro areas in the United States.
The most compact, connected metro area in the United States is, perhaps not surprisingly, New
York, NY, with an index score of 203.4. The countrys most sprawling metro area is Hickory, NC,
with an index score of 24.9.
To provide a more comprehensive look at how communities compare, we also present here the
most compact and most sprawling MSAs by size. Among large metro areas (defined as having a
population more than one million people), New York, the national leader, is the most compact and
connected. Atlanta, GA, is the most sprawling, with a score of 41.0.
Of medium metro areas (defined as having a population between 500,000 and 1 million), Madison,
WI, is the most compact and connected with a score of 136.7 and Baton Rouge, LA, is the most
sprawling, with a score of 55.6. Of small metro areas (defined as having a population less than
500,000), Atlantic City, NJ, is the most compact and connected, with a score of 150.4, whereas
Hickory, NC, is the most sprawling.4

Most compact, connected metro areas

Tables 14 rank metro areas that are more compact and connected, with homes and jobs closer
together.
TABLE 1

Most compact, connected metro areas, nationally

Rank

Metro area

Index score

New York/White Plains/Wayne, NY-NJ

203.4

San Francisco/San Mateo/Redwood City, CA

194.3

Atlantic City/Hammonton, NJ

150.4

Santa Barbara/Santa Maria/Goleta, CA

146.6

Champaign/Urbana, IL

145.2

Santa Cruz/Watsonville, CA

145.0

Trenton/Ewing, NJ

144.7

Miami/Miami Beach/Kendall, FL

144.1

Springfield, IL

142.2

10

Santa Ana/Anaheim/Irvine, CA

139.9

TABLE 2

Most compact, connected large metro areas

Large metro areas are defined as having a population more than one million.
Rank

Metro area

Index score

New York/White Plains/Wayne, NY-NJ

203.4

San Francisco/San Mateo-Redwood City, CA

194.3

Miami/Miami Beach/Kendall, FL

144.1

10

Santa Ana/Anaheim/Irvine, CA

139.9

12

Detroit/Livonia/Dearborn, MI

137.2

15

Milwaukee/Waukesha/West Allis, WI

134.2

21

Los Angeles/Long Beach/Glendale, CA

130.3

24

San Jose/Sunnyvale/Santa Clara, CA

128.8

25

Oakland/Fremont/Hayward, CA

127.2

26

Chicago/Joliet/Naperville, IL

125.9

TABLE 3

Most compact, connected medium metro areas

Medium metro areas are defined as having a population between 500,000 and 1 million.
Rank

Metro area

Index score

13

Madison, WI

136.7

28

Allentown/Bethlehem/Easton, PA-NJ

124.4

37

Bridgeport/Stamford/Norwalk, CT

121.7

41

Stockton, CA

120.3

52

New Haven/Milford, CT

116.3

54

Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, PA

115.8

64

Oxnard/Thousand Oaks/Ventura, CA

113.8

66

Modesto, CA

113.3

67

Wilmington, DE-MD-NJ

112.9

68

Lancaster, PA

112.6

TABLE 4

Most compact, connected small metro areas

Small metro areas are defined as having a population less than 500,000.
Rank

Metro area

Index score

Atlantic City/Hammonton, NJ

150.4

Santa Barbara/Santa Maria/Goleta, CA

146.6

Champaign/Urbana, IL

145.2

Santa Cruz/Watsonville, CA

145.0

Trenton/Ewing, NJ

144.7

Springfield, IL

142.2

11

Reading, PA

137.9

14

Burlington/South Burlington, VT

135.1

16

Boulder, CO

133.7

17

Appleton, WI

132.7

Most sprawling metro areas

Tables 58 rank communities that are the least dense, least connected and most likely to separate
land uses.
TABLE 5

Most sprawling metro areas, nationally

Rank

Metro area

Index score

212

Kingsport/Bristol/Bristol, TN-VA

60.0

213

Augusta/Richmond County, GA-SC

59.2

214

Greenville/Mauldin-Easley, SC

59.0

215

Riverside-San Bernardino/Ontario, CA

56.2

216

Baton Rouge, LA

55.6

217

Nashville-Davidson/Murfreesboro/Franklin, TN

51.7

218

Prescott, AZ

49.0

219

Clarksville, TN-KY

41.5

220

Atlanta/Sandy Springs/Marietta, GA

41.0

221

Hickory/Lenoir/Morganton, NC

24.9

TABLE 6

Most sprawling large metro areas

Large metro areas are defined as having a population more than one million.
Rank

Metro area

Index score

182

Houston/Sugar Land/Baytown, TX

76.7

184

Richmond, VA

76.4

189

Rochester, NY

74.5

192

Birmingham-Hoover, AL

73.6

196

Memphis, TN-MS-AR

70.8

197

Charlotte/Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC

70.5

201

Warren/Troy/Farmington Hills, MI

67.0

215

Riverside-San Bernardino/Ontario, CA

56.3

217

Nashville/Davidson/Murfreesboro/Franklin, TN

51.7

220

Atlanta-Sandy Springs/Marietta, GA

41.0

TABLE 7

Most sprawling medium metro areas

Medium metro areas are defined as having a population between 500,000 and 1 million.
Rank

Metro area

Index score

185

Little Rock/North Little Rock/Conway, AR

76.1

191

Durham/Chapel Hill, NC

73.8

195

Jackson, MS

72.3

199

Knoxville, TN

68.2

200

Columbia, SC

67.5

207

Chattanooga, TN-GA

63.6

208

Greensboro/High Point, NC

63.5

213

Augusta/Richmond County, GA-SC

59.1

214

Greenville/Mauldin-Easley, SC

59.0

216

Baton Rouge, LA

55.6

TABLE 8

Most sprawling small metro areas

Small metro areas are defined as having a population less than 500,000.
Rank

Metro area

Index score

204

Green Bay, WI

65.4

205

Fort Smith, AR-OK

64.8

206

Lynchburg, VA

64.0

209

Winston-Salem, NC

63.4

210

Florence, SC

61.1

211

Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ

60.1

212

Kingsport/Bristol/Bristol, TN-VA

60.0

218

Prescott, AZ

49.0

219

Clarksville, TN-KY

41.5

221

Hickory/Lenoir/Morganton, NC

24.9

What sprawl means for everyday life

The researchers found that as Sprawl Index scores improvedthat is, as areas became less
sprawlingseveral quality of life factors improved along with them.5

People have greater economic opportunity in compact and connected metro areas.
People spend less of their household income on the combined cost of housing and
transportation in these areas.
People have a greater number of transportation options available to them.
And people in compact, connected metro areas tend to be safer, healthier and live longer
than their peers in more sprawling metro areas.

The researchers controlled for socioeconomic factors. Below is more information about each of
these quality of life indicators.
People in more compact, connected metro areas have greater economic mobility.
Could metro areas with homes and jobs far apart and limited connections between those areas
directly affect the ability of low-income children to get ahead as adults?
The researchers compared the 2014 Sprawl Index scores to models of upward economic mobility
from Harvard and the University of California at Berkeley.6 They examined the probability of a child
born to a family in the bottom quintile of the national income distribution reaching the top quintile of
the national income distribution by age 30, and whether communities index score was correlated
with that probability.
The researchers found that compactness has a
strong direct relationship to upward economic
mobility. In fact, for every 10 percent increase in
an index score, there is a 4.1 percent increase in
the probability that a child born to a family in the
bottom quintile of the national income distribution
reaches the top quintile of the national income distribution by age 30.

Compactness has a strong

direct relationship to upward
economic mobility.

For example, the probability of an individual in the Baton Rouge, LA area (index score: 55.6)
moving from the bottom income quintile to top quintile is 7.2 percent. In the Madison, WI area
(index score: 136.7) that probability is 10.2 percent.
People in more compact, connected metro areas spend less on the combined expenses
of housing and transportation.
The cost of housing is often higher in compact areas compared with sprawling ones. However,
families transportation costs are often significantly lower in these places. Shorter distances to
travel and a wider range of low-cost travel options means individuals and families in these places
spend a smaller portion of their household budget on transportation. How do the two expense
categories relate in compact areas versus sprawling ones?
The researchers found that the average percentage of income spent on housing is indeed greater
in compact communities than in sprawling areas. Each 10 percent increase in an index score was
associated with a 1.1 percent increase in housing costs relative to income.7

The researchers also found that the average percentage of income spent on transportation is
smaller in compact areas than sprawling ones. Each 10 percent increase in an index score was
associated with a 3.5 percent decrease in transportation costs relative to income.8 For instance,
households in the San Francisco, CA area (index score: 194.3) spend an average of 12.4 percent
of their income on transportation. Households in the Tampa, FL metro area (index score: 98.5)
spend an average of 21.5 percent of their income on transportation.9
Perhaps the most notable finding was that the
combined cost of housing and transportation
declines as an index score increases. As
metropolitan compactness increases,
transportation costs decline faster than housing
costs rise, creating a net decline in household
costs.10 An average household in the San
Francisco, CA metro area (index score: 194.3)
spends 46.7 percent of its budget on housing and transportation, while an average household in
the Tampa, FL metro area (index score: 98.5) spends 56.1 percent of its budget on the same
items.11

The combined cost of

housing and transportation
declines as an index score
increases.

People in more compact, connected metro areas have more transportation options.
Part of the reason transportation costs are lower in more compact areas is that these areas have a
wider range of options for how to get aroundnearly all of which cost less than driving or are even
free.
The researchers found that people in metro areas with higher index scores walk more: For every
10 percent increase in an index score, the walk mode share (i.e., the portion of travelers who
choose to walk) increases by 3.9 percent.
The researchers found that people in high-scoring metro areas take transit more: For every 10
percent increase in an index score, transit mode share (i.e., the portion of travelers who choose to
use transit) increases by 11.5 percent. This means, for example, that a person in the Lincoln, NE
metro area (index score: 132.0) is two and a half times more likely to choose transit for his or her
transportation needs than a similar person in the Greenville, SC area (index score: 59.0).
The researchers also found that people in high-scoring metro areas own fewer cars and spend less
time driving. For every 10 percent increase in an index score, vehicle ownership rates decline by
0.6 percent and drive time declines by 0.5 percent.12
Data about transportation options are even more compelling at the county level. See Appendix B
for that information.
People in more compact, connected areas have longer, healthier and safer lives.
Health data are available at the county level; for this reason, health outcomes are assessed at this
scale rather than the MSA level. At the county level, an areas compactness is also related to
individuals health.13

10

First and foremost, people in compact, connected counties tend to live longer. For every doubling
in an index score, life expectancy increases by about four percent.14 For the average American with
a life expectancy of 78 years, this translates into a three-year difference in life expectancy between
people in a less compact versus a more compact county.
Driving rates (and their associated risk of a fatal collision), body mass index (BMI), air quality and
violent crime all contribute to this difference, albeit in different ways. Counties with less sprawl have
more car crashes, but fewer of those crashes are fatal. For every 10 percent increase in an index
score, fatal crashes decrease by almost 15 percent. That means a person in Walker County, GA,
for example, has nearly three times the chance of being in a fatal crash as compared with a similar
person in Denver County, CO.
The researchers found that BMI is strongly and negatively related to index scores. As a countys
index score decrease (that is, as a metro area sprawls more), the BMI of its population increases,
after accounting for sociodemographic differences. For example, a 510 man living in Arlington
County, VA is likely to weigh four pounds less than the same man living in Charles County, FL.15
Similarly, the likelihood of obesity increases. People in less sprawling counties also have
significantly lower blood pressure and rates of diabetes.

11

Seeking better quality of life

As this research shows, metro areas with more compact, connected neighborhoods are
associated with better overall economic, health and safety outcomeson average a better quality
of life for everyone in that community. As residents and their elected leaders recognize the health,
safety and economic benefits of better development strategies, many decisionmakers are reexamining their traditional zoning, economic development incentives, transportation decisions and
other policies that have helped to create sprawling development patterns. Instead, they are
choosing to create more connections, transportation choices and walkable neighborhoods in their
communities.
The following are examples of cities in metro areas that performed well on each of the four index
factors, as well as the local public policies that contributed to their success.
LAND USE MIX

Santa Barbara, CA
Santa Barbara, CAthe fourth most compact, connected metro area nationallyhad the best
score among small metro areas for its land use mix. Several public policies have contributed to
Santa Barbaras high land use mix score.
Forward-thinking zoning codes
The City of Santa Barbaras zoning codes allow residential uses in most commercial zones.16 This
is as a result of a public planning process in the 1990s that sought to create more affordable
housing. The process resulted in amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance that
encouraged mixed use developments in certain areas.17 Now, mixed use is characteristic of Santa
Barbaras urban form.
Encouraging mixed use in the general plan
The City of Santa Barbara also made this strategy a development priority by including it in the citys
2011 General Plan Update. The update outlined three principles of development, one of which is to
encourage a mix of land uses to include strong retail and workplace centers, residential living in
commercial centers with easy access to grocery stores and recreation, connectivity and civic
engagement and public space for pedestrians.18
County-level support
Santa Barbara County, which encompasses the City of Santa Barbara, maintains community plans
for unincorporated areas of the county. The county has established mixed use zones and
encourages mixed use in many of the community plans in order to encourage a variety of uses
throughout the county.19

12

ACTIVITY CENTERING

Madison, WI
The City of Madison, WIthe most compact, connected medium-sized metro area in the
countryalso had the highest score nationally for activity centering, meaning people and
businesses are concentrated downtown and in subcenters. Several public policies have
contributed to Madisons high activity centering score.
Homebuyer assistance programs
Madison has several programs that help residents purchase homes, many of which encourage
residency downtown and reinvestment in existing housing stock.20 One example is the Mansion
HillJames Madison Park Neighborhood Small Cap TIF Loan Program.21 This program provides
zero percent interest, forgivable second mortgage loans to finance a portion of the purchase price
and the rehabilitation costs of a residential property located in the Mansion HillJames Madison
Park neighborhood of downtown Madison.
A comprehensive focus on downtown development
In 1994, Madison adopted a series of strategic management system goals, which outlined ways for
Madison to share in the growth that is occurring in Dane Countyin such a way to balance
economic, social and environmental health.22 Directing new growth toward existing urban areas,
increasing owner-occupied housing in the city and creating economic development areas were all
among the strategies recommended to achieve these goals. The goals later influenced the citys
2006 comprehensive plan.23
Downtown Plan
In 2012, the City of Madison adopted a new Downtown Plan, which aims to strengthen Madisons
downtown neighborhood. The plan includes nine strategies to guide the future growth of this core
neighborhood while sustaining the traditions, history and vitality that make Madison a model city.
STREET ACCESSIBILITY

Trenton, NJ
The street connectivity factor examines average block sizes; percent of urban blocks that are
small; density of intersections; and percent of intersections that are four-way or more.
Trenton, NJthe seventh most compact, connected metro area nationallyhad the highest score
for street connectivity among all small- and medium-sized metro areas. A number of public policies
helped Trenton achieve its high street connectivity score.
A city designed for people
Trenton is the historic center city of the larger metro area, and a number of small town centers
surround it. This interconnected network of city and town centers encouraged reinvestment within
the existing city grid.

13

Transportation Master Plan

Trentons Transportation Master Plan focuses on maintaining the existing transportation network,
using investments to support downtown and supporting multimodal options for all the
neighborhoods.24 A walkable city, by definition, has small blocks and frequent intersections. The
plan also places a high priority on key objectives to reach these goals, such as improve and
maintain the citys transit infrastructure, encourage transit-supportive land uses and avoid
increases in street capacity unless addressing a critical transportation problem.
Investing in transportation
Greater Trenton has a long history of investing in transportation. In 1904, the state legislature
appropriated $2 million to improve roads when other states with similar programs spent less than
one-third that amount. Today, the metro area predominantly uses county bonds to maintain its
road network and make improvements to its rail and bus service.
DEVELOPMENT DENSITY

Los Angeles, CA
Los Angeles, CA, had the second-highest density score in the country, topped only by the New
York metro area, an outlier nationally. Several public policies have contributed to Los Angeless
high development density score.
A plan for development around transit stations
In 2012, Los Angeles Department of City Planning began an initiative to create detailed plans for
development surrounding 10 light rail stations. The Los Angeles Transit Neighborhood Plans
project aims to support vibrant neighborhoods around transit stations, where people can live,
work and shop or eat out, all within a safe and pleasant walk to transit stations.25
Allowing higher density in exchange for affordable housing
Los Angeles Affordable Housing Incentives Ordinance gives developers the option to build up to
25 percent above the otherwise allowable residential density level if they include affordable housing
in their project.26 It also reduces parking requirements and expedites the development approval
process.
A zoning code for Los Angeles today and tomorrow
In 2013, Los Angeles began a multi-year process to update its zoning code, which was first
drafted in 1946. While this process is nascent, the city plans to have a new code in place by 2017.
The new code will be web-based, easier to use and create a unified development code for projects
downtown.
These public policies have helped Santa Barbara, Madison, Trenton and Los Angeles achieve high
index scores. These are by no means the only policies, however, that can improve how a
community is built and the quality of life for the people who live there. For more ideas about local
policy that can help your town grow in better ways visit www.smartgrowthamerica.org.

14

Conclusion
How we choose to build and develop affects everyones day-to-day lives. How much we pay for
housing and transportation, how long we spend commuting to and from work, economic
opportunities in our communities and even personal health are all connected to how our
neighborhoods and surrounding areas are built.
This study shows that life expectancy, economic mobility, transportation choices and personal
health and safety all improve in less sprawling areas. As individuals and their elected leaders
recognize these benefits, many decisionmakers choose to encourage this type of growth through
changes to public regulations and incentives.
This report represents a rigorous statistical analysis of how communities have developed in the
United States. It is not, however, a complete picture of every community across the country.
The analysis included in this research is an important part of understanding how communities have
developed in the United States. We recognize that qualitative informationsuch as the design of
the streets and buildings, the quality of park space and the types of businesses nearby, among
many other factorsalso has a significant impact on the quality of life within a neighborhood and a
region.
Local elected officials, state leaders and federal lawmakers can all help communities as they seek
to grow in ways that support these improved outcomes. Smart Growth America helps
communities understand the long-term impact of their development decisions. We work with
public and private sectors so local communities can achieve multiple outcomes such as increased
economic mobility and improved personal health. By providing this type of research, alongside best
practices used in many of these communities, we hope more places will closely consider
development decisions as a key to long-term success.
This report is an opportunity to reflect on many communities successes, and to highlight the
places where we, as a country, can do better. Visit www.smartgrowthamerica.org to learn more
about our work and how your community can grow in more compact, connected ways.

15

Appendix A: Full 2014 metro area Sprawl Index rankings

Table 1A below contains the Sprawl Index scores for all 221 metro areas included in the 2014
analysis, as well as the score for each metro area in the four sprawl factors, based on 2010 data.
All regions are census-defined Metropolitan Statistical Areas unless marked with an asterisk (*).
Those places with an asterisk are Metropolitan Divisions, which comprise MSAs. Composite
scores are controlled for population.
TABLE A1

Metropolitan Statistical Areas Sprawl Index Scores, 2014

Rank

Metro area

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

New York-White Plains-Wayne, NY-NJ*

San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City, CA*
Atlantic City-Hammonton, NJ
Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA
Champaign-Urbana, IL
Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA
Trenton-Ewing, NJ
Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall, FL*
Springfield, IL
Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, CA*
Reading, PA
Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn, MI*
Madison, WI
Burlington-South Burlington, VT
Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI
Boulder, CO
Appleton, WI
Lincoln, NE
Laredo, TX
Erie, PA
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA
Spokane, WA
Medford, OR
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA
Oakland-Fremont-Hayward, CA*
Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL*
Eugene-Springfield, OR
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ
Vallejo-Fairfield, CA
Salem, OR
Yakima, WA
Ann Arbor, MI
Philadelphia, PA*
Tuscaloosa, AL
Fargo, ND-MN
South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI
Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT
Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach-Deerfield
Beach, FL*
Las Vegas-Paradise, NV

39

Density
score

Land
use mix
score

Activity
centering
score

Street
connectivity
score

Composite
(total)
score

384.29
185.97
96.33
112.28
100.00
98.88
115.88
160.18
90.39
161.91
102.22
125.20
101.00
88.32
113.31
106.89
90.65
111.55
104.20
97.73
187.39
98.98
89.67
149.50
136.28
145.50
95.35
98.76
105.38
93.11
90.95
103.27
141.01
85.85
99.18
90.94
110.63
140.93

159.34
167.17
100.10
148.85
123.27
146.15
128.00
136.41
100.51
155.02
121.83
124.65
115.83
102.21
126.73
115.32
99.81
132.99
117.12
130.61
160.18
115.82
115.31
148.76
145.75
140.09
125.70
128.59
132.03
123.48
117.91
105.04
142.25
68.60
118.65
94.08
132.86
136.53

213.49
230.92
154.52
109.48
153.64
107.90
97.36
117.91
160.03
79.64
129.72
107.48
168.11
168.79
153.40
100.09
156.72
96.74
99.89
113.69
115.66
108.57
128.06
86.80
88.11
143.24
116.84
101.10
79.32
113.50
133.08
123.11
115.95
154.72
106.96
111.91
118.02
61.79

193.80
162.83
130.71
122.05
82.81
112.18
139.06
166.90
96.74
181.81
113.76
183.98
94.85
70.68
130.35
118.95
79.92
96.78
106.87
88.92
154.40
128.26
80.42
131.45
159.44
160.21
91.29
135.97
115.90
98.10
65.81
89.95
140.06
92.03
73.56
118.68
100.81
153.66

203.36
194.28
150.36
146.59
145.16
145.02
144.71
144.12
142.24
139.86
137.90
137.17
136.69
135.06
134.18
133.68
132.69
131.95
131.25
130.39
130.33
129.40
128.86
128.76
127.24
125.90
125.63
124.40
124.16
123.35
123.19
122.76
122.42
122.18
121.82
121.71
121.64
121.41

142.12

105.02

136.42

114.29

121.20

16

Rank

Metro area

40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91

Reno-Sparks, NV
Stockton, CA
New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA
Charlottesville, VA
San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA
Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH
Bellingham, WA
Corpus Christi, TX
Waco, TX
Nassau-Suffolk, NY*
Lexington-Fayette, KY
Saginaw-Saginaw Township North, MI
New Haven-Milford, CT
Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA*
Scranton--Wilkes-Barre, PA
Savannah, GA
Charleston, WV
Baltimore-Towson,*
Salinas, CA
Fort Collins-Loveland, CO
Rockford, IL
Bethesda-Rockville-Frederick, MD*
Olympia, WA
Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA
Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA
Lubbock, TX
Modesto, CA
Wilmington, DE-MD-NJ*
Lancaster, PA
Manchester-Nashua, NH
Cedar Rapids, IA
College Station-Bryan, TX
Lansing-East Lansing, MI
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX
Lafayette, LA
Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA
Gainesville, FL
Tyler, TX
Peoria, IL
Chico, CA
Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA
Newark-Union, NJ-PA*
Las Cruces, NM
Bremerton-Silverdale, WA
Norwich-New London, CT
Provo-Orem, UT
Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA
Columbus, GA-AL
Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME
Amarillo, TX
Tacoma, WA*
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MDWV*

Density
score

Land
use mix
score

Activity
centering
score

Street
connectivity
score

Composite
(total)
score

100.78
106.54
104.84
91.16
89.90
84.25
85.29
98.68
87.96
123.33
99.56
86.77
106.86
121.27
91.28
90.08
83.81
115.97
101.65
94.53
94.78
115.08
89.23
93.70
107.91
97.23
109.91
102.42
95.61
95.10
92.94
102.49
101.03
85.37
90.03
93.54
94.58
85.76
88.93
91.18
111.14
126.86
89.33
90.48
87.22
104.53
102.64
94.45
86.06
96.16
103.62
122.35

93.69
135.75
117.83
86.08
119.8
67.73
92.75
118.31
96.10
144.75
110.42
93.77
127.52
123.99
116.46
84.94
67.01
123.21
116.00
106.30
110.04
123.84
80.87
132.31
133.35
116.70
140.69
109.29
110.05
104.38
105.64
94.65
92.21
88.45
87.35
102.14
87.63
72.48
100.39
114.46
136.12
139.67
84.27
87.55
84.71
123.55
120.53
84.78
79.09
109.27
105.56
117.61

137.29
82.11
96.09
141.81
103.87
142.77
113.43
90.15
100.62
81.01
115.34
110.97
113.51
121.68
95.07
115.36
136.8
123.12
102.94
96.44
91.83
98.97
121.00
91.91
78.01
87.56
62.32
96.53
124.31
114.15
104.67
91.03
141.56
112.62
115.90
99.29
102.79
122.62
109.76
88.79
100.81
90.43
108.16
112.87
137.44
77.37
99.67
125.19
157.47
76.98
92.25
133.16

94.06
121.04
149.94
71.77
88.53
108.91
96.89
110.41
107.83
155.85
95.11
93.62
97.82
131.86
123.01
115.03
112.05
136.35
90.70
100.59
107.05
118.94
98.73
96.82
118.31
90.44
102.89
120.29
84.74
89.28
81.25
91.47
72.80
113.76
92.72
119.17
99.45
93.19
97.72
79.93
124.98
113.76
89.06
86.20
71.04
100.08
103.54
77.79
80.24
91.56
119.05
125.91

120.85
120.28
119.74
119.08
118.90
118.43
118.01
117.29
117.11
117.04
116.76
116.62
116.29
116.11
115.84
115.81
115.68
115.62
115.19
115.15
114.98
114.66
114.63
113.92
113.87
113.41
113.28
112.94
112.64
112.19
111.81
111.72
111.61
111.54
111.44
111.4
111.36
110.66
110.49
109.94
109.85
109.62
109.17
108.86
108.85
108.45
108.42
108.38
107.72
107.49
107.48
107.21

17

Rank

Metro area

92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125

Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO
Canton-Massillon, OH
Salt Lake City, UT
Lafayette, IN
Flint, MI
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY
Colorado Springs, CO
Merced, CA
El Paso, TX
Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL
North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA
York-Hanover, PA
Kennewick-Pasco-Richland, WA
Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA
Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC
Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA
Greeley, CO
Camden, NJ*
Akron, OH
Duluth, MN-WI
Lake County-Kenosha County, IL-WI*
Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX
Sioux Falls, SD
Dayton, OH
Toledo, OH
Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux, LA
Ogden-Clearfield, UT
Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Roseville, CA
Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL
Tallahassee, FL
Charleston-North Charleston-Summerville, SC
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL
West Palm Beach-Boca Raton-Boynton
Beach, FL*
Albuquerque, NM
Mobile, AL
Edison-New Brunswick, NJ*
Gary, IN*
Syracuse, NY
Binghamton, NY
Pittsburgh, PA
Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY
Topeka, KS
Hagerstown-Martinsburg,*-WV
Roanoke, VA
Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT
Columbus, OH
Fresno, CA
Wichita, KS
Evansville, IN-KY
Visalia-Porterville, CA
Montgomery, AL

126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143

Density
score

Land
use mix
score

Activity
centering
score

Street
connectivity
score

Composite
(total)
score

118.31
90.54
117.77
95.46
89.57
107.94
102.94
93.90
114.90
91.78
97.45
125.08
90.92
92.84
97.68
106.41
105.40
87.33
105.39
94.55
85.24
101.65
100.42
97.68
93.65
95.30
83.73
100.96
111.65
91.87
91.64
95.29
105.18
110.73

119.44
106.64
125.49
90.63
90.58
127.67
108.37
114.76
99.42
121.21
101.45
130.37
95.83
108.63
120.63
105.24
83.28
99.05
125.72
113.13
89.56
112.39
99.66
104.85
114.40
120.34
75.47
120.39
119.11
81.41
68.25
89.19
105.35
121.02

109.11
76.45
93.32
94.82
114.82
102.46
75.94
96.48
73.41
70.03
84.95
100.90
113.20
81.96
99.46
102.38
112.77
94.05
78.53
90.69
117.03
67.78
138.78
95.96
95.13
85.46
106.77
62.22
104.19
91.52
130.77
108.94
93.00
69.66

125.16
117.92
97.63
83.10
97.49
95.10
121.76
66.25
128.66
102.95
126.69
119.95
90.32
85.86
82.83
131.60
141.95
85.82
120.07
106.81
77.22
132.08
102.88
60.16
105.55
95.85
86.11
103.52
108.92
126.34
79.80
99.03
150.09
118.46

107.10
106.99
106.96
106.55
106.48
106.36
106.33
105.86
105.64
105.59
105.49
105.18
105.12
105.03
104.90
104.45
104.34
103.61
103.22
103.15
103.14
103.10
102.44
101.75
101.48
100.90
100.13
99.58
99.27
99.22
98.95
98.53
98.49
98.18

103.60
92.43
109.41
94.53
94.75
89.70
96.16
95.40
88.98
84.10
90.65
100.12
101.58
101.75
95.63
91.57
91.94
90.01

102.57
88.23
125.05
107.73
100.93
88.92
115.14
105.96
83.12
74.10
85.88
113.10
112.24
126.18
107.27
92.59
106.37
85.97

99.36
78.79
69.02
82.31
122.57
102.07
107.78
108.19
102.18
112.54
83.67
119.54
95.56
81.45
88.57
86.07
79.64
98.71

97.51
112.30
137.91
106.33
69.91
69.84
119.33
86.04
71.38
78.51
93.21
72.59
112.19
82.42
83.65
84.34
83.98
80.50

98.07
97.48
96.77
96.70
96.65
95.97
95.45
95.12
94.82
94.13
93.77
93.50
93.00
92.24
91.74
91.67
91.55
91.20

18

Rank

Metro area

Density
score

Land
use mix
score

Activity
centering
score

Street
connectivity
score

Composite
(total)
score

144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196

Boise City-Nampa, ID
Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL
Myrtle Beach-North Myrtle Beach-Conway, SC
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI
Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL
Gulfport-Biloxi, MS
Fort Wayne, IN
Tulsa, OK
Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX*
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH
Utica-Rome, NY
Raleigh-Cary, NC
Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL
Springfield, MO
Indianapolis-Carmel, IN
McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX
Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN
Oklahoma City, OK
St. Louis, MO-IL
Bakersfield-Delano, CA
Jacksonville, FL
Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN
Port St. Lucie, FL
Macon, GA
Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY
Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI
Tucson, AZ
Fort Worth-Arlington, TX*
Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ
Holland-Grand Haven, MI
Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA
Huntsville, AL
Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL
Kansas City, MO-KS
San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX
Wilmington, NC
Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX
Asheville, NC
Richmond, VA
Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR
Naples-Marco Island, FL
Brownsville-Harlingen, TX
Ocala, FL
Rochester, NY
Spartanburg, SC
Durham-Chapel Hill, NC
Birmingham-Hoover, AL
Longview, TX
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
Jackson, MS
Memphis, TN-MS-AR

95.80
91.35
83.43
105.92
87.51
86.03
92.42
90.54
111.46
105.11
90.87
96.99
102.40
89.10
98.11
94.43
89.16
98.44
94.64
97.68
101.29
96.81
98.75
92.74
84.72
89.38
91.39
100.79
103.71
111.60
86.45
87.36
86.18
96.94
96.84
100.67
85.89
88.54
108.3
80.71
96.36
88.00
91.57
90.92
80.80
96.12
81.26
91.59
86.67
81.66
87.79
87.35
96.6

110.45
88.02
54.95
110.34
54.24
69.80
93.70
92.40
105.90
123.72
83.53
87.30
85.79
89.25
99.65
76.78
79.86
89.48
96.26
108.29
114.13
82.50
107.80
77.05
71.90
95.38
91.78
90.96
100.89
102.36
81.52
100.76
58.29
79.64
109.49
93.56
73.12
81.12
102.66
64.12
78.08
75.36
81.95
77.74
41.30
103.86
68.26
74.84
67.88
71.62
76.94
64.41
77.76

75.15
66.48
104.88
111.41
95.32
80.53
89.90
93.54
94.21
95.54
98.35
109.43
89.29
75.99
98.42
90.99
78.17
93.12
89.86
93.86
76.82
90.17
98.95
62.73
86.32
97.49
99.15
78.71
72.55
96.37
78.64
74.10
89.43
60.02
80.45
95.15
83.92
75.12
92.56
97.61
101.95
93.55
55.19
51.43
105.49
96.77
91.26
80.27
99.52
81.06
72.39
105.46
94.23

91.88
116.35
95.40
108.60
128.15
97.52
73.85
103.35
129.74
84.96
61.91
88.16
129.14
91.87
102.31
104.60
94.80
102.87
100.38
113.80
73.14
111.76
93.67
106.43
74.47
70.30
74.75
94.72
117.21
111.33
71.71
81.52
99.31
105.42
103.52
102.43
84.13
88.65
129.43
88.53
92.83
90.35
90.69
105.96
91.78
62.00
72.48
84.98
105.21
68.46
84.53
73.8
90.62

91.06
89.68
88.70
88.69
87.64
87.61
86.67
86.65
86.15
85.62
84.71
84.25
83.97
83.96
83.89
83.89
83.12
82.92
82.07
82.06
81.78
80.85
80.75
80.75
79.92
79.51
79.18
78.92
78.56
78.32
78.17
78.08
78.02
77.91
77.60
77.37
77.27
76.84
76.74
76.52
76.41
76.08
75.23
74.69
74.67
74.50
74.00
73.84
73.55
73.06
72.63
72.30
70.77

19

Rank

Metro area

Density
score

Land
use mix
score

Activity
centering
score

Street
connectivity
score

Composite
(total)
score

197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221

Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC

Kalamazoo-Portage, MI
Knoxville, TN
Columbia, SC
Warren-Troy-Farmington Hills, MI*
Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO
Fayetteville, NC
Green Bay, WI
Fort Smith, AR-OK
Lynchburg, VA
Chattanooga, TN-GA
Greensboro-High Point, NC
Winston-Salem, NC
Florence, SC
Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ
Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA
Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC
Greenville-Mauldin-Easley, SC
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA
Baton Rouge, LA
Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN
Prescott, AZ
Clarksville, TN-KY
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA
Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC

94.55
85.55
88.10
89.63
97.88
84.55
91.13
89.90
80.74
81.51
86.14
88.22
86.43
81.22
85.24
78.73
85.25
86.69
103.72
91.27
91.54
82.33
84.48
97.80
78.64

84.71
75.00
60.62
69.14
110.33
67.95
71.69
90.49
56.78
57.07
61.15
80.57
68.62
51.13
55.15
40.53
60.69
72.89
111.18
72.03
63.92
53.19
39.67
85.47
40.46

103.05
85.58
100.77
108.38
70.54
80.67
72.57
66.77
75.30
76.38
94.27
84.94
87.42
87.85
73.04
89.67
88.47
81.15
77.03
69.74
96.17
58.15
74.47
89.89
67.00

86.93
64.97
82.53
66.63
96.17
81.81
71.77
53.34
86.02
77.42
72.90
70.70
68.47
61.44
65.97
82.87
73.85
71.40
80.33
80.40
77.00
69.96
60.83
75.92
56.95

70.45
70.32
68.22
67.45
67.03
66.26
66.02
65.35
64.84
63.97
63.63
63.50
63.44
61.06
60.13
60.00
59.18
58.98
56.25
55.60
51.74
48.96
41.49
40.99
24.86

Appendix B: County-level information

County-level findings
Table B1 below shows Sprawl Index scores for all metropolitan counties. As discussed on page 10
of this report, this research shows that people in high-scoring metro areas have more
transportation options than people in lower-scoring metro areas. In addition to conducting this
analysis at the metro-area level, the researchers also examined this question at the county level,
where the findings and their implications for everyday life are even more compelling.
High-scoring counties have lower rates of car ownership. For every 10 percent increase in an index
score, car ownership decreases by 3.8 percent. High-scoring counties have higher rates of
walking. For every 10 percent increase in an index score, the proportion of people who choose to
walk as a mode of transportation increases by 6.6 percent. More people in high-scoring counties
ride public transit. For every 10 percent increase in an index score, the proportion of transit users in
the county increases by 24 percent. People in high-scoring counties spend less time driving. For
every 10 percent increase in an index score at the county level, people spend on average 3.5
percent less time driving.
Data were not available for a limited number of counties. Factors are provided where available.

20

TABLE B1

County-level Sprawl Index Scores, 2014

County

Blount County
Calhoun County
Chilton County
Colbert County
Elmore County
Etowah County
Houston County
Jefferson County
Lauderdale County
Lawrence County
Lee County
Limestone County
Madison County
Mobile County
Montgomery County
Morgan County
Russell County
St. Clair County
Shelby County
Tuscaloosa County
Walker County
Coconino County
Maricopa County
Mohave County
Pima County
Pinal County
Yavapai County
Yuma County
Benton County
Craighead County
Crawford County
Crittenden County
Faulkner County
Garland County
Grant County
Jefferson County
Lincoln County
Lonoke County
Madison County
Miller County
Poinsett County
Pulaski County

State

Density
score

Land use
mix score

Activity
centering
score

Street
connectivity
score

Composite
(total) score

AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR

90.36
91.58
89.98
95.11
91.59
93.78
94.83
99.01
94.46
89.38
96.48
91.62
97.61
99.06
102.14
96.47
94.83
91.04
94.43
96.71
90.60
95.58
110.50
96.20
102.91
96.42
96.00
99.68
95.22
95.83
92.25
96.93
95.11
92.69
89.11
94.66
88.97
91.76
88.44
97.29
89.31
100.95

37.85
86.70
52.55
104.27
60.63
91.28
102.37
110.72
84.43
51.74
87.90
58.45
98.59
108.17
120.67
95.35
90.91
55.96
91.33
101.44
65.74
105.89
118.07
90.76
109.55
74.63
89.71
105.56
95.05
97.46
90.19
115.43
92.10
89.51
79.34
97.82
51.59
79.64
61.16
106.83
105.78
111.48

74.28
117.70
81.61
76.99
86.59
116.86
98.64
122.44
105.63
86.98
104.17
89.78
103.31
93.94
118.34
116.51
78.65
81.95
88.20
136.82
86.66
159.70
118.48
97.35
129.25
93.08
88.28
142.91
104.81
113.68
82.88
79.24
83.67
116.53
77.98
96.55
72.47
91.84
73.67
82.03
77.99
116.72

60.14
104.38
62.37
124.68
85.71
93.10
88.97
126.81
88.50
66.67
84.55
82.64
114.82
113.78
105.98
101.04
93.54
84.47
92.91
110.56
92.50
80.11
118.04
95.37
101.54
100.74
86.40
107.38
89.33
76.68
80.03
89.18
74.78
103.18
60.72
113.66
62.71
75.65
72.44
115.58
71.03
127.01

56.60
100.11
64.14
100.33
76.15
98.43
95.20
118.64
91.48
66.75
91.50
75.51
104.53
104.72
114.89
102.96
86.71
72.65
89.53
114.39
79.62
113.04
120.56
93.58
113.66
88.90
87.49
117.54
95.07
94.83
82.74
93.93
82.83
100.60
70.67
100.85
60.74
80.69
67.05
100.54
82.34
117.74

21

State

Density
score

Land use
mix score

Activity
centering
score

Street
connectivity
score

Composite
(total) score

Saline County
Sebastian County
Washington County
Alameda County
Butte County
Contra Costa County
El Dorado County
Fresno County
Imperial County
Kern County
Kings County
Los Angeles County
Madera County
Marin County
Merced County
Monterey County
Napa County
Orange County
Placer County
Riverside County
Sacramento County
San Benito County
San Bernardino County
San Diego County
San Francisco County
San Joaquin County
San Luis Obispo County
San Mateo County
Santa Barbara County
Santa Clara County
Santa Cruz County
Shasta County

AR
AR
AR
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA

92.78
97.44
98.58
137.65
99.20
112.02
96.18
103.35
99.38
102.91
100.77
152.55
96.68
109.25
100.54
109.05
102.69
134.15
101.97
105.36
115.28
103.10
106.82
118.35
250.84
106.50
97.52
130.72
116.62
131.02
104.20
96.00

80.99
103.71
104.46
143.40
121.87
128.70
88.17
127.85
132.78
121.33
115.21
145.20
110.34
141.52
122.04
122.36
135.45
142.55
116.93
117.55
128.54
115.79
122.13
129.64
153.79
132.92
124.79
144.53
139.70
139.68
138.71
110.79

106.43
93.42
109.89
115.28
106.28
100.81
84.58
104.03
99.61
99.62
108.98
121.62
104.67
96.85
112.80
110.26
131.01
95.13
90.93
108.49
135.70
78.56
95.87
121.82
258.47
104.79
111.43
93.82
112.02
107.58
114.16
114.25

75.80
108.24
91.83
151.09
91.90
121.28
77.80
94.25
82.71
92.21
90.98
141.02
69.69
111.15
85.94
101.72
110.28
144.21
98.05
98.38
129.68
105.10
92.42
116.14
215.72
118.62
102.74
131.35
116.13
132.85
107.34
88.66

86.10
100.89
101.50
146.57
106.08
119.84
83.17
109.31
104.58
105.08
105.04
150.67
94.12
118.57
106.74
113.71
125.09
136.66
102.49
109.41
134.50
100.81
105.45
127.15
251.27
119.85
111.53
131.72
126.69
135.11
120.35
103.07

Solano County
Sonoma County
Stanislaus County
Sutter County
Tulare County
Ventura County
Yolo County
Yuba County
Adams County
Arapahoe County
Boulder County
Broomfield County
Clear Creek County

CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO

106.86
100.37
107.86
98.92
100.44
110.13
107.3
97.57
106.63
114.44
107.71
105.87
90.58

130.60
131.12
135.71
119.22
117.82
131.48
126.92
95.43
122.25
124.30
122.00
113.80
67.38

103.94
101.87
94.54
126.45
102.53
99.80
98.50
82.17
82.26
102.43
111.33
83.11

114.95
97.67
107.84
82.89
93.41
114.98
110.10
89.37
122.37
134.20
115.52
129.14
117.81

117.80
109.81
114.52
108.68
104.49
117.82
113.53
88.80
110.59
123.81
117.87
110.09

County

22

State

Density
score

Land use
mix score

Activity
centering
score

Street
connectivity
score

Composite
(total) score

Denver County
Douglas County
Elbert County
El Paso County
Jefferson County
Larimer County
Mesa County
Pueblo County
Teller County
Weld County
Fairfield County
Hartford County
Middlesex County
New Haven County
New London County
Tolland County
Kent County
New Castle County
District of Columbia
Alachua County
Baker County
Bay County
Brevard County
Broward County
Charlotte County
Clay County
Collier County
Duval County
Escambia County
Flagler County
Gadsden County
Hernando County

CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
DE
DE
DC
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL

129.34
102.77
88.27
104.62
106.94
100.68
101.69
100.43
94.68
97.29
110.88
107.85
95.74
107.16
96.76
96.05
94.72
108.44
193.52
100.66
89.21
99.21
102.39
120.61
94.98
97.16
99.42
106.31
99.94
96.82
90.27
96.20

137.67
97.61
44.14
119.18
125.25
117.76
113.73
112.15
82.25
114.35
131.47
126.56
116.02
128.91
106.51
89.61
97.37
126.15
138.05
110.17
63.21
105.55
103.2
133.24
97.96
92.55
104.70
113.10
109.08
82.32
57.12
80.29

174.54
92.17
72.69
95.89
90.89
111.95
124.35
112.96
81.88
111.18
125.41
138.02
98.90
137.15
131.52
97.77
102.26
111.75
219.97
115.43
89.68
93.70
86.39
95.43
103.74
98.14
83.67
118.71
100.14
79.96
83.72
108.25

181.54
97.77
50.26
123.96
112.99
103.05
107.33
121.67
108.04
95.06
101.99
92.46
81.98
102.88
85.24
63.29
89.82
121.39
185.15
107.74
61.02
115.16
110.4
148.86
114.83
95.40
105.06
125.06
116.67
99.05
95.13
102.08

170.48
96.94
54.30
113.79
111.40
110.57
114.88
114.91
89.53
105.65
122.04
120.50
97.68
124.04
106.33
83.17
95.00
121.40
206.37
110.74
69.39
104.31
100.75
131.01
103.64
94.71
97.74
119.96
108.16
86.78
76.69
95.84

Hillsborough County
Indian River County
Lake County
Lee County
Leon County
Manatee County
Marion County
Martin County
Miami-Dade County
Nassau County
Okaloosa County
Orange County
Osceola County

FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL

106.16
97.10
95.53
98.87
102.05
102.17
93.51
98.62
137.38
93.25
100.20
108.01
98.45

115.63
101.81
87.32
104.60
106.83
114.33
83.3
110.16
132.85
78.04
113.18
110.76
86.64

127.60
112.72
121.33
119.36
149.96
112.33
140.38
106.69
131.33
98.01
109.67
118.48
87.23

128.18
132.01
116.84
121.83
99.11
129.01
98.85
113.84
156.48
97.21
105.87
124.47
114.77

124.51
113.79
106.64
114.11
118.31
118.27
105.07
109.26
149.93
89.42
109.14
119.5
95.92

County

23

State

Density
score

Land use
mix score

Activity
centering
score

Street
connectivity
score

Composite
(total) score

Palm Beach County

Pasco County
Pinellas County
Polk County
St. Johns County
St. Lucie County
Santa Rosa County
Sarasota County
Seminole County
Volusia County
Wakulla County
Barrow County
Bartow County
Bibb County
Bryan County
Butts County
Carroll County
Catoosa County
Chatham County
Chattahoochee County
Cherokee County
Clarke County
Clayton County
Cobb County
Columbia County
Coweta County
Dade County
Dawson County
DeKalb County
Dougherty County
Douglas County
Effingham County

FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA

107.77
99.18
114.66
96.76
97.43
100.74
92.28
101.61
105.12
99.33
89.66
92.36
90.76
98.07
89.84
91.10
92.24
93.34
99.64
97.14
97.06
100.91
106.35
106.99
96.83
92.69
89.57
89.94
111.99
97.65
95.83
91.03

125.08
100.48
132.11
90.29
86.85
97.46
93.99
116.04
116.39
107.91
45.54
70.78
77.69
113.15
61.04
82.26
80.47
79.45
117.03
100.48
94.58
115.76
106.15
116.91
95.43
85.33
56.36
63.53
120.73
109.27
89.53
60.74

107.06
84.02
93.74
115.86
85.06
102.45
81.78
113.62
81.81
100.70
78.68
85.30
86.60
103.59
81.95
87.09
108.64
88.25
126.17
70.87
80.91
98.31
84.62
91.39
80.24
81.74
80.64
86.08
96.18
95.60
103.33
84.13

118.32
117.84
163.76
120.94
106.86
120.07
80.59
124.42
121.13
115.72
79.41
72.18
80.47
112.70
71.54
67.51
59.41
78.55
126.88
98.62
83.44
92.89
98.10
107.76
72.04
72.61
69.91
69.43
100.65
107.90
70.96
75.90

118.40
100.48
132.94
107.53
92.48
106.54
83.78
117.59
107.72
107.47
66.29
74.92
79.63
108.69
69.79
77.24
81.28
80.91
122.03
89.61
86.10
102.49
98.49
107.28
82.48
78.64
67.30
71.24
109.34
103.30
87.25
72.13

Fayette County
Floyd County
Forsyth County
Fulton County
Glynn County
Gwinnett County
Hall County
Haralson County
Harris County
Henry County
Houston County
Jones County
Lamar County

GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA

93.23
92.92
96.31
107.63
92.87
106.36
94.45
90.08
89.51
95.26
99.67
90.26
90.01

94.36
90.67
91.93
122.60
102.00
111.94
89.10
73.41
34.28
81.75
97.7
80.32
68.75

100.88
103.37
97.11
146.48
95.73
88.70
139.3
78.3
71.89
86.07
89.66
81.59
79.24

78.34
89.35
68.48
108.57
111.38
89.68
87.59
82.15
62.25
74.28
91.56
59.82
69.42

89.51
92.52
85.41
126.94
100.62
98.95
103.3
75.97
55.12
80.21
93.23
72.19
70.75

County

24

Activity
centering
score

Street
connectivity
score

67.38
88.85
91.72
72.18
61.79
65.55
66.44
68.86
108.41
77.77
69.72
45.28
74.96
61.08
104.91
86.78
85.73
74.53
75.62
54.96
88.51
68.22
108.68
124.04
109.57
106.10
113.29
88.98
101.44
113.12
121.33
109.49

69.06
91.21
98.88
71.40
61.49
64.31
63.06
68.85
120.64
86.46
74.87
45.49
74.76
68.89
112.49
87.13
88.83
74.90
79.24
70.32
95.63
66.48
112.28
124.18
108.39
102.41
89.06
78.26
111.14
107.00

87.79

80.13
100.72
106.87
78.49
73.41
79.40
77.43
84.75
133.98
123.65
74.86
70.81
83.49
81.67
124.13
82.64
102.12
78.22
88.88
87.33
115.72
84.69
102.02
128.18
99.62
90.60
76.44
83.29
122.32
92.82
70.12
129.58

95.37
127.58
87.01
141.34
111.36
135.96
136.48
101.16
116.08
78.12
120.57
119.77
90.54

81.63
141.54
82.04
155.66
84.27
88.41
78.31
86.63
84.59
85.72
90.86
105.98
82.01

85.74
107.66
94.50
170.12
93.39
126.48
83.16
110.27
81.22
85.66
109.06
97.47
95.42

87.08
127.19
85.06
169.04
96.51
119.67
96.19
97.17
91.31
80.72
109.11
105.96
88.08

State

Density
score

Land use
mix score

Lee County
Liberty County
Lowndes County
McDuffie County
Madison County
Meriwether County
Monroe County
Murray County
Muscogee County
Newton County
Oconee County
Oglethorpe County
Paulding County
Pickens County
Richmond County
Rockdale County
Spalding County
Terrell County
Walker County
Walton County
Whitfield County
Worth County
Ada County
Bannock County
Bonneville County
Canyon County
Gem County
Jefferson County
Kootenai County
Nez Perce County
Alexander County
Bond County

GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
IL
IL

90.74
96.95
95.78
89.94
89.81
89.17
89.72
90.63
103.92
94.48
90.84
88.61
93.49
90.19
99.09
95.92
93.04
88.84
91.84
91.96
94.64
88.76
103.58
101.28
98.84
98.64
92.23
89.10
97.55
99.34
89.05
91.76

63.81
85.66
102.08
68.85
53.09
52.92
49.47
57.18
119.01
61.24
85.05
22.76
68.19
68.61
111.4
93.91
83.74
78.95
77.95
71.8
87.29
52.25
124.60
123.06
118.52
112.28
83.41
69.82
113.96
116.89

Boone County
Champaign County
Clinton County
Cook County
DeKalb County
DuPage County
Ford County
Grundy County
Henry County
Jersey County
Kane County
Kankakee County
Kendall County

IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL

96.36
109.28
89.17
151.40
99.94
111.41
90.00
92.99
90.62
89.46
108.34
95.65
94.30

County

25

Composite
(total) score

105.89

State

Density
score

Land use
mix score

Activity
centering
score

Street
connectivity
score

Composite
(total) score

Lake County
McHenry County
McLean County
Macon County
Macoupin County
Madison County
Marshall County
Menard County
Mercer County
Monroe County
Peoria County
Piatt County
Rock Island County
St. Clair County
Sangamon County
Tazewell County
Vermilion County
Will County
Winnebago County
Woodford County
Allen County
Bartholomew County
Boone County
Brown County
Carroll County
Clark County
Clay County
Dearborn County
Delaware County
Elkhart County
Floyd County
Franklin County

IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN

103.98
98.53
104.94
95.56
92.20
96.83
89.56
88.81
88.81
89.84
100.95
88.83
101.09
96.60
97.54
96.01
91.84
101.35
100.8
89.23
100.69
96.38
94.39
92.73
89.42
97.57
91.51
91.96
103.15
94.95
101.1
90.85

121.02
105.24
120.63
114.15
111.71
119.34
95.57
90.20
97.30
90.63
120.84
107.89
128.28
114.62
115.25
107.55
99.84
114.01
123.79
111.21
113.30
101.42
103.90
36.11
86.26
113.96
101.15
82.67
118.8
104.81
121.02
54.82

97.08
83.23
110.85
112.75
78.10
103.17
68.03
83.80
71.15
77.62
143.87
81.61
104.97
90.19
157.52
85.37
112.75
92.55
117.91
85.84
110.06
108.25
79.83
76.30
86.24
86.06
76.58
89.51
91.63
89.66
86.15
78.33

118.15
95.57
102.41
97.28
115.16
114.28
113.51
84.09
95.19
91.70
112.87
83.39
116.10
113.08
108.44
110.59
117.88
100.58
120.01
94.01
100.51
114.65
90.61
63.42
85.98
107.2
109.38
96.29
109.13
114.82
99.15
95.48

112.71
94.49
112.27
106.24
99.10
110.62
89.47
83.22
84.98
84.14
124.81
87.90
115.93
104.58
124.88
99.85
107.05
102.68
119.75
93.77
107.76
106.54
90.12
58.47
83.54
101.51
93.25
87.50
107.18
101.34
102.35
74.56

Gibson County
Greene County
Hamilton County
Hancock County
Harrison County
Hendricks County
Howard County
Jasper County
Johnson County
Lake County
LaPorte County
Madison County
Marion County

IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN

92.92
90.44
99.85
93.31
91.11
95.72
98.37
89.52
98.31
102.28
95.04
96.40
108.62

109.39
93.15
104.30
95.10
56.70
91.32
114.28
90.18
116.23
124.13
104.81
113.83
123.19

77.46
82.02
81.69
82.93
85.50
79.42
95.94
73.22
81.08
124.40
108.11
107.92
125.02

124.54
88.86
94.95
84.80
61.31
89.16
109.61
51.82
102.48
126.26
96.11
112.32
127.04

101.36
85.62
93.93
86.14
66.71
85.98
105.75
69.90
99.40
124.35
101.29
109.63
126.50

County

26

State

Density
score

Land use
mix score

Activity
centering
score

Street
connectivity
score

Composite
(total) score

Monroe County
Morgan County
Ohio County
Owen County
Porter County
Posey County
Putnam County
St. Joseph County
Shelby County
Sullivan County
Tippecanoe County
Tipton County
Vanderburgh County
Vermillion County
Vigo County
Warrick County
Washington County
Wells County
Whitley County
Benton County
Black Hawk County
Bremer County
Dallas County
Dubuque County
Harrison County
Johnson County
Jones County
Linn County
Madison County
Mills County
Polk County
Pottawattamie County

IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA

104.36
94.61
91.06
91.06
96.95
92.19
91.01
100.67
98.24
89.97
104.58
89.55
101.79
103.23
96.90
99.66
94.15
89.98
90.31
88.87
99.10
89.00
95.45
100.57
89.16
103.02
89.77
100.19
90.62
89.93
102.96
97.53

112.59
85.99
97.13
35.65
108.40
75.20
96.03
117.65
116.00
94.33
112.14
85.73
119.70
90.48
111.19
102.11
67.81
90.10
89.14
108.97
129.91
112.79
106.94
130.56
113.13
124.12
115.53
118.29
124.56
84.78
129.31
120.78

163.85
85.60
78.90
78.62
88.88
81.37
82.78
124.80
82.26
85.42
101.52
80.10
120.43
79.32
114.75
81.65
80.30
83.04
84.12
90.60
94.20
82.24
79.89
115.08
76.21
157.95
71.55
121.29
70.25
77.08
116.94
95.92

98.52
99.46
99.39
99.32
87.95
81.92
73.04
131.20
97.84
79.03
96.00
62.84
116.35
155.06
128.65
82.32
87.16
70.18
56.30
97.81
118.50
77.70
91.67
106.99
76.79
85.78
95.83
103.21
103.16
92.04
112.82
99.22

125.06
89.15
89.41
69.87
94.37
78.10
81.95
123.48
98.21
83.81
104.5
74.17
118.41
108.87
116.27
89.18
77.70
78.93
74.69
95.65
113.18
87.91
91.77
116.81
85.87
122.39
91.37
113.58
96.40
82.25
119.60
104.25

Scott County
Story County
Warren County
Washington County
Woodbury County
Butler County
Douglas County
Franklin County
Geary County
Harvey County
Jackson County
Johnson County
Leavenworth County

IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS

100.21
96.60
93.98
90.00
97.33
95.93
100.21
89.92
96.96
90.56
88.64
104.45
95.13

128.03
115.01
105.61
104.89
125.17
116.69
127.37
101.1

85.19
125.73
82.31
78.56
117.13
81.59
99.68
85.19
84.76
75.64
79.63
86.47
87.24

130.22
97.63
83.56
86.53
122.41
76.86
98.22
101.84
128.69
73.36
44.65
101.88
93.72

113.79
111.05
89.09
87.36
119.60
90.86
108.05
93.07

County

115.17
77.77
125.43
99.39

27

85.7
65.47
105.76
92.25

Activity
centering
score

Street
connectivity
score

118.91
111.59
98.41
113.88
101.93
93.99
98.55
83.26
124.27
94.37
102.00
109.86
128.66
52.57
87.52
90.76
105.95
76.60
119.34
102.50
117.51
63.30
46.63
66.86
74.42
97.32
91.76
31.97

79.03
68.66
81.55
93.38
117.57
125.79
84.72
103.10
95.37
80.83
126.68
81.17
85.29
87.11
79.27
121.56
134.26
80.01
78.55
131.65
76.39
77.64
118.64
84.93
88.49
84.72
84.90
78.24
80.90
80.79
112.29
75.02

102.93
75.02
95.3
105.56
112.30
108.80
92.96
127.92
84.83
92.96
104.55
86.62
109.72
104.06
98.84
106.12
116.37
76.95
112.22
93.87
103.24
85.73
123.85
91.02
119.32
65.93
78.41
89.54
81.70
97.28
86.78
76.42

116.34
114.14
88.76
114.79
94.26
88.94
107.65
83.25
106.95
94.59
91.64
111.6
128.22
68.44
91.41
103.72
95.15
77.68
122.42
91.41
109.28
69.47
69.46
76.81
78.36
90.72
95.79
60.36

102.72
105.61
90.20
94.84
108.22
105.58
61.88
113.92
34.23
93.69
132.12
114.45
99.35

124.59
79.51
93.22
83.39
98.44
123.81
140.34
97.85
66.17
84.62
84.47
110.96
143.72

100.77
90.95
86.92
90.35
110.2
94.14
77.66
114.04
64.67
92.02
148.19
106.53
98.05

109.46
90.36
88.20
88.54
104.82
106.07
90.19
109.39
53.79
88.54
124.62
110.08
111.43

State

Density
score

Land use
mix score

Miami County
Osage County
Pottawatomie County
Riley County
Sedgwick County
Shawnee County
Sumner County
Wyandotte County
Boone County
Bourbon County
Boyd County
Bullitt County
Campbell County
Christian County
Clark County
Daviess County
Fayette County
Grant County
Greenup County
Hardin County
Henderson County
Henry County
Jefferson County
Jessamine County
Kenton County
Larue County
Meade County
Nelson County
Oldham County
Scott County
Shelby County
Spencer County

KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY

89.17
89.37
89.00
98.61
102.93
98.59
88.32
101.91
99.70
97.22
94.45
95.94
102.73
97.34
93.45
99.18
110.05
90.59
94.52
95.48
99.09
89.37
109.11
94.35
104.06
89.43
93.39
91.95
94.48
95.24
95.85
91.13

87.98
97.03

Warren County
Woodford County
Ascension Parish
Bossier Parish
Caddo Parish
Calcasieu Parish
De Soto Parish
East Baton Rouge Parish
Grant Parish
Iberville Parish
Jefferson Parish
Lafayette Parish
Lafourche Parish

KY
KY
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA

101.86
93.43
92.32
95.13
98.39
95.68
89.07
103.91
88.67
93.41
113.17
99.95
95.04

County

28

Composite
(total) score

87.08
77.91

Activity
centering
score

Street
connectivity
score

62.05
137.94
94.61
91.73
71.09
98.11
121.48
97.97
101.63
70.42
94.37
103.72
71.18
93.51
103.78
114.38
98.83
75.85
89.80
117.81
115.29
130.43
73.94
95.07
88.61
88.84
108.73
109.82
128.35
129.94
124.13
67.98

84.88
153.63
111.60
81.72

73.3
172.01
103.15
90.00

100.74
80.94
81.23
88.78
94.32
97.06
99.01
70.25
81.41
136.26
138.89
131.29
95.72
93.72
106.32
100.72
100.71
82.27
100.64
89.42
83.65
104.01
96.6
97.95
123.29
90.27
77.17

75.38
214.43
108.52
104.87
98.29
101.17
130.72
108.41
109.44
86.13
109.33
107.65
78.43
106.35
91.39
90.26
77.32
87.89
78.52
116.79
118.53
118.19
107.81
94.25
100.50
107.96
100.82
99.78
107.27
116.70
125.16
76.61

73.80
110.91
106.22
143.97

82.53
127.59
124.92
183.84

110.34
95.52
114.15
196.44
119.45
95.18
120.97
122.20
83.51
112.97
85.50
122.51
117.59

86.69
109.90
113.05
190.94

State

Density
score

Land use
mix score

Livingston Parish
Orleans Parish
Ouachita Parish
Plaquemines Parish
Pointe Coupee Parish
Rapides Parish
St. Bernard Parish
St. Charles Parish
St. John the Baptist Parish
St. Martin Parish
St. Tammany Parish
Terrebonne Parish
Union Parish
West Baton Rouge Parish
Androscoggin County
Cumberland County
Penobscot County
Sagadahoc County
York County
Allegany County
Anne Arundel County
Baltimore County
Calvert County
Carroll County
Cecil County
Charles County
Frederick County
Harford County
Howard County
Montgomery County
Prince George's County
Queen Anne's County

LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD

93.18
121.91
95.23
90.01
91.55
93.23
100.03
93.42
97.39
90.60
95.66
96.62
89.87
92.80
94.76
98.75
92.40
91.37
92.68
94.56
105.04
109.47
95.09
95.33
93.63
97.94
97.32
100.16
104.93
117.80
112.70
91.01

Somerset County
Washington County
Wicomico County
Baltimore city
Barnstable County
Berkshire County
Bristol County
Essex County
Franklin County
Hampden County
Hampshire County
Middlesex County
Norfolk County

MD
MD
MD
MD
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA

91.18
97.32
96.00
163.61

County

33.82
36.98

32.99

38.77
34.74

29

Composite
(total) score

97.87
110.48
94.01
99.13
81.51
98.87
102.21
71.48
91.81
108.27
113.36
99.95
84.47
85.70
111.21
112.50
118.58
87.08
95.35
91.20
93.17
103.44
102.01
112.17
127.72
116.51
72.44

County

State

Density
score

Plymouth County
Suffolk County
Worcester County
Barry County
Bay County
Berrien County
Calhoun County
Cass County
Clinton County
Eaton County
Genesee County
Ingham County
Ionia County
Jackson County
Kalamazoo County
Kent County
Lapeer County
Livingston County
Macomb County
Monroe County
Muskegon County
Newaygo County
Oakland County
Ottawa County
Saginaw County
St. Clair County
Van Buren County
Washtenaw County
Wayne County
Anoka County
Benton County
Blue Earth County

MA
MA
MA
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MN
MN
MN

90.18
96.11
94.04
95.50
89.45
91.92
94.44
97.37
109.11
92.27
94.83
97.50
99.67
92.22
92.30
107.83
92.58
96.94
89.64
103.79
96.62
96.26
95.48
90.64
105.17
112.50
101.07
99.34
97.06

Carlton County
Carver County
Chisago County
Clay County
Dakota County
Dodge County
Hennepin County
Houston County
Isanti County
Nicollet County
Olmsted County
Polk County
Ramsey County

MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN

89.72
94.80
91.23
101.35
104.83
90.15
114.74
89.84
91.07
97.81
98.99
89.65
117.31

Land use
mix score

53.29
30.90
57.23
112.33
108.26
103.98
65.94
77.85
101.46
109.34
118.48
71.44
98.29
106.35
119.56
70.09
81.87
131.48
95.56
110.29
63.71
122.43
104.73
111.36
93.49
78.99
117.06
126.50
111.72
111.80

89.44
100.10
72.57
118.95
115.9
114.35
127.82
94.39
89.01

108.08
106.65
135.35

30

Activity
centering
score

Street
connectivity
score

87.88
108.40
90.63
103.91
94.70
131.40
85.64
123.51
141.89
96.34
137.01
113.21
128.07
131.99
104.20
92.09
109.24
96.74
82.85
99.39
106.96
121.05
115.33
85.30
155.39
136.09
98.03
83.26
81.38

104.20
201.99
98.17
75.47
104.10
99.01
94.09
73.69
63.62
72.87
103.52
104.33
76.97
86.66
90.33
96.76
63.03
80.88
106.26
75.47
107.62
79.68
107.48
84.83
101.28
87.56
71.88
87.03
148.34
105.23
89.21
83.73

86.19
82.70
80.16
84.41
86.85
78.13
151.96
70.75
80.16
77.60
166.15
85.6
105.13

89.97
100.41
79.33
81.24
107.32
95.81
129.69
100.51
86.90
107.27
100.70
58.59
148.75

Composite
(total) score

71.80
106.61
97.45
99.21
75.91
88.88
85.60
110.66
123.32
80.10
105.30
102.33
113.92
86.52
87.13
111.9
91.42
103.66
73.43
110.46
97.83
109.46
97.42
76.88
120.43
139.00
105.07
94.82

85.88
93.05
75.77
95.56
104.71
93.19
139.24
85.94
83.30

123.35
81.20
133.66

Street
connectivity
score

103.63
85.26
79.35
96.54
119.28
109.35
74.14
81.93
78.18
100.75
92.68
112.70
113.32
102.57
104.57
69.99
87.79
80.95
77.70
94.49
94.96
95.88
70.41
76.11
106.69
103.07
141.17
84.65
102.52
83.45
90.63
98.64

116.70
89.75
80.37
104.25
97.11
100.38
80.87
79.29
87.83
99.35
78.23
88.44
107.51
116.18
103.05
77.50
89.40
66.29
79.89
80.34
82.31
75.76
68.56
75.86
96.26
111.60
118.55
85.87

94.94
89.25
113.96

140.27
81.51
85.40
109.13
80.16
82.51
85.17
72.41
99.48
96.31
77.91
80.99
107.35
141.59
120.77
82.62
91.18
77.07
81.61
81.01
70.63
71.62
81.24
72.60
80.53
126.76
95.28
97.28
114.42
79.62
81.10
88.28

103.72
101.06

78.89
122.96

114.83
85.07

96.15
101.22

71.96
82.43
88.95
136.74
88.44
85.42
74.98
85.39
68.41
102.74
79.77

88.13
93.59
115.29
127.96
114.86
99.04
94.53
93.02
89.59
93.49
94.12

Density
score

Land use
mix score

St. Louis County

Scott County
Sherburne County
Stearns County
Wabasha County
Washington County
Wright County
Copiah County
DeSoto County
Forrest County
George County
Hancock County
Harrison County
Hinds County
Jackson County
Lamar County
Madison County
Marshall County
Rankin County
Simpson County
Stone County
Tate County
Tunica County
Andrew County
Bates County
Boone County
Buchanan County
Callaway County
Cape Girardeau County
Cass County
Christian County
Clay County

MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO

95.96
96.04
92.57
95.49
89.66
100.91
92.03
90.59
95.25
95.34
90.76
92.04
97.88
100.02
95.32
90.94
96.21
89.58
94.27
89.83
90.38
92.63
88.41
88.73
89.22
98.98
101.70
90.40
95.78
94.15
91.93
97.62

113.02
104.74
80.55
112.29
101.77
108.44
88.12
89.53
88.58
105.53
69.74
77.68
105.23
107.02
88.99
85.24
91.29
45.70
82.77
72.44
88.05
63.13
60.42
86.17
111.73
107.90
120.56
82.96

Clinton County
Cole County

MO
MO
MO

90.37
94.77

Crawford County
Franklin County
Greene County
Jackson County
Jasper County
Jefferson County
Lafayette County
Lincoln County
Moniteau County
Newton County
Platte County

Activity
centering
score

State

County

*(pt.)

MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO

89.11
91.10
100.74
105.14
94.90
96.02
89.16
90.59
90.40
92.11
98.15

94.49
119.9
126.53
113.72
87.54
87.92
52.94
117.93
83.25
104.96

31

Composite
(total) score

84.89
85.12
99.52

87.87
107.86
130.44
103.76
89.90
83.13
75.34
89.37
91.02
92.73

State

Density
score

Land use
mix score

Activity
centering
score

Street
connectivity
score

Composite
(total) score

Ray County
St. Charles County
St. Louis County
Warren County
Washington County
Webster County
St. Louis city
Carbon County
Cascade County
Missoula County
Yellowstone County
Cass County
Dakota County
Douglas County
Lancaster County
Sarpy County
Saunders County
Seward County
Washington County
Clark County
Washoe County
Carson City
Hillsborough County
Rockingham County
Strafford County
Atlantic County
Bergen County
Burlington County
Camden County
Cape May County
Cumberland County
Essex County

MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MT
MT
MT
MT
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NV
NV
NV
NH
NH
NH
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ

89.65
104.37
107.75
90.25
89.88
89.70
126.98
88.78
97.85
98.92
103.87
89.10
98.92
110.08
109.75
101.37
88.71
89.14
89.99
119.01
103.05
104.88
101.22
94.00
95.77
103.00
128.56
100.52
115.67
97.81
99.51
161.02

108.59
118.40
126.19
65.09
65.15
58.65
137.55
68.92
123.74
119.30
120.17
86.96
114.43
132.45
133.02
112.49
95.50
99.79
86.51
116.44
110.72
133.53
116.91
101.41
105.80
114.8
150.29
120.12
137.68
117.44
113.21
146.99

73.35
86.54
95.35
88.50
71.89
78.35
194.29
85.23
127.17
111.04
119.97
86.25
75.16
125.37
115.33
87.29
88.74
77.47
117.82
140.45
131.45
80.10
121.07
97.51
88.23
142.81
86.86
99.61
105.55
101.22
119.51
128.46

65.04
121.39
120.59
88.94
94.61
95.58
185.95
93.01
118.61
110.74
115.07
95.22
122.40
138.38
121.45
118.08
85.06
81.06
94.88
122.06
103.68
118.62
97.04
82.02
82.45
120.73
143.25
99.94
141.06
145.73
98.78
148.71

79.98
109.70
115.76
78.76
75.21
75.45
177.33
79.76
121.28
112.64
118.66
86.59
103.44
133.58
125.13
106.08
86.74
83.40
96.59
130.94
115.45
111.73
111.45
92.08
91.23
125.70
134.43
106.38
131.58
119.65
109.80
158.50

Gloucester County
Hudson County
Hunterdon County
Mercer County
Middlesex County
Monmouth County
Morris County
Ocean County
Passaic County
Salem County
Somerset County
Sussex County
Union County

NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ

100.59
223.23
93.84
114.81
118.29
105.74
103.00
105.44
143.82
94.41
101.83
95.74
140.17

121.22
156.67
90.14
128.87
135.37
133.26
125.29
110.28
148.45
98.00
120.78
89.17
153.96

87.46
92.82
95.20
109.53
114.47
84.28
87.76
91.35
101.63
80.11
86.24
86.54
89.87

104.71
176.49
74.00
119.34
132.03
121.16
100.05
129.32
135.66
92.91
103.35
87.85
148.90

104.41
178.73
85.21
122.92
131.64
114.04
105.09
111.5
140.93
89.08
103.86
87.14
141.99

County

32

State

Density
score

Land use
mix score

Activity
centering
score

Street
connectivity
score

Composite
(total) score

Warren County
Bernalillo County
Dona Ana County
Sandoval County
San Juan County
Santa Fe County
Valencia County
Albany County
Bronx County
Broome County
Chemung County
Dutchess County
Erie County
Herkimer County
Kings County
Livingston County
Madison County
Monroe County
Nassau County
New York County
Niagara County
Oneida County
Onondaga County
Ontario County
Orange County
Orleans County
Oswego County
Putnam County
Queens County
Rensselaer County
Richmond County
Rockland County

NJ
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY

95.86
110.26
99.20
97.97
93.52
99.91
94.94
107.10
336.70
99.92
98.96
97.07
109.71
96.91
355.50
93.13
94.67
106.45
128.98
654.01
100.04
101.65
104.46
94.36
101.31
94.19
96.64
94.19
266.34
99.20
175.08
117.77

119.17
122.46
106.04
91.24
88.26
106.29
85.92
128.39
143.95
115.80
117.49
110.29
131.45
100.82
142.16
102.59
96.7
123.67
149.38
144.57
115.62
107.32
122.19
101.34
113.59
97.46
90.83
95.77
147.42
109.08
131.67
134.18

85.21
113.45
114.72
110.10
135.96
116.83
108.47
135.96
100.25
121.53
130.79
128.55
111.78
82.72
199.99
78.75
85.84
121.06
111.6
400.25
92.59
112.12
142.75
91.19
90.33
78.22
108.43
83.82
91.93
97.62
78.94
81.37

97.52
131.01
103.66
85.16
78.81
88.05
76.38
104.63
211.61
93.89
99.06
81.19
93.59
80.37
225.25
53.09
57.89
93.28
160.85
230.33
94.32
84.48
96.45
62.58
87.33
53.47
70.57
88.92
224.01
92.25
179.98
105.52

99.29
124.38
107.46
95.09
98.91
103.50
89.17
124.04
224.01
109.84
114.63
105.40
114.70
87.62
265.20
77.11
79.49
114.04
147.65
425.15
100.81
101.76
120.80
84.03
97.65
75.78
89.4
88.21
204.16
99.41
152.34
112.27

Saratoga County
Schenectady County
Schoharie County
Suffolk County
Tioga County
Tompkins County
Ulster County
Warren County
Washington County
Wayne County
Westchester County
Alamance County
Alexander County

NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NC
NC

95.36
107.32
90.59
105.86
94.68
102.44
95.12
94.99
92.47
92.68
129.24
95.78
91.03

98.37
130.66
78.79
126.74
75.76
95.84
96.80
105.93
80.23
85.72
146.99
102.85
78.52

102.26
104.18
84.01
94.53
82.48
144.53
124.18
183.56
80.51
85.91
93.74
94.52
79.96

80.90
110.94
56.05
115.53
64.79
72.43
81.42
89.94
59.21
55.37
123.66
96.28
55.54

92.70
116.78
71.39
113.48
74.00
104.82
99.22
123.51
72.33
74.62
129.58
96.66
70.00

County

33

State

Density
score

Land use
mix score

Activity
centering
score

Street
connectivity
score

Composite
(total) score

Anson County
Brunswick County
Buncombe County
Burke County
Cabarrus County
Caldwell County
Catawba County
Chatham County
Cumberland County
Currituck County
Davie County
Durham County
Edgecombe County
Forsyth County
Franklin County
Gaston County
Greene County
Guilford County
Haywood County
Henderson County
Hoke County
Johnston County
Madison County
Mecklenburg County
Nash County
New Hanover County
Onslow County
Orange County
Pender County
Person County
Pitt County
Randolph County

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC

89.44
90.81
95.14
90.80
96.20
92.41
93.56
91.14
100.01
90.42
91.08
102.68
91.45
98.47
91.13
95.33
90.47
100.36
91.09
92.12
91.51
93.03
89.40
105.91
91.58
102.34
94.97
99.40
91.15
91.24
98.36
92.22

65.32
69.18
101.18
78.73
97.46
74.22
91.54
56.42
104.64
69.81
61.13
108.43
83.77
107.56
52.43
103.37
47.46
113.56
79.15
98.21
57.98
70.60
44.18
115.35
88.78
118.86
82.72
106.99
64.41
74.11
104.23
84.74

80.36
88.65
126.22
87.53
88.76
123.75
85.36
79.76
91.45
77.63
81.22
103.83
99.40
110.15
78.63
110.64
83.61
102.77
80.84
84.83
83.07
103.97
77.93
135.51
88.52
107.70
104.59
120.04
81.67
81.98
117.55
100.63

52.48
85.96
94.85
75.57
88.00
80.60
88.36
62.63
90.81
76.98
60.37
103.70
93.79
95.01
63.74
94.20
40.96
95.45
102.68
93.59
70.19
64.44
90.45
101.84
79.45
121.50
82.75
75.56
60.61
61.12
87.14
57.18

64.49
79.34
105.50
78.72
90.65
90.83
86.99
65.23
95.86
73.10
66.45
105.89
90.02
103.53
63.96
101.12
56.56
103.84
85.39
90.13
69.27
78.53
69.03
118.52
83.68
115.92
88.95
100.63
67.72
71.08
102.30
79.39

Rockingham County
Stokes County
Union County
Wake County
Wayne County
Yadkin County
Burleigh County
Cass County
Grand Forks County
Morton County
Allen County
Belmont County
Brown County

NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
OH
OH
OH

90.85
90.59
94.98
103.07
93.55
90.06
96.52
99.52
104.24
91.13
95.85
92.89
90.42

72.36
52.98
81.73
115.17
78.79
70.68
118.46
125.90
124.99
108.21
114.27
98.58
54.19

83.70
81.84
100.88
134.61
130.76
79.45
128.76
113.31
97.01
82.17
117.83
83.73
85.62

76.47
64.72
84.45
96.60
84.88
49.29
90.68
97.15
96.71
85.86
118.07
112.11
78.68

75.79
65.29
88.01
115.62
96.20
65.08
110.87
111.34
107.25
89.69
114.54
95.99
71.22

County

34

State

Density
score

Land use
mix score

Activity
centering
score

Street
connectivity
score

Composite
(total) score

Butler County
Carroll County
Clark County
Clermont County
Cuyahoga County
Delaware County
Erie County
Fairfield County
Franklin County
Fulton County
Geauga County
Greene County
Hamilton County
Jefferson County
Lake County
Lawrence County
Licking County
Lorain County
Lucas County
Madison County
Mahoning County
Medina County
Miami County
Montgomery County
Morrow County
Ottawa County
Pickaway County
Portage County
Preble County
Richland County
Stark County
Summit County

OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH

101.42
89.77
96.98
98.23
112.92
97.21
96.77
95.20
111.37
90.59
90.84
97.09
110.12
95.10
100.55
93.75
95.01
98.61
105.01
92.38
98.98
96.03
92.97
102.99
89.85
93.01
95.16
94.89
90.05
94.98
98.73
101.67

116.84
69.05
111.55
97.66
133.64
109.37
121.77
100.29
131.41
113.35
82.83
114.93
134.12
103.84
123.58
81.53
99.59
117.13
131.81
85.12
121.53
105.54
103.49
130.21
49.60
98.23
82.72
103.80
70.46
105.89
120.66
125.68

94.22
94.41
97.15
83.05
119.54
84.07
104.84
89.76
124.87
82.43
86.85
85.08
141.56
109.52
82.99
83.82
98.19
93.18
114.29
84.52
107.96
93.20
85.25
114.82
83.41
86.34
83.74
90.32
86.69
118.65
98.80
109.41

101.13
68.25
102.52
84.14
109.64
87.68
102.29
89.15
127.88
93.65
50.20
94.01
113.68
107.80
88.29
104.35
106.48
95.05
116.4
84.97
102.09
57.23
95.62
117.40
46.82
94.39
78.20
100.22
100.99
103.59
120.61
114.42

104.30
75.19
102.60
88.34
123.93
93.15
108.11
91.91
130.18
93.69
71.79
97.19
131.43
105.14
98.55
88.45
99.77
101.26
121.33
83.25
109.66
84.83
92.84
120.67
58.82
91.15
80.99
96.60
83.63
107.30
112.26
116.17

Trumbull County
Union County
Warren County
Washington County
Wood County
Canadian County
Cleveland County
Comanche County
Creek County
Grady County
Le Flore County
Logan County
McClain County

OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK

95.85
94.04
97.43
93.06
94.89
97.03
101.04
99.03
90.09
91.37
89.15
89.70
89.63

111.81
77.41
106.62
88.20
111.78
97.68
107.98
118.45
85.48
75.37
67.37
68.27
80.94

91.49
81.94
84.37
86.67
91.96
82.74
106.44
98.20
84.46
86.82
83.45
90.56
81.73

95.52
86.51
88.63
83.86
82.11
92.01
102.24
116.33
104.69
102.85
99.19
98.34
88.92

98.31
81.01
92.75
84.77
93.91
90.35
105.59
110.11
88.85
86.23
80.78
83.21
81.43

County

35

State

Density
score

Land use
mix score

Activity
centering
score

Street
connectivity
score

Composite
(total) score

Oklahoma County
Okmulgee County
Osage County
Pawnee County
Rogers County
Sequoyah County
Tulsa County
Wagoner County
Benton County
Clackamas County
Columbia County
Deschutes County
Jackson County
Lane County
Marion County
Multnomah County
Polk County
Washington County
Yamhill County
Allegheny County
Armstrong County
Beaver County
Berks County
Blair County
Bucks County
Butler County
Cambria County
Carbon County
Centre County
Chester County
Cumberland County
Dauphin County

OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA

103.44
89.76
93.63
88.73
92.33
89.78
102.60
93.20
100.72
101.80
93.28
95.73
97.76
101.73
101.62
120.53
94.97
110.39
99.08
109.54
92.89
95.17
108.58
97.22
102.39
93.68
95.43
93.36
110.10
98.81
98.59
104.58

120.48
90.51
66.07
75.14
79.74
72.88
121.46
77.70
123.18
126.17
102.74
115.65
122.20
127.48
130.36
142.82
105.79
132.91
122.85
133.89
85.75
110.16
126.11
121.95
126.03
105.26
107.43
98.43
115.70
117.12
111.24
124.71

122.50
83.84
86.07
77.53
87.59
91.90
117.13
83.08
126.52
90.03
80.42
115.30
122.65
138.05
123.77
150.58
80.13
85.02
81.32
145.40
101.54
84.42
116.00
124.31
79.87
120.02
120.16
90.96
149.49
91.20
85.52
129.24

117.89
122.81
96.84
99.62
95.45
101.22
113.15
102.13
95.34
96.25
84.73
80.19
91.71
98.88
101.10
166.68
83.85
113.10
93.49
135.70
84.86
111.13
110.71
123.01
99.58
79.27
119.48
97.65
91.83
89.11
112.72
125.68

120.32
95.86
81.87
81.37
85.82
86.03
117.17
86.14
114.46
104.50
87.73
102.17
110.84
120.90
117.96
157.06
88.86
113.09
98.97
139.34
88.95
100.28
119.40
121.01
102.49
99.44
113.43
93.81
121.21
98.81
102.55
126.61

Delaware County
Erie County
Fayette County
Lackawanna County
Lancaster County
Lebanon County
Lehigh County
Luzerne County
Lycoming County
Mercer County
Montgomery County
Northampton County
Perry County

PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA

119.69
102.74
93.03
101.86
102.63
96.31
111.48
99.44
97.09
95.34
107.67
103.88
89.79

141.69
130.88
102.25
133.13
119.90
122.77
134.36
121.47
120.85
106.25
136.32
133.01
63.67

83.25
122.48
96.86
134.53
128.60
84.72
115.73
93.27
113.98
83.44
85.84
101.8
91.33

137.90
102.40
108.42
123.50
94.47
116.98
137.75
114.55
117.91
87.04
109.26
124.28
79.02

126.07
118.48
100.17
129.39
114.41
106.56
131.38
109.08
115.74
91.17
112.35
119.89
75.93

County

36

State

Density
score

Land use
mix score

Activity
centering
score

Street
connectivity
score

Composite
(total) score

Philadelphia County
Pike County
Washington County
Westmoreland County
Wyoming County
York County
Bristol County
Kent County
Newport County
Providence County
Washington County
Aiken County
Anderson County
Berkeley County
Charleston County
Darlington County
Dorchester County
Edgefield County
Fairfield County
Florence County
Greenville County
Horry County
Kershaw County
Laurens County
Lexington County
Pickens County
Richland County
Spartanburg County
Sumter County
York County
Lincoln County
Meade County

PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SD
SD

206.38
91.08
95.07
95.84
90.40
99.69
109.79
103.82
99.45
121.10
94.03
93.29
92.29
98.30
103.20
91.78
103.61
89.95
89.55
96.07
98.68
94.78
90.43
89.91
94.92
92.45
101.53
93.37
93.59
95.01
92.75
89.23

144.48
56.19
106.69
111.77
51.38
112.24
144.16
122.09
121.07
142.01
102.13
79.37
82.54
88.34
119.32
86.08
98.38
55.96
49.53
90.47
106.59
90.85
61.70
59.53
94.04
92.02
109.51
97.98
86.69
95.83
107.03
75.07

178.43
144.75
93.55
104.88
86.24
115.21
83.56
81.70
99.03
141.75
88.56
103.25
110.42
80.72
138.48
84.55
81.02
76.27
76.12
109.63
100.39
112.78
129.24
87.21
88.00
97.27
144.33
112.28
119.72
94.28
82.73
81.40

209.98
90.61
102.25
108.50
74.76
96.33
135.16
122.57
118.74
134.74
97.10
96.65
81.70
78.85
116.56
73.08
84.79
60.96
74.02
83.71
91.07
101.88
61.49
79.89
80.44
82.26
110.91
90.54
90.32
80.22
77.53
103.16

207.19
94.51
99.23
106.63
69.28
107.42
122.96
109.54
112.10
144.11
94.26
91.33
89.56
83.00
124.50
79.62
89.83
63.08
65.00
93.64
98.97
100.09
81.95
73.63
86.54
88.63
120.94
98.16
96.94
89.05
87.38
83.84

Minnehaha County
Pennington County
Anderson County
Blount County
Bradley County
Carter County
Cheatham County
Chester County
Davidson County
Dickson County
Fayette County
Grainger County
Hamblen County

SD
SD
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN

102.86
96.18
92.32
94.52
94.75
93.30
93.65
91.73
104.68
91.19
89.34
89.49
95.73

120.06
101.49
81.10
79.63
85.38
77.41
56.61
79.08
111.86
65.43
50.43
45.66
85.00

105.90
117.26
121.37
87.08
114.48
129.08
86.41
69.11
121.78
90.57
89.51
74.08
142.29

107.25
95.04
89.51
89.16
87.22
96.48
61.81
55.42
111.57
73.70
51.46
70.51
95.50

111.40
103.15
95.04
84.33
94.26
98.82
67.92
66.93
115.76
75.01
62.32
62.01
105.85

County

37

State

Density
score

Land use
mix score

Activity
centering
score

Street
connectivity
score

Composite
(total) score

Hamilton County
Hawkins County
Jefferson County
Knox County
Loudon County
Macon County
Madison County
Marion County
Montgomery County
Robertson County
Rutherford County
Sequatchie County
Shelby County
Smith County
Sullivan County
Sumner County
Tipton County
Trousdale County
Unicoi County
Union County
Washington County
Williamson County
Wilson County
Aransas County
Atascosa County
Austin County
Bandera County
Bastrop County
Bell County
Bexar County
Bowie County
Brazoria County

TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX

98.48
90.78
91.49
99.46
90.60
90.08
95.08
89.77
97.02
91.68
97.98
90.25
105.33
90.53
93.76
97.36
92.75
90.52
94.94
89.52
94.93
97.00
93.71
91.90
89.05
88.89
89.19
89.76
99.90
107.69
93.73
96.54

101.33
69.01
63.63
102.38
74.46
45.11
104.99
69.94
80.87
72.06
90.60
76.45
109.94
70.87
86.37
86.46
59.76
71.81
90.30
50.58
91.12
85.43
71.92
104.27
79.50
64.78
38.15
76.25
110.30
116.02
106.36
96.26

119.36
90.10
91.38
136.24
83.62
73.25
108.51
73.16
113.11
85.62
108.29
78.98
122.61
66.08
119.66
115.60
87.84
67.37
80.78
82.78
94.03
133.03
85.24
84.03
85.77
86.07
69.25
87.26
106.90
115.57
80.75
92.15

103.40
81.51
79.72
96.83
96.59
47.03
91.26
87.72
75.99
63.10
83.25
57.33
114.90
83.13
101.34
76.15
64.39
64.82
113.03
73.69
93.77
87.19
70.33
122.27
94.63
82.34
101.83
96.10
110.75
118.94
99.24
97.38

107.13
78.33
76.69
111.03
82.71
54.34
99.95
74.91
89.57
72.35
93.72
69.36
116.68
71.76
100.36
92.28
69.90
66.68
93.38
67.32
91.74
100.84
75.10
100.78
83.87
75.38
67.91
84.01
108.80
118.40
93.71
94.42

Brazos County
Burleson County
Caldwell County
Calhoun County
Cameron County
Chambers County
Clay County
Collin County
Comal County
Coryell County
Dallas County
Delta County
Denton County

TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX

105.72
89.32
89.63
97.89
100.34
88.91
88.03
106.24
93.66
97.23
116.03
88.85
104.96

112.86
100.91
89.32
104.62
102.76
43.66
67.28
114.06
86.53
77.14
123.21
80.30
107.37

101.13
77.93
84.60
74.17
87.93
75.63
76.56
85.45
108.62
87.93
125.52
68.73
91.25

110.13
109.68
100.93
145.39
110.32
77.45
111.02
118.59
88.26
86.13
139.21
127.14
114.16

109.43
93.00
88.78
106.98
100.42
63.87
81.95
107.69
92.76
83.70
132.85
88.95
105.61

County

38

State

Density
score

Land use
mix score

Activity
centering
score

Street
connectivity
score

Composite
(total) score

Ector County
Ellis County
El Paso County
Fort Bend County
Galveston County
Grayson County
Gregg County
Guadalupe County
Hardin County
Harris County
Hays County
Hidalgo County
Hunt County
Jefferson County
Johnson County
Kaufman County
Kendall County
Lampasas County
Liberty County
Lubbock County
McLennan County
Medina County
Midland County
Montgomery County
Nueces County
Orange County
Parker County
Potter County
Randall County
Rockwall County
Rusk County
San Patricio County

TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX

101.41
92.65
109.16
104.19
100.94
93.05
96.10
96.53
89.38
112.9
95.58
100.21
91.85
99.99
94.62
91.56
94.46
89.18
89.41
101.82
96.64
88.53
103.45
95.68
104.85
90.28
90.72
101.40
101.51
97.13
89.28
93.48

123.37
86.97
113.33
96.20
113.67
103.96
114.14
93.38
75.62
122.96
87.83
101.69
76.80
118.66
85.00
77.63
97.53
74.92
54.79
123.12
112.13
55.51
123.85
87.52
127.12
87.97
77.89
118.20
122.09
97.42
80.54
114.78

112.23
84.65
102.45
101.96
106.27
92.14
103.02
84.13
84.66
115.12
131.77
104.76
100.17
127.39
88.74
83.06
79.63
86.25
90.70
97.75
100.28
85.30
110.90
111.61
106.59
84.52
87.88
99.33
78.97
79.27
82.05
84.07

111.89
100.12
125.22
111.59
130.51
102.59
99.15
94.73
83.17
138.63
84.13
109.10
94.77
137.42
91.72
108.05
72.72
95.76
83.18
110.77
109.99
81.66
119.62
84.05
121.30
104.13
79.00
132.71
110.72
94.18
67.69
111.29

115.45
88.75
115.85
104.41
116.24
97.39
103.92
90.14
78.78
128.31
99.78
104.98
88.50
126.37
87.39
87.46
82.42
82.98
74.12
110.57
106.02
71.88
118.27
93.32
118.91
89.54
79.62
116.32
104.20
89.89
74.59
101.14

Smith County
Tarrant County
Tom Green County
Travis County
Upshur County
Victoria County
Waller County
Webb County
Wichita County
Williamson County
Wilson County
Wise County
Cache County

TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
UT

95.50
108.94
97.73
108.45
90.15
103.10
95.59
101.78
98.04
101.28
89.22
89.07
100.03

100.31
119.35
119.81
120.81
67.18
120.55
60.29
122.77
121.94
106.24
46.70
68.46
120.88

119.02
100.17
103.96
148.98
79.57
119.38
82.16
102.69
121.17
98.74
88.44
80.23
128.98

100.60
128.90
106.90
110.66
86.71
119.70
92.14
121.89
110.29
101.69
72.24
80.04
82.21

104.88
118.12
108.97
128.09
75.86
119.82
77.94
115.53
116.25
102.51
67.33
74.03
110.14

County

39

State

Density
score

Land use
mix score

Activity
centering
score

Street
connectivity
score

Composite
(total) score

Davis County
Juab County
Salt Lake County
Summit County
Tooele County
Utah County
Washington County
Weber County
Chittenden County
Franklin County
Grand Isle County
Albemarle County
Amherst County
Appomattox County
Arlington County
Bedford County
Botetourt County
Campbell County
Caroline County
Chesterfield County
Clarke County
Dinwiddie County
Fairfax County
Fauquier County
Fluvanna County
Franklin County
Frederick County
Gloucester County
Goochland County
Greene County
Hanover County
Henrico County

UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
VT
VT
VT
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA

103.45
88.62
112.04
90.70
97.75
108.21
95.06
105.74
101.56
92.87
89.13
95.30
89.69
89.68
174.41
89.97
89.85
91.88
89.04
100.63
89.87
90.02
117.83
90.61
92.01
91.30
93.79
92.66
90.23
90.55
94.37
105.97

125.21
93.30
129.10
90.55
102.75
127.19
98.96
124.44
121.65
95.99
86.07
102.67
70.62
39.87
153.20
55.41
72.00
77.31
40.80
98.15
79.72
49.10
123.70
73.98
71.24
47.21
81.33
69.24
55.11
59.72
84.41
114.27

80.47
78.14
106.26
91.28
79.12
89.82
84.85
97.16
152.59
82.45
69.37
87.34
84.60
90.05
95.54
91.02
83.63
83.38
74.87
114.36
79.01
78.23
113.17
90.24
75.82
88.85
87.14
89.69
75.26
70.10
82.56
86.41

105.19
83.59
116.30
75.60
75.88
106.36
91.60
108.01
89.97
75.67
90.87
78.58
75.08
58.37
177.13
73.51
88.06
109.02
77.09
102.77
86.65
71.08
114.82
80.50
69.22
77.48
85.85
99.14
78.66
78.44
88.35
123.03

104.52
82.20
120.12
83.61
85.94
109.98
90.67
111.17
120.78
83.25
79.60
88.59
74.72
61.45
163.28
71.54
79.00
87.87
62.65
105.03
79.55
64.75
121.96
79.57
71.02
69.94
83.61
84.43
68.17
68.03
84.10
109.38

Isle of Wight County

James City County
King William County
Loudoun County
Mathews County
Montgomery County
New Kent County
Pittsylvania County
Powhatan County
Prince George County
Prince William County
Pulaski County
Roanoke County

VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA

90.76
93.70
90.95
102.68
92.20
95.29
89.75
89.61
94.07
90.96
106.28
91.55
96.03

75.64
97.02
56.69
116.85
52.08
95.57
43.95
42.72
44.51
66.68
106.57
84.58
110.04

77.65
79.60
79.27
81.49
72.32
85.40
80.36
80.80
74.52
75.53
94.52
83.02
80.69

79.82
106.28
102.10
113.55
78.22
102.18
72.40
66.85
65.38
81.97
115.14
103.9
98.89

75.95
92.61
77.57
104.60
66.77
93.19
64.13
62.08
61.61
73.19
107.11
88.33
95.46

County

40

State

Density
score

Land use
mix score

Activity
centering
score

Street
connectivity
score

Composite
(total) score

Rockingham County
Scott County
Spotsylvania County
Stafford County
Sussex County
Warren County
Washington County
York County
Alexandria city
Bedford city
Bristol city
Charlottesville city
Chesapeake city
Colonial Heights city
Danville city
Fairfax city
Falls Church city
Fredericksburg city
Hampton city
Harrisonburg city
Hopewell city
Lynchburg city
Manassas city
Manassas Park city
Newport News city
Norfolk city
Petersburg city
Poquoson city
Portsmouth city
Radford city
Richmond city
Roanoke city

VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA

90.09
89.25
97.94
98.78
102.08
93.50
90.49
97.29
176.94
94.78
105.00
128.80
103.40
108.95
99.84
116.97
127.12
120.16
110.55
122.83
112.29
104.80
115.54
129.66
112.21
129.98
101.48
97.09
111.16
105.79
120.46
109.84

73.51
50.38
84.86
84.11
63.80
92.21
77.47
99.00
154.32
123.63
130.60
148.33
108.24
135.66
126.20
152.84
177.53
145.13
123.19
143.99
124.58
130.42
140.36
128.88
121.94
131.46
127.00
105.92
129.35
135.40
133.06
129.71

86.01
78.01
88.47
81.07

88.78
81.92
86.14
115.16
72.04
82.35
210.83
88.28
77.65
121.82
73.00
72.72
97.72
114.92
144.42
79.39
104.85
76.57
82.19
86.53
210.96
104.35
77.55
88.86
81.24
160.69
120.97

88.97
92.28
92.55
88.85

94.07
90.19
108.50
173.76
113.62
145.26
152.37
109.52
153.60
120.33
131.05
164.07
154.28
150.96
131.80
185.81
132.31
150.36
133.50
137.18
179.44
144.23
104.32
163.76
156.21
172.23
155.62

80.60
71.54
88.57
85.09

90.07
81.06
97.13
169.56
101.29
119.97
175.93
102.98
123.97
121.54
123.34
144.69
137.06
131.48
145.19
132.25
122.87
126.17
123.45
118.28
179.57
124.34
95.22
129.42
124.84
158.90
136.69

Salem city
Suffolk city
Virginia Beach city
Williamsburg city
Winchester city
Asotin County
Benton County
Chelan County
Clark County
Cowlitz County
Douglas County
Franklin County
King County

VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA

107.30
95.77
111.75
108.92
114.03
106.62
98.56
97.97
102.63
96.07
103.94
101.59
114.85

128.88
99.14
123.10
118.37
135.13
134.33
118.73
126.31
123.40
103.40
116.98
119.22
128.93

76.93
103.14
86.61
158.90
133.91
77.00
109.61
120.30
89.55
128.01
82.17
82.23
159.34

140.41
98.02
137.93
136.03
150.19
134.97
97.28
99.04
105.28
99.00
91.30
111.14
131.70

116.91
98.76
118.77
138.61
142.10
116.72
107.64
113.78
106.59
108.37
98.23
104.48
142.60

County

41

Activity
centering
score

Street
connectivity
score

Composite
(total) score

107.82
117.02
112.71
116.86
122.39
103.71
110.62
124.46
90.23
61.03
93.32
112.81
110.72
75.67
108.14
89.16
75.55
117.16
67.70
115.77
44.98
87.87
81.82
116.84
115.40
80.84
85.15
92.46
126.20
99.68
115.50
109.78

115.62
126.32
101.76
122.73
122.32
132.90
115.26
128.18
97.70

87.28
183.48
86.79
87.64
147.64
137.78
159.67
120.10
90.00
150.91
90.63
78.21
84.99
107.75
101.30
87.75
89.40
87.63
153.67
81.91
116.85
153.06

96.04
119.43
99.87
100.03
127.12
95.16
99.00
89.38
94.03
123.52
116.81
119.12
118.07
98.81
125.60
120.37
111.67
115.01
74.66
129.79
80.67
99.34
106.16
121.08
91.01
80.59
88.50
90.90
106.96
108.53
96.62
94.09

105.81
120.78
103.48
113.62
123.13
109.35
106.54
112.84
92.67

96.34
135.99
103.07
85.44
124.48
112.53
111.91
116.02
75.31
129.14
70.06
86.98
89.48
113.37
102.26
82.35
85.86
87.68
129.63
95.30
108.70
116.57

78.00
119.03
103.67
119.38
102.58
139.35
49.35
120.79
116.53
92.07
122.63
113.90
87.72

83.48
123.52
77.23
88.95
121.29
178.96
77.77
164.21
106.77
143.31
111.62
108.04
93.45

83.09
118.90
79.49
117.4
83.21
155.69
66.91
97.96
87.76
81.67
107.68
98.59
67.27

79.07
119.67
85.01
107.65
100.38
164.06
62.99
125.91
101.95
103.61
113.40
105.70
81.19

State

Density
score

Land use
mix score

Kitsap County
Pierce County
Skagit County
Snohomish County
Spokane County
Thurston County
Whatcom County
Yakima County
Berkeley County
Boone County
Brooke County
Cabell County
Hancock County
Jefferson County
Kanawha County
Marshall County
Mineral County
Monongalia County
Morgan County
Ohio County
Preston County
Putnam County
Wayne County
Wood County
Brown County
Calumet County
Chippewa County
Columbia County
Dane County
Douglas County
Eau Claire County
Fond du Lac County

WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI

98.92
103.02
96.68
103.47
101.37
97.83
95.83
98.64
94.85
90.83
91.02
98.52
94.13
91.79
96.10
92.36
90.81
98.42
89.50
95.76
88.93
93.37
93.73
96.66
99.46
94.95
92.19
90.01
106.96
95.01
98.55
95.54

Iowa County
Kenosha County
Kewaunee County
La Crosse County
Marathon County
Milwaukee County
Oconto County
Outagamie County
Ozaukee County
Pierce County
Racine County
Rock County
St. Croix County

WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI

89.19
100.80
92.15
98.49
94.14
128.75
88.82
99.06
95.11
94.38
100.48
97.51
92.02

County

42

County

Sheboygan County
Washington County
Waukesha County
Winnebago County
Laramie County
Natrona County

State

Density
score

Land use
mix score

Activity
centering
score

Street
connectivity
score

Composite
(total) score

WI
WI
WI
WI
WY
WY

97.60
94.74
96.89
100.65
100.71
100.14

115.59
96.05
112.13
118.29
112.98
116.47

94.01
128.67
147.79
97.48
132.64
136.24

98.77
75.35
101.06
113.49
114.68
117.49

101.88
98.36
118.28
109.45
119.28
122.22

Appendix C: Quality of life analysis

In addition to analyzing development at the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and county levels,
the researchers also generated index scores for the census-defined urbanized areas (UZAs) within
MSAs. For more information about the methodology of the research and for UZA scores, see the
full report at http://gis.cancer.gov/tools/urban-sprawl/.
To provide a better understanding of what data sources informed analyses at the MSA, county and
UZA levels, an overview is below in Table C1.
TABLE C1

Data sources used to evaluate quality of life outcomes, by geographic scale

Housing affordability

Location Affordability Index27

MSA

Relationship to
sprawl
positive and significant

Transportation affordability

Location Affordability Index

MSA

negative and significant

Combined housing and

transportation affordability
Upward mobility

Location Affordability Index

MSA

negative and significant

Equality of Opportunity
databases28
American Community Survey29

MSA

negative and significant

MSA, county,
UZA
MSA, county,
UZA
MSA, county,
UZA
MSA, county,
UZA
County

positive and significant

Outcome

Average household vehicle

ownership
Percentage of commuters walking to
work
Percentage of commuters using
public transportation (excluding taxi)
Average journey-to-work drive time
in minutes
Traffic crash rate per 100,000
population
Injury crash rate per 100,000
population
Fatal crash rate per 100,000
population
Body mass index
Obesity
Any physical activity

Data Source

American Community Survey

American Community Survey
American Community Survey
States30

Geography

negative and significant

negative and significant
positive and significant
negative and significant

States

County

negative and significant

States

County

positive and significant

Behavioral Risk Factor

Surveillance System (BRFSS)31
BRFSS
BRFSS

County

positive and significant

County
County

positive and significant

not significant

43

Diagnosed high blood pressure

BRFSS

County

Relationship to
sprawl
positive and significant

Diagnosed heart disease

Diagnosed diabetes
Average life expectancy

BRFSS
BRFSS
Institute for Health Metrics and
Evaluation32

County
County
County

not significant
positive and significant
negative and significant

Outcome

Data Source

44

Geography

Endnotes
1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

12
13
14
15

16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23

This study excludes Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) with populations less than 200,000 people due to data
availability and because impacts are more difficult to measure at smaller scales.
For a more detailed explanation of how Sprawl Index scores are calculated, see Ewing, R. and Hamidi, S. (2014).
Measuring Urban Sprawl and Validating Sprawl Measures. Metropolitan Research Center, University of Utah.
Available at http://gis.cancer.gov/tools/urban-sprawl/.
The Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area includes District of Columbia,
DC; Calvert County, MD; Charles County, MD; Prince George's County, MD; Arlington County, VA; Clarke County,
VA; Culpeper County, VA; Fairfax County, VA; Fauquier County, VA; Loudoun County, VA; Prince William County,
VA; Rappahannock County, VA; Spotsylvania County, VA; Stafford County, VA; Warren County, VA; Alexandria City,
VA; Fairfax City, VA; Falls Church City, VA; Fredericksburg City, VA; Manassas City, VA; Manassas Park City, VA;
Jefferson County, WV. From: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/bulletins/2013/b-13-01.pdf.
Metropolitan areas with populations less than 200,000 were not included in this analysis.
See the full analytical report for more information on these assessments: Ewing, R. and Hamidi, S. (2014).
Measuring Urban Sprawl and Validating Sprawl Measures. Metropolitan Research Center, University of Utah.
Available at http://gis.cancer.gov/tools/urban-sprawl/.
The Equality of Opportunity Project. Retrieved March 27, 2014, from www.equality-of-opportunity.org/.
Ewing, R. and Hamidi, S. (2014). Measuring Urban Sprawl and Validating Sprawl Measures. (Page 89) Metropolitan
Research Center, University of Utah. Available at http://gis.cancer.gov/tools/urban-sprawl/.
Ewing, R. and Hamidi, S. (2014). Measuring Urban Sprawl and Validating Sprawl Measures. (Page 90). Metropolitan
Research Center, University of Utah. Available at http://gis.cancer.gov/tools/urban-sprawl/.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Location Affordability Index. Available at
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/sustainable_housing_communities/location_affordability.
See note 10.
These calculations represent a weighted average of census block group values based on transportation and housing
cost data from the HUDs Location Affordability Index. Available at
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/sustainable_housing_communities/location_affordability.
Ewing, R. and Hamidi, S. (2014). Measuring Urban Sprawl and Validating Sprawl Measures. (Pages 7374).
Metropolitan Research Center, University of Utah. Available at http://gis.cancer.gov/tools/urban-sprawl/.
Data for health outcomes is not available at the metropolitan level. The researchers use information available at the
county level to inform these conclusions.
Ewing, R. and Hamidi, S. (2014). Measuring Urban Sprawl and Validating Sprawl Measures. (Page 83). Metropolitan
Research Center, University of Utah. Available at http://gis.cancer.gov/tools/urban-sprawl/.
This calculation is based on the researchers models. According to the Center for Disease Controls Behavioral Risk
Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), the actual difference in weight is greater due to income and racial differences.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Available at
www.cdc.gov/brfss/.
City of Santa Barbara. Uses permitted in various zones. Available at
www.santabarbaraca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=17638.
City of Santa Barbara. (2011). General Plan Update. (Page 105). Available at
www.santabarbaraca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=16916.
City of Santa Barbara. (2011). Land Use Element. (p. 2). Available at
https://www.santabarbaraca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=16898.
Learn more about the County of Santa Barbaras Long Range Planning Division at
http://longrange.sbcountyplanning.org/landuse_element.php.
Learn about Madison, WIs homebuyer assistance programs at
www.cityofmadison.com/dpced/economicdevelopment/home-loans/228/.
Learn more about the Mansion HillJames Madison Park Neighborhood Small Cap TIF Loan Program from the City
of Madison's Economic Development Department at
http://www.cityofmadison.com/dpced/economicdevelopment/mansion-hill-james-madison-park-neighborhoodsmall-cap-tif-loan-program/229/.
City of Madison, WI. (2006, January). Appendix 4: City of Madison Strategic Management System Goals and
Strategies re: Growth Management. City of Madison Comprehensive Plan, Volume I. Available at
http://www.cityofmadison.com/planning/ComprehensivePlan/dplan/v1/chapter5/v1c5.pdf.
For more information about Madison, WIs comprehensive plan see
www.cityofmadison.com/planning/ComprehensivePlan/.

45

24 City of Trenton, NJ. (2004, January). Trenton Transportation Master Plan: Phase One Summary Report. Available at:
http://www.trentonnj.org/documents/housingeconomic/city_master_plan/phase%20one%20summary%20report.pdf.
25 Learn more about the Los Angeles Transit Neighborhood Plans project at www.latnp.org/.
26 City of Los Angeles. (2008, February). Ordinance No. 179681. Available at
cityplanning.lacity.org/Code_Studies/Housing/DensityBonus.pdf.
27 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Location Affordability Index. Available at
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/sustainable_housing_communities/location_affordability.
28 The Equality of Opportunity Project. Mobility in All Commuting Zones. Available at
www.equality-of-opportunity.org/index.php/city-rankings/city-rankings-all.
29 U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey. Available at www.census.gov/acs/www/.
30 Crash data were obtained from all states via online databases or email/phone request. Survey years ranged from
2008 to 2011, with the majority between 2010 and 2011. The individual state crash data were compiled into a
national database that includes nearly 6.1 million crashes, 1.8 million injury crashes and 30,000 fatal crashes.
31 See note 15.
32 Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. Available at www.healthmetricsandevaluation.org/.

46

Smart Growth America is the only national organization dedicated to researching,

advocating for and leading coalitions to bring better development to more
communities nationwide. From providing more sidewalks to ensuring more homes
are built near public transportation or that productive farms remain a part of our
communities, smart growth helps make sure people across the nation can live in
great neighborhoods. For more information visit www.smartgrowthamerica.org.