Jones Lang LaSalle
Study finds transit village brings far fewer children
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
By DARRYL R. ISHERWOOD
Staff Writer
A study conducted by Rutgers University may answer the question of whether residential developments planned near train stations in several townships in the state, including Hamilton, will attract families with large numbers of children who end up overburdening local schools.
The study, completed by researchers at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy shows what supporters of the so-called "transit village" concept have long preached: the villages produce far fewer children -- an average of two per 100 homes -- than similar-sized housing farther from a transit hub.
Though the report has not been officially released, a copy of the draft was obtained by The Times.
"While this analysis is preliminary and one should continue to monitor the demographics of (Transit-Oriented Developments -- TODs) over time, the above-cited evidence suggests that TODs generate relatively few public school children," the report says.
The study, which, according to a summary in the report, was paid for by the state Office of Smart Growth, looked at developments surrounding several existing transit hubs throughout the state, including projects in South Orange, New Brunswick, Morristown, Metuchen and West New York.
To determine the actual number of children who live in each development, researchers contacted the school boards in those municipalities to find out the number of children enrolled in public schools.
The number of students in the developments ranged from 0 to 45 per 100 homes, with an average among the 10 developments of two children per 100 homes.
Contacted yesterday, a spokesman for the state Department of Community Affairs (DCA) said the Office of Smart Growth was one of several agencies that funded the study, including the Urban Land Institute and the New Jersey Redevelopment Association.
Spokesman Sean Darcy said the agency could not comment on the report because it is still a draft and has not officially been made public.
The data is in line with an earlier study of transit-oriented developments throughout the state that put the average at about 1.7 children per 100 homes with a range of 0 to 10 per 100 homes.
The battle over the number of school children who will eventually live in transit villages has raged since the concept was introduced at the beginning of the decade.
Perhaps nowhere has it been as passionate as in Hamilton, where developers have proposed 980 homes near the NJ Transit station.
Officials have repeatedly said that the new development would not be a burden on the schools and the more than $10 million in tax revenue will far outweigh the cost to the school system.
Opponents have said the village could produce hundreds of children that would fill local elementary schools already packed to capacity.
The long-awaited Rutgers study bolsters township officials' claims that transit villages create a positive tax revenue with little or no negative impact on the schools.
Using the Rutgers numbers, Hamilton can expect fewer than 20 additional school-age children to live in the development when it is complete.
The report provides the first "real world" numbers for transit-oriented development and may finally settle the debate.
But reached yesterday, Rutgers researcher David Listokin, who wrote the report, said that in demographics, issues are rarely put to bed.
"I think this is empirical information that was not available before," Listokin said. "I think it will provide a basis for further discussion, but the numbers speak for themselves."
Listokin said because the report is only a draft he could not comment further on the findings or the criteria for choosing the developments used in the study.
The report is scheduled to be made public this summer, Listokin said, and it will likely be "fine tuned" before then.
Hamilton officials were ecstatic over the numbers, saying they are another reason to move forward with the development, which has drawn intense fire from critics in the past two years.
"The experience nationwide has been that there are dramatically fewer school children and, indeed, very few school children at all that tend to live at transit villages," said Mayor Glen Gilmore, who has long been a proponent of the development by the Hamilton station.
"It's part of the nature of the setting that is being created at the transit village that few children will live there."
A spokesman for NJ Transit, which owns the land surrounding the station and is developing 300 of the 980 homes, said the study should help put fears to rest.
"This study should serve to reassure the people of Hamilton that the transit-oriented development will provide many benefits without draining township resources," said spokesman Dan Stessel.
But opponents of the project believe the numbers are skewed and point to a report issued by the Hamilton school board in November that showed the development could add as many as 290 new children to the already crowded district.
"If you ask a reasonable person in Hamilton Township, I think it would be a tough sell that out of 900-plus units they will only generate 18 children," said school Superintendent Neil Bencivengo. "It's very difficult for a reasonable person to believe that data is accurate."
That study, conducted by Connecticut-based demographer Stanton Leggett and Associates, used traditional housing numbers and did not take into account the development's location near the train station, the researcher who completed the report told The Times in November.
That report also took into account more than 100 new affordable homes the township will need to build to meet its state-mandated requirements. Those homes, Bencivengo said, are likely to produce as many as 100 to 150 additional children for the schools.
Gilmore addressed the school's concerns and the November report, saying the school district would be irresponsible to ignore the Rutgers numbers when deciding on whether to build new schools in the township.
"It would be irresponsible for anyone to ignore those facts and those studies and go on a spending spree where the evidence doesn't justify it," Gilmore said.
The Rutgers report, titled "Who Lives in New Jersey Housing? A Quick Guide to New Jersey Residential Demographic Multipliers," contains information on several types of housing, from one-bedroom rentals to four- and five-bedroom, single-family homes.
The study also took into account home values for each type and size of home, showing demographics for homes both above and below median home value. In nearly all instances, homes valued below the state's median produced more children than those valued above the median.
In some cases the disparity is dramatic, with three times the number of public school children coming from homes below median value as from those homes above.
Contact Darryl Isherwood at disherwood@njtimes.com or at (609) 989-5708.
© 2006 The Times of Trenton
© 2006 NJ.com All Rights Reserved.
Study finds transit village brings far fewer children
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
By DARRYL R. ISHERWOOD
Staff Writer
A study conducted by Rutgers University may answer the question of whether residential developments planned near train stations in several townships in the state, including Hamilton, will attract families with large numbers of children who end up overburdening local schools.
The study, completed by researchers at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy shows what supporters of the so-called "transit village" concept have long preached: the villages produce far fewer children -- an average of two per 100 homes -- than similar-sized housing farther from a transit hub.
Though the report has not been officially released, a copy of the draft was obtained by The Times.
"While this analysis is preliminary and one should continue to monitor the demographics of (Transit-Oriented Developments -- TODs) over time, the above-cited evidence suggests that TODs generate relatively few public school children," the report says.
The study, which, according to a summary in the report, was paid for by the state Office of Smart Growth, looked at developments surrounding several existing transit hubs throughout the state, including projects in South Orange, New Brunswick, Morristown, Metuchen and West New York.
To determine the actual number of children who live in each development, researchers contacted the school boards in those municipalities to find out the number of children enrolled in public schools.
The number of students in the developments ranged from 0 to 45 per 100 homes, with an average among the 10 developments of two children per 100 homes.
Contacted yesterday, a spokesman for the state Department of Community Affairs (DCA) said the Office of Smart Growth was one of several agencies that funded the study, including the Urban Land Institute and the New Jersey Redevelopment Association.
Spokesman Sean Darcy said the agency could not comment on the report because it is still a draft and has not officially been made public.
The data is in line with an earlier study of transit-oriented developments throughout the state that put the average at about 1.7 children per 100 homes with a range of 0 to 10 per 100 homes.
The battle over the number of school children who will eventually live in transit villages has raged since the concept was introduced at the beginning of the decade.
Perhaps nowhere has it been as passionate as in Hamilton, where developers have proposed 980 homes near the NJ Transit station.
Officials have repeatedly said that the new development would not be a burden on the schools and the more than $10 million in tax revenue will far outweigh the cost to the school system.
Opponents have said the village could produce hundreds of children that would fill local elementary schools already packed to capacity.
The long-awaited Rutgers study bolsters township officials' claims that transit villages create a positive tax revenue with little or no negative impact on the schools.
Using the Rutgers numbers, Hamilton can expect fewer than 20 additional school-age children to live in the development when it is complete.
The report provides the first "real world" numbers for transit-oriented development and may finally settle the debate.
But reached yesterday, Rutgers researcher David Listokin, who wrote the report, said that in demographics, issues are rarely put to bed.
"I think this is empirical information that was not available before," Listokin said. "I think it will provide a basis for further discussion, but the numbers speak for themselves."
Listokin said because the report is only a draft he could not comment further on the findings or the criteria for choosing the developments used in the study.
The report is scheduled to be made public this summer, Listokin said, and it will likely be "fine tuned" before then.
Hamilton officials were ecstatic over the numbers, saying they are another reason to move forward with the development, which has drawn intense fire from critics in the past two years.
"The experience nationwide has been that there are dramatically fewer school children and, indeed, very few school children at all that tend to live at transit villages," said Mayor Glen Gilmore, who has long been a proponent of the development by the Hamilton station.
"It's part of the nature of the setting that is being created at the transit village that few children will live there."
A spokesman for NJ Transit, which owns the land surrounding the station and is developing 300 of the 980 homes, said the study should help put fears to rest.
"This study should serve to reassure the people of Hamilton that the transit-oriented development will provide many benefits without draining township resources," said spokesman Dan Stessel.
But opponents of the project believe the numbers are skewed and point to a report issued by the Hamilton school board in November that showed the development could add as many as 290 new children to the already crowded district.
"If you ask a reasonable person in Hamilton Township, I think it would be a tough sell that out of 900-plus units they will only generate 18 children," said school Superintendent Neil Bencivengo. "It's very difficult for a reasonable person to believe that data is accurate."
That study, conducted by Connecticut-based demographer Stanton Leggett and Associates, used traditional housing numbers and did not take into account the development's location near the train station, the researcher who completed the report told The Times in November.
That report also took into account more than 100 new affordable homes the township will need to build to meet its state-mandated requirements. Those homes, Bencivengo said, are likely to produce as many as 100 to 150 additional children for the schools.
Gilmore addressed the school's concerns and the November report, saying the school district would be irresponsible to ignore the Rutgers numbers when deciding on whether to build new schools in the township.
"It would be irresponsible for anyone to ignore those facts and those studies and go on a spending spree where the evidence doesn't justify it," Gilmore said.
The Rutgers report, titled "Who Lives in New Jersey Housing? A Quick Guide to New Jersey Residential Demographic Multipliers," contains information on several types of housing, from one-bedroom rentals to four- and five-bedroom, single-family homes.
The study also took into account home values for each type and size of home, showing demographics for homes both above and below median home value. In nearly all instances, homes valued below the state's median produced more children than those valued above the median.
In some cases the disparity is dramatic, with three times the number of public school children coming from homes below median value as from those homes above.
Contact Darryl Isherwood at disherwood@njtimes.com or at (609) 989-5708.
© 2006 The Times of Trenton
© 2006 NJ.com All Rights Reserved.
posted by Jones Lang LaSalle NJ News Blog at 3:00 PM
<< Home