Creating Places To Age in New Jersey municipal data
•
1 like•794 views
Data for every municipality in New Jersey on number and percent of older residents, and where the municipality scored on New Jersey Future's Creating age-friendliness indicators.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
More from New Jersey Future
More from New Jersey Future (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Creating Places To Age in New Jersey municipal data
- 1. Places To Age in New Jersey Individual Municipal Scores on Four Metrics of Aging‐Friendliness scoring well on aging-friendliness metrics: county Atlantic Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Burlington Burlington Burlington Camden Camden Camden Camden Cape May Cumberland Essex Essex Essex Essex Essex Essex Essex Essex Essex Essex Gloucester Gloucester Gloucester Hudson Hudson Hudson municipality name Ventnor City Bergenfield Cliffside Park Dumont Elmwood Park Englewood Englewood Cliffs Fair Lawn Fairview Fort Lee Garfield Hackensack Hasbrouck Heights Leonia Little Ferry Lodi Lyndhurst Maywood New Milford North Arlington Palisades Park Ridgefield Park River Edge Rochelle Park Rutherford Saddle Brook South Hackensack Twp. Teaneck Wallington Westwood Wood‐Ridge Bordentown city Mount Holly Riverside Audubon Camden Collingswood Haddon Twp. Wildwood Bridgeton Belleville Bloomfield Caldwell Orange East Orange Irvington Maplewood Montclair Newark Nutley Swedesboro Westville Woodbury Bayonne East Newark Guttenberg # of compactness contains local road bus stop density density metrics (top 3 net at least activity density one "good" or "good" or scoring better well center better categories) yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 net activity density category small city / urban suburb small city / urban suburb urban small city / urban suburb small city / urban suburb dense suburban / small town dense suburban / small town dense suburban / small town urban urban urban urban small city / urban suburb dense suburban / small town small city / urban suburb small city / urban suburb small city / urban suburb small city / urban suburb dense suburban / small town dense suburban / small town urban small city / urban suburb dense suburban / small town small city / urban suburb small city / urban suburb dense suburban / small town small city / urban suburb small city / urban suburb small city / urban suburb dense suburban / small town dense suburban / small town dense suburban / small town dense suburban / small town dense suburban / small town dense suburban / small town small city / urban suburb dense suburban / small town dense suburban / small town dense suburban / small town dense suburban / small town small city / urban suburb small city / urban suburb dense suburban / small town urban urban urban dense suburban / small town dense suburban / small town urban small city / urban suburb urban dense suburban / small town small city / urban suburb small city / urban suburb urban urban Page 1 of 11 presence of a center center center center center center contains ≥ 1 center center contains ≥ 1 center center center center contains ≥ 1 center center center center center contains ≥ 1 center center center center center center center center center center contains ≥ 1 center contains ≥ 1 center center center center center center center center contains ≥ 1 center center contains ≥ 1 center center contains ≥ 1 center contains ≥ 1 center contains ≥ 1 center center center contains ≥ 1 center center contains ≥ 1 center contains ≥ 1 center contains ≥ 1 center contains ≥ 1 center center center center contains ≥ 1 center center center road 2010 density bus access Census population category level population 55+ % 55+ % 55 to 64 % 65 to 84 % 85+ high very high very high very high high good good high high high very high high very high good good high good high very high good high high high high high good good high high high high good good high high high very high high very high good high high good high high very high good high good high good good high good very high very high 34.6% 25.7% 29.7% 27.6% 27.2% 26.7% 38.2% 30.7% 21.2% 35.3% 22.5% 24.0% 28.6% 29.4% 25.9% 24.8% 27.9% 28.9% 28.2% 29.6% 22.9% 24.7% 26.2% 33.6% 26.2% 29.1% 26.8% 28.0% 26.7% 29.0% 28.5% 27.6% 22.5% 21.4% 26.4% 15.8% 26.4% 30.0% 26.2% 13.6% 23.4% 23.8% 27.5% 21.2% 22.3% 20.0% 22.9% 24.1% 17.5% 27.7% 18.6% 23.3% 25.0% 25.5% 16.0% 22.0% 14.7% 12.6% 12.2% 12.1% 12.5% 12.5% 14.1% 14.4% 9.1% 13.5% 11.3% 11.6% 13.6% 14.3% 12.7% 11.7% 12.3% 13.2% 12.5% 13.3% 11.5% 12.2% 12.4% 13.6% 12.6% 12.5% 10.8% 13.1% 13.2% 12.4% 13.8% 14.1% 11.5% 10.9% 13.2% 8.2% 12.9% 12.8% 12.7% 6.5% 11.5% 11.8% 11.5% 10.0% 10.5% 11.1% 11.9% 12.8% 8.9% 13.2% 8.6% 11.6% 11.0% 12.3% 8.8% 10.6% 16.8% 11.0% 14.7% 13.3% 12.2% 12.3% 20.6% 13.2% 10.1% 18.5% 9.3% 10.6% 12.6% 13.1% 11.6% 10.7% 13.1% 12.9% 12.9% 13.5% 10.2% 11.0% 11.4% 15.8% 11.3% 13.4% 13.5% 12.4% 10.9% 13.6% 12.4% 11.1% 9.6% 9.0% 11.0% 6.8% 10.5% 13.9% 12.0% 6.1% 10.1% 9.9% 13.0% 9.7% 10.3% 8.1% 8.7% 9.5% 7.7% 12.0% 8.4% 10.2% 11.2% 11.2% 6.7% 10.1% 3.1% 2.0% 2.8% 2.2% 2.5% 1.9% 3.4% 3.1% 1.9% 3.4% 1.9% 1.8% 2.4% 2.0% 1.6% 2.4% 2.6% 2.8% 2.9% 2.8% 1.2% 1.5% 2.4% 4.1% 2.2% 3.1% 2.5% 2.5% 2.6% 3.0% 2.4% 2.4% 1.5% 1.6% 2.2% 0.7% 3.0% 3.3% 1.5% 1.1% 1.7% 2.0% 3.1% 1.4% 1.5% 0.9% 2.3% 1.8% 0.8% 2.5% 1.6% 1.4% 2.8% 2.1% 0.5% 1.3% excellent excellent excellent excellent excellent excellent good excellent excellent excellent excellent excellent excellent excellent excellent excellent excellent excellent excellent good excellent excellent excellent excellent excellent excellent excellent excellent excellent good excellent excellent good good excellent excellent excellent excellent good good excellent excellent excellent excellent excellent excellent good excellent excellent excellent excellent excellent excellent excellent excellent excellent 10,650 26,764 23,594 17,479 19,403 27,147 5,281 32,457 13,835 35,345 30,487 43,010 11,842 8,937 10,626 24,136 20,554 9,555 16,341 15,392 19,622 12,729 11,340 5,530 18,061 13,659 2,378 39,776 11,335 10,908 7,626 3,924 9,536 8,079 8,819 77,344 13,926 14,707 5,325 25,349 35,926 47,315 7,822 30,134 64,270 53,926 23,867 37,669 277,140 28,370 2,584 4,288 10,174 63,024 2,406 11,176 3,684 6,872 7,018 4,821 5,276 7,255 2,017 9,978 2,928 12,474 6,860 10,321 3,389 2,629 2,749 5,983 5,744 2,760 4,615 4,550 4,487 3,144 2,972 1,856 4,725 3,972 637 11,136 3,031 3,161 2,173 1,083 2,146 1,727 2,324 12,213 3,676 4,418 1,396 3,450 8,409 11,254 2,154 6,385 14,349 10,791 5,472 9,092 48,496 7,868 481 997 2,546 16,058 386 2,456
- 2. Places To Age in New Jersey Individual Municipal Scores on Four Metrics of Aging‐Friendliness scoring well on aging-friendliness metrics: county Hudson Hudson Hudson Hudson Hudson Hudson Hudson Hunterdon Mercer Mercer Middlesex Middlesex Middlesex Middlesex Middlesex Middlesex Middlesex Middlesex Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Morris Morris Morris Passaic Passaic Passaic Passaic Passaic Passaic Passaic Somerset Somerset Somerset Union Union Union Union Union Union Union Union Union Warren municipality name Harrison Hoboken Jersey City North Bergen Union City Weehawken West New York Flemington Princeton borough Trenton Carteret Dunellen Highland Park New Brunswick Perth Amboy South Amboy South River Woodbridge Twp. Asbury Park Belmar Freehold borough Highlands Keansburg Keyport Long Branch Manasquan Neptune City Red Bank Dover Morristown Rockaway borough Clifton Haledon Hawthorne Passaic Paterson Totowa Woodland Park Bound Brook North Plainfield Somerville Cranford Elizabeth Hillside Kenilworth Plainfield Rahway Roselle Roselle Park Union Phillipsburg # of compactness contains local road bus stop density density metrics (top 3 net at least activity density one "good" or "good" or scoring better well center better categories) yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 net activity density category urban urban urban urban urban urban urban small city / urban suburb urban urban dense suburban / small town dense suburban / small town small city / urban suburb urban urban dense suburban / small town dense suburban / small town dense suburban / small town small city / urban suburb dense suburban / small town small city / urban suburb small city / urban suburb small city / urban suburb dense suburban / small town dense suburban / small town dense suburban / small town dense suburban / small town urban small city / urban suburb urban dense suburban / small town small city / urban suburb small city / urban suburb dense suburban / small town urban urban dense suburban / small town dense suburban / small town small city / urban suburb small city / urban suburb small city / urban suburb dense suburban / small town small city / urban suburb small city / urban suburb dense suburban / small town small city / urban suburb small city / urban suburb small city / urban suburb small city / urban suburb small city / urban suburb dense suburban / small town municipalities scoring well on three of the four metrics: Page 2 of 11 presence of a center center center contains ≥ 1 center contains ≥ 1 center center center center center center contains ≥ 1 center contains ≥ 1 center center center contains ≥ 1 center contains ≥ 1 center center center contains ≥ 1 center center center center center center center contains ≥ 1 center center center center center center center contains ≥ 1 center center contains ≥ 1 center contains ≥ 1 center contains ≥ 1 center contains ≥ 1 center center center center center contains ≥ 1 center contains ≥ 1 center center center contains ≥ 1 center contains ≥ 1 center center center contains ≥ 1 center contains ≥ 1 center road 2010 density bus access Census population category level population 55+ % 55+ % 55 to 64 % 65 to 84 % 85+ good very high good good very high high very high good good high good high high good high good high good very high very high good high very high high high high high high good good good high good high very high very high good good good high good high good high good high high high very high good high 19.8% 11.8% 18.7% 24.2% 19.6% 22.4% 21.2% 20.4% 16.7% 18.1% 20.9% 20.6% 22.7% 10.0% 18.3% 24.6% 22.3% 24.5% 20.4% 28.4% 19.8% 29.0% 21.8% 27.6% 22.0% 31.2% 29.8% 22.3% 20.4% 21.5% 26.0% 26.1% 20.2% 26.8% 15.9% 18.5% 31.5% 31.5% 19.5% 18.7% 20.6% 29.7% 18.7% 24.3% 27.8% 19.0% 25.4% 23.8% 22.6% 26.1% 23.5% 10.6% 5.5% 9.6% 10.8% 9.1% 10.1% 9.2% 10.1% 6.5% 9.3% 10.1% 10.9% 11.2% 4.9% 9.1% 13.3% 10.5% 11.9% 10.0% 13.6% 8.8% 16.1% 11.0% 11.8% 10.7% 14.9% 14.4% 9.6% 9.8% 10.0% 13.7% 12.2% 9.7% 12.4% 8.2% 9.5% 13.5% 13.9% 9.4% 10.3% 9.6% 12.5% 9.5% 12.5% 12.2% 9.5% 11.9% 11.8% 11.5% 12.1% 10.3% 8.2% 5.4% 8.0% 11.4% 9.2% 10.9% 10.5% 8.4% 8.6% 7.6% 9.1% 8.4% 9.2% 4.4% 7.9% 9.7% 9.9% 10.9% 9.1% 12.9% 8.7% 12.1% 8.8% 13.3% 9.5% 14.3% 12.4% 9.9% 8.8% 9.4% 10.7% 11.3% 8.9% 11.8% 6.6% 8.0% 15.0% 15.6% 8.7% 7.3% 9.3% 13.6% 8.0% 10.6% 12.5% 8.3% 11.4% 10.5% 9.5% 11.5% 11.1% 1.1% 0.9% 1.0% 2.1% 1.3% 1.4% 1.5% 1.9% 1.6% 1.2% 1.7% 1.3% 2.4% 0.8% 1.3% 1.6% 2.0% 1.7% 1.3% 1.9% 2.3% 0.8% 2.0% 2.5% 1.8% 2.0% 3.0% 2.8% 1.7% 2.1% 1.6% 2.6% 1.6% 2.6% 1.1% 0.9% 3.1% 2.1% 1.5% 1.1% 1.6% 3.6% 1.2% 1.3% 3.1% 1.2% 2.1% 1.5% 1.7% 2.6% 2.1% excellent excellent excellent excellent excellent excellent excellent good excellent excellent good good excellent excellent excellent excellent good good excellent good good excellent excellent good good good excellent excellent good good good excellent excellent good excellent excellent excellent good good good good good excellent excellent excellent excellent excellent excellent excellent excellent excellent 13,620 50,005 247,597 60,773 66,455 12,554 49,708 4,581 12,307 84,913 22,844 7,227 13,982 55,181 50,814 8,631 16,008 99,585 16,116 5,794 12,052 5,005 10,105 7,240 30,719 5,897 4,869 12,206 18,157 18,411 6,438 84,136 8,318 18,791 69,781 146,199 10,804 11,819 10,402 21,936 12,098 22,625 124,969 21,404 7,914 49,808 27,346 21,085 13,297 56,642 14,950 2,702 5,912 46,213 14,736 13,036 2,806 10,524 936 2,057 15,369 4,768 1,487 3,179 5,530 9,318 2,122 3,573 24,431 3,283 1,646 2,384 1,449 2,206 1,997 6,764 1,841 1,450 2,720 3,697 3,955 1,674 21,987 1,679 5,042 11,113 26,981 3,408 3,722 2,032 4,101 2,493 6,725 23,350 5,203 2,199 9,457 6,943 5,013 3,011 14,799 3,513
- 3. Places To Age in New Jersey Individual Municipal Scores on Four Metrics of Aging‐Friendliness scoring well on aging-friendliness metrics: county municipality name Atlantic Atlantic Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Burlington Burlington Burlington Burlington Burlington Burlington Camden Camden Camden Camden Camden Camden Cape May Cape May Cape May Cape May Essex Essex Hudson Hudson Hunterdon Mercer Mercer Mercer Middlesex Middlesex Middlesex Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Morris Morris Ocean Ocean Passaic Passaic Passaic Salem Somerset Sussex Union Union Atlantic City Pleasantville Bogota Carlstadt East Rutherford Edgewater Paramus Ridgefield Tenafly Beverly Burlington city Maple Shade Palmyra Riverton Willingboro Audubon Park Gloucester City Haddonfield Merchantville Oaklyn Woodlynne Avalon North Wildwood Stone Harbor West Cape May South Orange Verona Kearny Secaucus Lambertville Hightstown Hopewell borough Pennington Jamesburg Metuchen Milltown Atlantic Highlands Bradley Beach Englishtown Farmingdale Matawan Lake Como Spring Lake Boonton town Victory Gardens Lakehurst Seaside Heights Little Falls Pompton Lakes Prospect Park Woodstown South Bound Brook Sussex Garwood New Providence # of compactness contains local road bus stop density density metrics (top 3 net at least activity density one "good" or "good" or scoring better well center better categories) yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes -------yes --yes yes yes ----yes yes yes yes yes yes -yes yes yes --yes yes yes yes yes --yes yes yes yes -yes -yes yes yes -- yes --yes yes yes -yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes -yes yes ---yes yes yes yes yes -yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes -yes yes --yes yes -yes yes -yes -yes yes yes -yes -yes yes ---yes -yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes --yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes -yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes -yes yes yes --yes ---yes yes yes yes -yes yes yes yes yes --yes yes yes yes --yes yes 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 net activity density category presence of a center road 2010 density bus access Census population category level population 55+ urban dense suburban / small town small city / urban suburb dense suburban / small town dense suburban / small town urban dense suburban / small town dense suburban / small town moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban dense suburban / small town moderate suburban moderate suburban dense suburban / small town dense suburban / small town urban large‐lot moderate suburban low‐density suburban low‐density suburban dense suburban / small town dense suburban / small town small city / urban suburb small city / urban suburb dense suburban / small town dense suburban / small town moderate suburban dense suburban / small town small city / urban suburb dense suburban / small town moderate suburban moderate suburban dense suburban / small town small city / urban suburb urban dense suburban / small town dense suburban / small town low‐density suburban moderate suburban small city / urban suburb dense suburban / small town dense suburban / small town dense suburban / small town moderate suburban urban moderate suburban dense suburban / small town dense suburban / small town dense suburban / small town moderate suburban contains ≥ 1 center no centers identified no centers identified contains ≥ 1 center contains ≥ 1 center center no centers identified contains single center contains ≥ 1 center center contains ≥ 1 center contains ≥ 1 center contains single center center contains single center no centers identified center center no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified contains single center center center contains single center center no centers identified contains ≥ 1 center contains ≥ 1 center center center center center center center center center no centers identified center center no centers identified no centers identified center center no centers identified center center no centers identified center no centers identified center center center no centers identified contains ≥ 1 center medium good very high medium medium medium good medium good high good good good good high high good high high high very high good very high very high good high good medium medium good good good good high good high high very high medium good good very high very high good high good high good good high good high good high good Page 3 of 11 excellent excellent excellent excellent good excellent excellent excellent good excellent good good good excellent good good good good excellent excellent excellent good excellent good good medium good excellent excellent none none good low low medium good good good excellent none excellent excellent good good good none medium excellent good excellent good low none excellent good 39,558 20,249 8,187 6,127 8,913 11,513 26,342 11,032 14,488 2,577 9,920 19,131 7,398 2,779 31,629 1,023 11,456 11,593 3,821 4,038 2,978 1,334 4,041 866 1,024 16,198 13,332 40,684 16,264 3,906 5,494 1,922 2,585 5,915 13,574 6,893 4,385 4,298 1,847 1,329 8,810 1,759 2,993 8,347 1,520 2,654 2,887 14,432 11,097 5,865 3,505 4,563 2,130 4,226 12,171 9,474 4,099 1,964 1,676 2,267 2,488 9,259 2,912 3,587 641 2,614 4,770 2,022 902 9,108 386 2,712 3,418 981 996 426 849 2,010 531 513 3,631 4,317 8,878 4,539 1,398 1,176 499 855 1,107 3,679 1,915 1,336 1,226 386 325 2,018 380 1,338 2,124 227 440 542 3,419 2,755 1,034 934 956 527 1,150 3,116 % 55+ % 55 to 64 % 65 to 84 % 85+ 23.9% 20.2% 24.0% 27.4% 25.4% 21.6% 35.1% 26.4% 24.8% 24.9% 26.4% 24.9% 27.3% 32.5% 28.8% 37.7% 23.7% 29.5% 25.7% 24.7% 14.3% 63.6% 49.7% 61.3% 50.1% 22.4% 32.4% 21.8% 27.9% 35.8% 21.4% 26.0% 33.1% 18.7% 27.1% 27.8% 30.5% 28.5% 20.9% 24.5% 22.9% 21.6% 44.7% 25.4% 14.9% 16.6% 18.8% 23.7% 24.8% 17.6% 26.6% 21.0% 24.7% 27.2% 25.6% 11.2% 9.6% 12.3% 12.0% 12.0% 10.0% 13.3% 12.1% 11.3% 13.5% 10.7% 11.7% 14.2% 14.5% 12.9% 11.7% 10.9% 14.5% 12.8% 13.3% 8.2% 23.2% 19.2% 19.7% 21.6% 11.9% 13.1% 11.1% 12.3% 18.4% 11.8% 14.9% 15.3% 10.2% 13.3% 12.9% 14.9% 14.6% 10.8% 14.1% 11.2% 11.1% 17.3% 12.3% 8.7% 9.6% 10.5% 10.7% 12.2% 9.5% 12.2% 12.0% 12.5% 12.0% 11.7% 11.2% 9.1% 10.3% 13.0% 11.7% 9.4% 17.1% 12.0% 11.3% 10.1% 12.9% 11.1% 11.1% 11.8% 14.6% 24.2% 11.1% 12.5% 10.8% 9.5% 5.4% 34.9% 27.4% 35.0% 24.4% 8.7% 15.3% 9.3% 13.4% 14.9% 7.9% 9.9% 12.9% 7.5% 11.7% 12.6% 13.7% 12.1% 6.9% 8.7% 9.8% 9.0% 24.2% 10.8% 6.0% 6.3% 7.3% 10.8% 10.8% 7.2% 12.2% 7.8% 10.3% 12.5% 11.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.4% 2.4% 1.8% 2.2% 4.8% 2.3% 2.2% 1.3% 2.8% 2.1% 2.0% 6.1% 1.3% 1.8% 1.7% 2.4% 2.1% 1.9% 0.7% 5.5% 3.1% 6.6% 4.1% 1.9% 4.0% 1.4% 2.2% 2.5% 1.7% 1.2% 4.9% 1.0% 2.1% 2.2% 1.9% 1.9% 3.2% 1.7% 1.9% 1.5% 3.2% 2.4% 0.3% 0.6% 1.0% 2.2% 1.8% 1.0% 2.3% 1.1% 1.9% 2.7% 2.3%
- 4. Places To Age in New Jersey Individual Municipal Scores on Four Metrics of Aging‐Friendliness scoring well on aging-friendliness metrics: county Union Union Union municipality name Summit Westfield Winfield # of compactness contains local road bus stop density density metrics (top 3 net at least activity density one "good" or "good" or scoring better well center better categories) --yes yes yes -- yes yes yes yes yes yes 3 3 3 net activity density category moderate suburban moderate suburban dense suburban / small town presence of a center contains ≥ 1 center contains ≥ 1 center no centers identified -yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes -yes yes yes ---yes -yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes --yes yes yes -- yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes -yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes -yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes ------yes yes yes yes yes yes 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 moderate suburban moderate suburban low‐density suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban dense suburban / small town dense suburban / small town moderate suburban moderate suburban dense suburban / small town moderate suburban low‐density suburban low‐density suburban low‐density suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban dense suburban / small town moderate suburban low‐density suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban low‐density suburban moderate suburban low‐density suburban low‐density suburban moderate suburban low‐density suburban low‐density suburban moderate suburban low‐density suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban contains single center no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified contains single center contains single center no centers identified contains single center no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified contains single center center contains single center center center center contains ≥ 1 center contains single center no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified contains ≥ 1 center road 2010 density bus access Census population category level population 55+ % 55+ % 55 to 64 % 65 to 84 % 85+ good high high good good excellent 21,457 30,316 1,471 4,921 7,605 444 22.9% 25.1% 30.2% 11.1% 12.0% 14.3% 9.8% 10.6% 13.5% 2.0% 2.5% 2.3% low good very high very high good good high good high high medium high good high low medium medium good medium good good good good good good high very high good good high high good good high high good very high high high high very high low low good good high medium good excellent excellent excellent good good good good good good good none good good excellent good good excellent good good good medium good excellent excellent excellent good good excellent good excellent excellent excellent good excellent medium none medium low none none good good excellent good good good 4,243 7,092 895 6,354 8,624 10,795 8,573 7,401 11,601 7,128 2,708 4,640 7,978 24,958 67 22,594 4,283 540 12,109 1,409 6,983 1,955 71,045 1,634 5,000 7,473 1,908 2,945 17,613 4,341 4,676 35,885 8,468 5,151 7,040 3,607 291 11,701 2,114 603 3,270 2,472 28,400 12,411 2,113 7,527 29,366 964 2,311 516 3,162 2,410 3,051 2,566 2,359 2,994 2,038 815 1,198 2,431 6,213 14 5,116 1,287 111 3,316 439 2,011 446 22,115 543 1,166 2,263 478 902 3,575 1,048 1,249 8,887 2,250 1,444 1,779 1,465 241 5,568 1,181 278 1,370 668 7,139 4,726 623 1,597 8,818 22.7% 32.6% 57.7% 49.8% 27.9% 28.3% 29.9% 31.9% 25.8% 28.6% 30.1% 25.8% 30.5% 24.9% 20.9% 22.6% 30.0% 20.6% 27.4% 31.2% 28.8% 22.8% 31.1% 33.2% 23.3% 30.3% 25.1% 30.6% 20.3% 24.1% 26.7% 24.8% 26.6% 28.0% 25.3% 40.6% 82.8% 47.6% 55.9% 46.1% 41.9% 27.0% 25.1% 38.1% 29.5% 21.2% 30.0% 10.9% 14.5% 20.0% 18.1% 11.9% 13.7% 12.6% 12.0% 12.9% 12.6% 13.9% 11.2% 13.9% 12.4% 7.5% 10.6% 14.0% 10.0% 14.7% 17.9% 13.0% 11.6% 13.4% 13.5% 12.3% 14.3% 13.0% 13.3% 10.9% 12.0% 12.7% 11.9% 11.9% 12.7% 11.0% 13.0% 27.1% 17.9% 23.6% 18.4% 15.5% 13.8% 11.9% 14.3% 13.3% 11.7% 13.2% 10.0% 14.2% 31.7% 26.8% 13.2% 12.7% 13.5% 15.0% 10.8% 12.8% 14.1% 12.8% 13.9% 10.4% 11.9% 9.3% 14.7% 9.6% 11.1% 12.0% 13.5% 9.5% 14.6% 16.1% 9.8% 12.8% 10.2% 15.5% 8.4% 10.6% 11.4% 10.9% 12.4% 13.3% 12.0% 23.6% 47.8% 24.7% 28.4% 24.5% 22.6% 11.9% 11.4% 17.7% 13.9% 8.2% 13.9% 1.8% 3.9% 5.9% 4.9% 2.9% 1.9% 3.8% 4.9% 2.1% 3.2% 2.0% 1.9% 2.7% 2.1% 1.5% 2.7% 1.4% 0.9% 1.6% 1.3% 2.3% 1.7% 3.1% 3.6% 1.3% 3.1% 1.9% 1.8% 1.0% 1.6% 2.5% 2.0% 2.3% 2.1% 2.3% 4.0% 7.9% 4.9% 3.9% 3.2% 3.8% 1.3% 1.8% 6.1% 2.3% 1.3% 2.9% municipalities scoring well on two of the four metrics: Atlantic Atlantic Atlantic Atlantic Atlantic Atlantic Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Burlington Burlington Burlington Burlington Burlington Camden Camden Camden Camden Camden Camden Camden Camden Camden Camden Camden Camden Camden Camden Camden Cape May Cape May Cape May Cape May Cape May Cape May Cape May Cumberland Essex Essex Essex Essex Egg Harbor City Linwood Longport Margate City Northfield Somers Point Cresskill Emerson Glen Rock Midland Park Moonachie Northvale Oradell Ridgewood Teterboro Burlington Twp. Delanco Fieldsboro Florence Twp. Pemberton borough Barrington Brooklawn Cherry Hill Twp. Chesilhurst Clementon Haddon Heights Laurel Springs Lawnside Lindenwold Magnolia Mount Ephraim Pennsauken Runnemede Somerdale Stratford Cape May Cape May Point Ocean City Sea Isle City West Wildwood Wildwood Crest Woodbine Millville Cedar Grove Essex Fells Glen Ridge Livingston ----------yes yes --yes ------yes -------------------------- yes --------------yes yes -yes ----------------yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes ---yes Page 4 of 11
- 5. Places To Age in New Jersey Individual Municipal Scores on Four Metrics of Aging‐Friendliness scoring well on aging-friendliness metrics: county Essex Gloucester Gloucester Gloucester Gloucester Mercer Middlesex Middlesex Middlesex Middlesex Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Morris Morris Morris Morris Morris Morris Ocean Ocean Ocean Ocean Passaic Salem Salem Somerset Somerset Sussex Union Union Union Warren Warren municipality name West Orange National Park Pitman Wenonah Woodbury Heights Lawrence Twp. Edison Twp. Middlesex South Plainfield Spotswood Allenhurst Avon‐by‐the‐Sea Deal Fair Haven Loch Arbour Neptune Twp. Sea Girt Shrewsbury Twp. Spring Lake Heights Union Beach West Long Branch Butler Chatham borough Lincoln Park Netcong Parsippany‐Troy Hills Wharton Beachwood Brick Twp. Point Pleasant Beach Tuckerton Wanaque Penns Grove Salem Manville Raritan Newton Fanwood Linden Scotch Plains Hackettstown Washington borough # of compactness contains local road bus stop density density metrics (top 3 net at least activity density one "good" or "good" or scoring better well center better categories) ------yes ----------yes ------yes yes ---------yes yes ---yes -- yes ----yes ---------yes -------yes yes -yes yes yes -yes yes -yes yes yes yes -yes yes yes yes road 2010 density bus access Census population category level population 55+ % 65 to 84 % 85+ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 presence of a center contains ≥ 1 center no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified contains ≥ 1 center no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified contains single center no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified contains single center center no centers identified contains single center center contains single center no centers identified contains single center contains single center no centers identified center center center contains ≥ 1 center no centers identified contains ≥ 1 center contains ≥ 1 center contains single center center % 55 to 64 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes -yes -yes yes yes yes yes yes -yes yes --yes yes yes yes yes ---yes yes yes --- net activity density category moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban dense suburban / small town moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban low‐density suburban moderate suburban large‐lot moderate suburban low‐density suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban urban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban dense suburban / small town dense suburban / small town moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban dense suburban / small town dense suburban / small town moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban dense suburban / small town moderate suburban % 55+ -yes yes yes yes --yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes ----yes yes yes --yes -yes --yes ---yes medium high high good good low medium good good good high very high good high very high good high high good good good good good medium medium medium medium high good high medium low very high medium high medium medium high medium medium medium good excellent excellent good good good good good good good good good excellent good good excellent none good none good excellent good good good good none good good low low good good good excellent excellent low low none excellent good good low low 46,207 3,036 9,011 2,278 3,055 33,472 99,967 13,635 23,385 8,257 496 1,901 750 6,121 194 27,935 1,828 1,141 4,713 6,245 8,097 7,539 8,962 10,521 3,232 53,238 6,522 11,045 75,072 4,665 3,347 11,116 5,147 5,146 10,344 6,881 7,997 7,318 40,499 23,510 9,724 6,461 13,169 722 2,624 662 813 8,757 24,730 3,520 6,139 2,595 178 780 330 1,295 67 8,476 866 353 1,945 1,376 1,992 1,927 1,779 3,254 830 14,355 1,509 2,276 23,350 1,525 1,017 3,612 954 1,307 2,678 1,664 2,365 1,861 10,378 6,173 2,444 1,427 28.5% 23.8% 29.1% 29.1% 26.6% 26.2% 24.7% 25.8% 26.3% 31.4% 35.9% 41.0% 44.0% 21.2% 34.5% 30.3% 47.4% 30.9% 41.3% 22.0% 24.6% 25.6% 19.9% 30.9% 25.7% 27.0% 23.1% 20.6% 31.1% 32.7% 30.4% 32.5% 18.5% 25.4% 25.9% 24.2% 29.6% 25.4% 25.6% 26.3% 25.1% 22.1% 12.6% 12.3% 12.2% 16.4% 13.0% 12.4% 12.1% 12.0% 12.7% 12.5% 16.1% 17.1% 15.3% 11.6% 19.1% 13.9% 17.5% 13.0% 15.4% 12.8% 11.0% 12.4% 9.7% 15.0% 12.1% 13.3% 11.4% 11.6% 13.2% 15.2% 12.8% 14.3% 9.0% 12.9% 11.7% 10.6% 11.1% 11.5% 12.2% 12.1% 11.0% 11.5% 12.1% 10.4% 11.9% 10.9% 12.2% 11.4% 10.6% 11.6% 11.3% 16.0% 16.3% 20.8% 23.9% 8.2% 13.9% 13.9% 26.0% 11.5% 21.3% 8.5% 11.3% 11.5% 8.6% 13.8% 11.9% 12.2% 9.9% 8.0% 14.8% 15.0% 15.1% 16.1% 8.3% 10.2% 12.0% 11.6% 12.9% 10.7% 11.0% 11.9% 11.2% 9.1% 3.8% 1.1% 5.0% 1.8% 1.3% 2.4% 2.0% 2.2% 2.3% 3.0% 3.4% 3.2% 4.8% 1.3% 1.5% 2.6% 3.8% 6.5% 4.5% 0.8% 2.3% 1.7% 1.5% 2.1% 1.8% 1.5% 1.8% 1.0% 3.1% 2.6% 2.5% 2.0% 1.3% 2.2% 2.2% 1.9% 5.7% 3.2% 2.4% 2.3% 2.9% 1.4% --------- yes yes --yes ---- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 moderate suburban moderate suburban low‐density suburban large‐lot low‐density suburban large‐lot large‐lot low‐density suburban no centers identified no centers identified contains single center contains multiple centers no centers identified contains single center contains single center contains multiple centers medium medium low low very low very low low low good excellent none low good low medium medium 8,411 9,450 4,603 7,570 492 1,735 1,885 37,349 2,680 3,588 1,168 2,278 138 461 532 9,515 31.9% 38.0% 25.4% 30.1% 28.0% 26.6% 28.2% 25.5% 14.8% 16.2% 11.2% 13.7% 15.9% 15.5% 17.1% 11.8% 14.6% 19.4% 11.5% 14.4% 10.6% 9.8% 10.0% 11.8% 2.5% 2.4% 2.7% 2.0% 1.6% 1.3% 1.2% 1.9% municipalities scoring well on one of the four metrics: Atlantic Atlantic Atlantic Atlantic Atlantic Atlantic Atlantic Atlantic Absecon Brigantine Buena Buena Vista Twp. Corbin City Estell Manor Folsom Galloway Twp. --------- --yes yes -yes yes yes Page 5 of 11
- 6. Places To Age in New Jersey Individual Municipal Scores on Four Metrics of Aging‐Friendliness scoring well on aging-friendliness metrics: county Atlantic Atlantic Atlantic Atlantic Atlantic Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Burlington Burlington Burlington Burlington Burlington Burlington Burlington Burlington Burlington Burlington Burlington Burlington Burlington Burlington Camden Camden Camden Camden Camden Camden Camden Camden Cape May Cape May Cape May Cumberland Cumberland Cumberland Cumberland Essex Essex Essex Essex Gloucester Gloucester municipality name Hamilton Twp. Hammonton Mullica Twp. Port Republic Weymouth Twp. Allendale Closter Demarest Harrington Park Haworth Hillsdale Ho‐Ho‐Kus Montvale Park Ridge Ramsey River Vale Upper Saddle River Waldwick Washington Twp. Woodcliff Lake Wyckoff Bass River Twp. Chesterfield Twp. Cinnaminson Delran Edgewater Park Hainesport Twp. Medford Lakes Moorestown Twp. Pemberton Twp. Shamong Twp. Southampton Twp. Tabernacle Twp. Washington Twp. Woodland Twp. Bellmawr Berlin Gloucester Twp. Hi‐Nella Pine Hill Voorhees Twp. Waterford Twp. Winslow Twp. Dennis Twp. Middle Twp. Upper Twp. Commercial Twp. Lawrence Twp. Maurice River Twp. Vineland Millburn North Caldwell Roseland West Caldwell Deptford Twp. Greenwich Twp. # of compactness contains local road bus stop density density metrics (top 3 net at least activity density one "good" or "good" or scoring better well center better categories) ----------------------------------------------------yes ---- yes yes yes yes yes ----------------yes yes yes yes yes ---yes yes yes yes yes yes ------yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes ------ -----yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes ------yes -------yes --yes ------------yes ----- --------------------------yes -yes -------yes yes -yes yes ------------yes yes yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 net activity density category low‐density suburban low‐density suburban large‐lot large‐lot large‐lot moderate suburban moderate suburban low‐density suburban moderate suburban low‐density suburban moderate suburban low‐density suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban low‐density suburban low‐density suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban low‐density suburban low‐density suburban large‐lot low‐density suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban low‐density suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban low‐density suburban large‐lot large‐lot large‐lot large‐lot large‐lot moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban low‐density suburban low‐density suburban large‐lot low‐density suburban large‐lot low‐density suburban large‐lot low‐density suburban low‐density suburban moderate suburban low‐density suburban dense suburban / small town moderate suburban moderate suburban large‐lot Page 6 of 11 presence of a center contains single center contains single center contains multiple centers contains single center contains multiple centers no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified contains single center contains multiple centers contains single center contains single center contains multiple centers no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified contains single center contains single center contains single center contains single center contains multiple centers contains single center no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified contains single center contains multiple centers contains multiple centers contains multiple centers contains multiple centers contains multiple centers contains single center contains multiple centers contains single center contains ≥ 1 center no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified road 2010 density bus access Census population category level population 55+ % 55+ % 55 to 64 % 65 to 84 % 85+ very low low very low very low low good good good good good high good good good good good good high good good good very low low medium medium medium medium very high medium low very low low very low very low very low good medium medium good medium medium low low very low low very low low very low very low low medium good medium medium medium low 21.6% 27.2% 26.4% 32.0% 41.9% 27.9% 26.7% 27.6% 29.2% 29.5% 27.4% 29.0% 27.2% 32.9% 25.9% 30.0% 25.8% 26.0% 33.7% 29.8% 30.0% 25.6% 12.1% 30.9% 23.5% 27.9% 26.8% 28.7% 28.9% 23.2% 24.5% 48.3% 27.3% 27.7% 26.3% 29.4% 28.3% 23.4% 20.1% 20.7% 30.3% 24.6% 22.3% 29.6% 33.1% 29.6% 23.4% 22.6% 14.9% 25.7% 23.0% 30.3% 37.4% 32.4% 27.0% 31.7% 11.1% 11.2% 13.1% 19.4% 14.8% 13.3% 13.2% 13.2% 14.3% 14.3% 12.6% 13.0% 12.7% 13.7% 13.2% 14.1% 12.6% 11.5% 13.8% 13.4% 13.4% 12.6% 6.7% 12.7% 11.6% 12.1% 12.5% 13.9% 12.7% 11.6% 14.7% 16.3% 16.2% 12.7% 15.8% 12.4% 11.4% 12.4% 10.8% 12.0% 13.7% 14.7% 11.7% 14.6% 14.1% 15.3% 11.7% 11.6% 7.9% 11.8% 11.7% 16.3% 15.3% 12.9% 12.0% 13.7% 9.5% 12.9% 12.1% 10.9% 24.9% 10.7% 11.8% 12.7% 13.0% 13.2% 12.5% 13.8% 13.4% 15.5% 11.0% 13.5% 11.7% 12.3% 17.5% 12.8% 13.4% 11.7% 4.7% 15.6% 10.7% 14.1% 12.7% 13.4% 12.3% 10.4% 8.9% 27.1% 10.4% 13.0% 9.4% 14.9% 13.7% 9.6% 8.3% 7.6% 12.7% 8.8% 9.0% 12.6% 16.4% 12.3% 10.5% 9.8% 6.4% 11.6% 9.6% 12.2% 19.3% 14.4% 12.9% 15.3% 1.0% 3.1% 1.2% 1.7% 2.3% 3.8% 1.7% 1.7% 2.0% 2.0% 2.3% 2.1% 1.1% 3.7% 1.7% 2.3% 1.4% 2.2% 2.4% 3.5% 3.2% 1.2% 0.7% 2.7% 1.2% 1.7% 1.6% 1.4% 3.9% 1.2% 0.9% 4.9% 0.8% 2.0% 1.1% 2.1% 3.1% 1.4% 1.0% 1.1% 3.8% 1.1% 1.6% 2.3% 2.6% 1.9% 1.2% 1.2% 0.6% 2.3% 1.7% 1.9% 2.7% 5.1% 2.1% 2.7% medium medium medium low low none medium none low medium none none none none none none none none none none low medium none medium medium medium good none good low none low none none none medium good good none good good medium medium low medium low none none low medium medium low medium good good good 26,503 14,791 6,147 1,115 2,715 6,505 8,373 4,881 4,664 3,382 10,219 4,078 7,844 8,645 14,473 9,659 8,208 9,625 9,102 5,730 16,696 1,443 7,699 15,569 16,896 8,881 6,110 4,146 20,726 27,912 6,490 10,464 6,949 687 1,788 11,583 7,588 64,634 870 10,233 29,131 10,649 39,499 6,467 18,911 12,373 5,178 3,290 7,976 60,724 20,149 6,183 5,819 10,759 30,561 4,899 5,723 4,029 1,622 357 1,138 1,812 2,239 1,346 1,363 998 2,803 1,181 2,133 2,847 3,750 2,895 2,115 2,504 3,068 1,709 5,012 369 932 4,813 3,977 2,482 1,640 1,188 5,982 6,488 1,588 5,056 1,900 190 470 3,409 2,146 15,132 175 2,115 8,814 2,616 8,804 1,915 6,256 3,664 1,212 742 1,191 15,626 4,633 1,875 2,174 3,487 8,265 1,554
- 7. Places To Age in New Jersey Individual Municipal Scores on Four Metrics of Aging‐Friendliness scoring well on aging-friendliness metrics: county Gloucester Gloucester Gloucester Gloucester Gloucester Gloucester Hunterdon Mercer Mercer Mercer Mercer Middlesex Middlesex Middlesex Middlesex Middlesex Middlesex Middlesex Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Morris Morris Morris Morris Morris Morris Morris Morris Morris Ocean Ocean Ocean Ocean Ocean Ocean Ocean Ocean Ocean Ocean Ocean Ocean Ocean Ocean Ocean Ocean Ocean Ocean Ocean municipality name Harrison Twp. Newfield Paulsboro Washington Twp. West Deptford Twp. Woolwich Twp. Milford Ewing Twp. Hamilton Twp. Princeton Twp. Robbinsville Twp. Cranbury Twp. East Brunswick Twp. Helmetta Old Bridge Twp. Piscataway Twp. Plainsboro Twp. South Brunswick Twp. Aberdeen Allentown Brielle Hazlet Interlaken Little Silver Monmouth Beach Ocean Twp. Sea Bright Shrewsbury borough East Hanover Twp. Hanover Twp. Madison Mendham borough Morris Plains Mount Arlington Mountain Lakes Riverdale Washington Twp. Barnegat Light Barnegat Twp. Bay Head Beach Haven Berkeley Twp. Toms River Eagleswood Twp. Harvey Cedars Island Heights Jackson Twp. Lacey Twp. Lakewood Lavallette Little Egg Harbor Twp. Long Beach Twp. Manchester Twp. Ocean Gate Ocean Twp. Pine Beach # of compactness contains local road bus stop density density metrics (top 3 net at least activity density one "good" or "good" or scoring better well center better categories) ------------------------------------------------yes -------- yes ----yes yes --yes yes yes yes ----yes -yes --------yes --yes -yes --yes -yes --yes yes yes --yes yes --yes -yes -yes -- --yes ----------yes -yes --yes -yes yes yes yes yes yes ----yes ---yes --yes -yes yes ---yes yes ---yes -yes -yes -yes -yes -yes yes --yes yes -----yes -yes ---------yes yes -yes --yes --yes --------------------- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 net activity density category low‐density suburban low‐density suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban low‐density suburban large‐lot low‐density suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban low‐density suburban low‐density suburban low‐density suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban low‐density suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban low‐density suburban moderate suburban low‐density suburban low‐density suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban low‐density suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban large‐lot large‐lot moderate suburban low‐density suburban low‐density suburban low‐density suburban moderate suburban large‐lot large‐lot moderate suburban low‐density suburban low‐density suburban dense suburban / small town low‐density suburban low‐density suburban large‐lot low‐density suburban moderate suburban low‐density suburban low‐density suburban Page 7 of 11 presence of a center contains ≥ 1 center no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified contains single center center no centers identified no centers identified contains single center contains single center contains single center contains single center no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified contains single center no centers identified center no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified contains ≥ 1 center no centers identified no centers identified contains single center no centers identified contains single center no centers identified no centers identified contains single center no centers identified contains multiple centers no centers identified no centers identified contains single center contains ≥ 1 center contains single center no centers identified no centers identified contains multiple centers contains single center no centers identified no centers identified contains multiple centers no centers identified contains multiple centers no centers identified contains multiple centers no centers identified road 2010 density bus access Census population category level population 55+ % 55+ % 55 to 64 % 65 to 84 % 85+ low medium good medium medium low medium medium medium medium low low medium good low good medium low good medium good good high good good good medium medium medium medium good low medium medium good medium low good low high very high medium medium very low very high high low low medium high low good very low very high low very high 18.1% 28.2% 21.0% 26.3% 27.5% 14.7% 29.4% 26.7% 29.3% 30.4% 19.5% 30.9% 27.1% 22.0% 24.9% 20.4% 16.8% 20.3% 22.7% 25.2% 31.9% 27.9% 47.9% 30.3% 38.5% 30.2% 33.0% 30.8% 34.1% 31.2% 24.0% 32.0% 29.2% 35.1% 21.9% 28.1% 25.4% 58.9% 38.1% 53.3% 43.2% 57.9% 30.8% 28.1% 59.1% 37.5% 26.7% 27.9% 17.7% 58.2% 35.9% 61.2% 65.0% 25.8% 41.9% 32.1% 9.7% 14.1% 9.5% 13.8% 13.2% 8.4% 13.4% 11.9% 13.6% 13.4% 9.9% 14.2% 13.5% 12.4% 12.7% 10.7% 9.3% 11.0% 12.1% 13.8% 15.0% 13.4% 21.3% 14.5% 17.0% 14.9% 18.5% 13.2% 14.9% 13.0% 9.7% 13.0% 12.6% 14.7% 11.8% 13.0% 14.0% 17.6% 14.0% 18.9% 18.2% 14.5% 13.5% 14.6% 17.2% 19.8% 11.9% 13.1% 5.5% 17.8% 14.3% 21.2% 14.9% 12.2% 17.4% 15.5% 7.6% 12.2% 9.8% 10.8% 12.9% 5.8% 14.0% 12.0% 13.2% 14.3% 8.0% 13.4% 11.6% 9.0% 10.7% 8.7% 6.3% 8.3% 9.4% 10.2% 14.8% 12.8% 21.7% 13.7% 19.0% 13.5% 13.9% 12.9% 17.0% 14.4% 11.3% 15.7% 13.4% 17.6% 9.1% 12.7% 9.2% 38.2% 22.0% 30.0% 21.4% 34.5% 14.8% 12.4% 39.2% 15.5% 12.9% 12.8% 9.9% 34.3% 19.2% 36.2% 40.3% 11.6% 22.5% 14.3% 0.8% 1.9% 1.7% 1.7% 1.5% 0.5% 1.9% 2.7% 2.6% 2.7% 1.7% 3.3% 1.9% 0.7% 1.4% 1.0% 1.2% 1.0% 1.2% 1.2% 2.1% 1.8% 4.9% 2.1% 2.5% 1.8% 0.6% 4.8% 2.2% 3.7% 2.9% 3.3% 3.2% 2.8% 0.9% 2.4% 2.1% 3.1% 2.1% 4.4% 3.7% 8.9% 2.5% 1.1% 2.7% 2.2% 1.9% 2.0% 2.3% 6.0% 2.4% 3.9% 9.8% 1.9% 2.0% 2.3% low good medium good good low none good good none low low medium none good low good low medium none medium low none none none medium good good medium good medium none good none none excellent none none low none none low low medium none medium low low medium low medium none none none medium low 12,417 1,553 6,097 48,559 21,677 10,200 1,233 35,790 88,464 16,265 13,642 3,857 47,512 2,178 65,375 56,044 22,999 43,417 18,210 1,828 4,774 20,334 820 5,950 3,279 27,291 1,412 3,809 11,157 13,712 15,845 4,981 5,532 5,050 4,160 3,559 18,533 574 20,936 968 1,170 41,255 91,239 1,603 337 1,673 54,856 27,644 92,843 1,875 20,065 3,051 43,070 2,011 8,332 2,127 2,243 438 1,278 12,760 5,971 1,504 362 9,550 25,955 4,948 2,666 1,190 12,853 480 16,264 11,458 3,870 8,826 4,135 460 1,522 5,683 393 1,801 1,261 8,236 466 1,174 3,810 4,272 3,799 1,595 1,615 1,771 910 999 4,699 338 7,980 516 506 23,870 28,088 451 199 627 14,669 7,715 16,411 1,091 7,197 1,868 28,012 518 3,487 683
- 8. Places To Age in New Jersey Individual Municipal Scores on Four Metrics of Aging‐Friendliness scoring well on aging-friendliness metrics: county Ocean Ocean Ocean Ocean Ocean Ocean Ocean Passaic Passaic Passaic Salem Salem Somerset Somerset Somerset Somerset Somerset Somerset Somerset Somerset Somerset Sussex Sussex Sussex Sussex Sussex Sussex Sussex Sussex Sussex Union Union Warren Warren Warren Warren Warren Warren municipality name Plumsted Twp. Point Pleasant Seaside Park Ship Bottom South Toms River Stafford Twp. Surf City Bloomingdale North Haledon Wayne Carneys Point Twp. Elmer Bedminster Twp. Bernardsville Bridgewater Twp. Far Hills Franklin Twp. Millstone Rocky Hill Warren Watchung Andover borough Branchville Frankford Twp. Hopatcong Montague Twp. Sandyston Twp. Sparta Twp. Stanhope Vernon Twp. Clark Springfield Alpha Belvidere Hope Twp. Oxford Twp. Pohatcong Twp. Washington Twp. # of compactness contains local road bus stop density density metrics (top 3 net at least activity density one "good" or "good" or scoring better well center better categories) --------------------------------------- yes ----yes -yes ---yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes ----yes yes yes yes -yes yes yes yes -yes -yes ---------------------yes -yes yes ----- ---------yes yes --------------------yes ------- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 net activity density category large‐lot moderate suburban moderate suburban low‐density suburban moderate suburban low‐density suburban low‐density suburban moderate suburban low‐density suburban moderate suburban low‐density suburban moderate suburban low‐density suburban large‐lot low‐density suburban large‐lot moderate suburban large‐lot low‐density suburban low‐density suburban low‐density suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban large‐lot moderate suburban large‐lot large‐lot low‐density suburban moderate suburban low‐density suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban large‐lot low‐density suburban large‐lot large‐lot presence of a center contains single center no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified contains multiple centers no centers identified contains single center no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified contains single center contains multiple centers contains single center contains single center contains single center contains single center center contains single center contains single center contains single center contains single center center contains single center contains single center contains single center contains multiple centers contains single center contains single center contains single center no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified contains multiple centers contains single center contains single center contains single center road 2010 density bus access Census population category level population 55+ % 55+ % 55 to 64 % 65 to 84 % 85+ very low very high very high very high good low very high low good medium low medium very low low medium very low medium low medium medium medium low medium low medium very low very low low medium very low good medium good good very low low low low low medium medium none none low none medium none good good none low none low none low none none none low none none none none none none none none low medium excellent none none none none low low 8,421 18,392 1,579 1,156 3,684 26,535 1,205 7,656 8,417 54,717 8,049 1,395 8,165 7,707 44,464 919 62,300 418 682 15,311 5,801 606 841 5,565 15,147 3,847 1,998 19,722 3,610 23,943 14,756 15,817 2,369 2,681 1,952 2,514 3,339 6,651 1,910 5,185 710 561 723 8,643 703 2,075 2,876 16,272 2,649 360 2,367 1,894 11,823 292 15,979 121 234 4,170 2,091 162 249 1,845 3,583 1,122 558 4,693 847 5,290 4,599 4,911 649 647 601 601 954 1,713 22.7% 28.2% 45.0% 48.5% 19.6% 32.6% 58.3% 27.1% 34.2% 29.7% 32.9% 25.8% 29.0% 24.6% 26.6% 31.8% 25.6% 28.9% 34.3% 27.2% 36.0% 26.7% 29.6% 33.2% 23.7% 29.2% 27.9% 23.8% 23.5% 22.1% 31.2% 31.0% 27.4% 24.1% 30.8% 23.9% 28.6% 25.8% 11.3% 13.8% 18.2% 19.7% 10.8% 12.9% 19.8% 12.3% 13.9% 12.7% 14.2% 11.8% 14.9% 12.4% 11.9% 15.5% 12.0% 12.9% 15.8% 13.8% 14.9% 14.7% 12.8% 16.6% 13.8% 15.2% 16.2% 12.7% 13.1% 13.7% 12.6% 13.5% 11.8% 11.7% 16.1% 11.5% 13.6% 12.8% 10.2% 12.1% 22.2% 24.7% 8.0% 17.1% 32.3% 12.8% 16.4% 14.0% 14.1% 12.3% 12.6% 10.7% 11.9% 14.8% 11.7% 14.4% 16.0% 11.8% 17.0% 11.4% 13.7% 13.7% 9.0% 12.6% 10.4% 9.8% 9.4% 7.7% 14.8% 14.2% 12.8% 10.3% 13.1% 10.8% 12.9% 11.8% 1.2% 2.3% 4.5% 4.2% 0.8% 2.5% 6.3% 2.1% 3.9% 3.0% 4.7% 1.7% 1.5% 1.6% 2.8% 1.5% 1.9% 1.7% 2.5% 1.6% 4.1% 0.7% 3.1% 2.8% 0.8% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 0.9% 0.8% 3.7% 3.3% 2.8% 2.1% 1.6% 1.6% 2.0% 1.2% no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified low medium medium low medium medium medium medium medium very low low medium none none low none medium medium medium none medium medium medium medium 25,890 5,711 12,754 531 45,538 41,864 5,357 2,274 22,866 6,295 7,660 7,466 6,899 1,907 3,428 332 11,540 11,888 1,402 629 8,357 1,590 2,332 2,505 26.6% 33.4% 26.9% 62.5% 25.3% 28.4% 26.2% 27.7% 36.5% 25.3% 30.4% 33.6% 12.4% 13.4% 12.7% 5.5% 12.3% 12.3% 12.1% 12.8% 15.4% 12.1% 14.1% 13.1% 12.7% 16.1% 11.8% 26.2% 11.1% 14.0% 12.4% 13.6% 18.6% 12.0% 14.5% 17.4% 1.5% 4.0% 2.3% 30.9% 2.0% 2.1% 1.7% 1.2% 2.5% 1.2% 1.9% 3.1% municipalities not scoring well on any of the four metrics, but scoring in the middle of the pack on at least one: Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Burlington Burlington Camden Camden Cape May Cumberland Cumberland Essex Mahwah Norwood Oakland Rockleigh Evesham Twp. Mount Laurel Twp. Berlin Twp. Gibbsboro Lower Twp. Fairfield Twp. Upper Deerfield Twp. Fairfield ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban low‐density suburban low‐density suburban large‐lot moderate suburban Page 8 of 11
- 9. Places To Age in New Jersey Individual Municipal Scores on Four Metrics of Aging‐Friendliness scoring well on aging-friendliness metrics: county Gloucester Gloucester Gloucester Gloucester Gloucester Gloucester Hunterdon Hunterdon Hunterdon Hunterdon Hunterdon Hunterdon Mercer Middlesex Middlesex Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Morris Morris Morris Morris Passaic Salem Salem Salem Somerset Sussex Sussex Union Union municipality name Clayton East Greenwich Twp. Glassboro Logan Twp. Mantua Twp. Monroe Twp. Califon Clinton town Frenchtown Glen Gardner Lebanon borough Stockton East Windsor Twp. North Brunswick Twp. Sayreville Eatontown Freehold Twp. Manalapan Twp. Oceanport Rumson Denville Florham Park Montville Twp. Pequannock West Milford Twp. Mannington Twp. Pennsville Twp. Upper Pittsgrove Twp. Green Brook Franklin Hamburg Berkeley Heights Mountainside # of compactness contains local road bus stop density density metrics (top 3 net at least activity density one "good" or "good" or scoring better well center better categories) ---------------------------------- ---------------------------------- ---------------------------------- ---------------------------------- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 net activity density category low‐density suburban low‐density suburban moderate suburban low‐density suburban low‐density suburban low‐density suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban low‐density suburban low‐density suburban moderate suburban low‐density suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban low‐density suburban moderate suburban low‐density suburban large‐lot low‐density suburban large‐lot moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban moderate suburban presence of a center no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 low‐density suburban large‐lot low‐density suburban low‐density suburban large‐lot low‐density suburban low‐density suburban low‐density suburban large‐lot low‐density suburban large‐lot low‐density suburban large‐lot low‐density suburban large‐lot large‐lot large‐lot no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified road 2010 density bus access Census population category level population 55+ % 55+ % 55 to 64 % 65 to 84 % 85+ medium low medium low medium low medium medium medium medium medium low low medium medium medium low medium medium medium medium medium medium medium low very low low low medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium none none none none none none none medium medium medium medium medium low medium low medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium none none low medium 8,179 9,555 18,579 6,042 15,217 36,129 1,076 2,719 1,373 1,704 1,358 538 27,190 40,742 42,704 12,709 36,184 38,872 5,832 7,122 16,635 11,696 21,528 15,540 25,850 1,806 13,409 3,505 7,203 5,045 3,277 13,183 6,685 1,877 2,101 3,755 1,167 3,751 9,057 269 627 352 357 344 189 6,404 8,269 10,334 3,368 9,082 10,251 1,808 1,657 4,967 3,304 5,990 5,561 6,748 534 3,928 1,071 1,847 1,318 777 3,914 2,484 22.9% 22.0% 20.2% 19.3% 24.7% 25.1% 25.0% 23.1% 25.6% 21.0% 25.3% 35.1% 23.6% 20.3% 24.2% 26.5% 25.1% 26.4% 31.0% 23.3% 29.9% 28.2% 27.8% 35.8% 26.1% 29.6% 29.3% 30.6% 25.6% 26.1% 23.7% 29.7% 37.2% 12.7% 11.4% 9.5% 12.6% 11.9% 11.5% 15.4% 11.5% 14.3% 12.1% 12.2% 17.1% 12.0% 11.0% 12.1% 12.5% 12.1% 13.9% 14.9% 11.9% 14.1% 11.4% 13.3% 10.9% 13.5% 12.1% 13.7% 14.9% 12.2% 13.1% 12.0% 12.2% 13.4% 9.0% 9.1% 9.2% 6.1% 11.5% 11.9% 8.6% 10.3% 9.8% 7.6% 11.6% 16.4% 9.9% 8.2% 10.4% 11.9% 11.0% 10.4% 13.9% 9.9% 12.4% 13.9% 12.8% 17.3% 10.8% 13.7% 13.5% 13.5% 10.9% 11.3% 10.8% 13.7% 18.3% 1.3% 1.4% 1.5% 0.7% 1.3% 1.6% 1.0% 1.2% 1.5% 1.2% 1.6% 1.7% 1.7% 1.1% 1.7% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.2% 1.4% 3.3% 2.9% 1.8% 7.5% 1.8% 3.7% 2.1% 2.2% 2.5% 1.8% 0.9% 3.8% 5.4% low low medium medium medium low low low low low very low low very low low very low very low very low low none low none none low none low low none low low none low low none none 43,323 1,849 10,590 5,750 3,152 11,367 6,069 12,559 8,544 23,033 7,385 7,678 3,414 8,813 802 12 5 10,103 710 3,277 1,679 1,308 2,521 1,257 2,608 3,508 6,616 1,075 1,315 950 2,056 138 3 3 23.3% 38.4% 30.9% 29.2% 41.5% 22.2% 20.7% 20.8% 41.1% 28.7% 14.6% 17.1% 27.8% 23.3% 17.2% 25.0% 60.0% 12.5% 19.3% 14.5% 13.1% 17.0% 11.6% 12.0% 10.3% 13.2% 14.8% 10.8% 8.7% 14.6% 13.0% 9.4% 25.0% 0.0% 9.8% 17.1% 14.9% 13.8% 19.7% 9.3% 7.8% 8.8% 24.4% 11.6% 3.7% 7.7% 12.0% 9.2% 7.2% 0.0% 60.0% 1.0% 1.9% 1.6% 2.3% 4.7% 1.3% 0.9% 1.7% 3.5% 2.3% 0.1% 0.7% 1.3% 1.1% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% municipalities scoring poorly on all four metrics: Atlantic Bergen Bergen Bergen Bergen Burlington Burlington Burlington Burlington Burlington Burlington Burlington Burlington Burlington Burlington Camden Camden Egg Harbor Twp. Alpine Franklin Lakes Old Tappan Saddle River Bordentown Twp. Eastampton Twp. Lumberton Twp. Mansfield Twp. Medford Twp. New Hanover Twp. North Hanover Twp. Springfield Twp. Westampton Twp. Wrightstown Pine Valley Tavistock ------------------ Page 9 of 11
- 10. Places To Age in New Jersey Individual Municipal Scores on Four Metrics of Aging‐Friendliness scoring well on aging-friendliness metrics: county Cumberland Cumberland Cumberland Cumberland Cumberland Cumberland Gloucester Gloucester Gloucester Hunterdon Hunterdon Hunterdon Hunterdon Hunterdon Hunterdon Hunterdon Hunterdon Hunterdon Hunterdon Hunterdon Hunterdon Hunterdon Hunterdon Hunterdon Hunterdon Hunterdon Mercer Mercer Middlesex Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Monmouth Morris Morris Morris Morris Morris Morris Morris Morris Morris Morris Morris Morris Morris Morris Morris Ocean Passaic municipality name Deerfield Twp. Downe Twp. Greenwich Twp. Hopewell Twp. Shiloh Stow Creek Twp. Elk Twp. Franklin Twp. South Harrison Twp. Alexandria Twp. Bethlehem Twp. Bloomsbury Clinton Twp. Delaware Twp. East Amwell Twp. Franklin Twp. Hampton High Bridge Holland Twp. Kingwood Twp. Lebanon Twp. Raritan Twp. Readington Twp. Tewksbury Twp. Union Twp. West Amwell Twp. Hopewell Twp. West Windsor Twp. Monroe Twp. Colts Neck Twp. Holmdel Howell Twp. Marlboro Twp. Middletown Twp. Millstone Twp. Roosevelt Tinton Falls Upper Freehold Twp. Wall Twp. Boonton Twp. Chatham Twp. Chester borough Chester Twp. Harding Twp. Jefferson Twp. Kinnelon Long Hill Twp. Mendham Twp. Mine Hill Twp. Morris Twp. Mount Olive Twp. Randolph Twp. Rockaway Twp. Roxbury Twp. Mantoloking Ringwood # of compactness contains local road bus stop density density metrics (top 3 net at least activity density one "good" or "good" or scoring better well center better categories) --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 net activity density category large‐lot large‐lot large‐lot large‐lot low‐density suburban large‐lot large‐lot large‐lot large‐lot large‐lot large‐lot low‐density suburban large‐lot large‐lot large‐lot large‐lot low‐density suburban low‐density suburban large‐lot large‐lot large‐lot large‐lot large‐lot large‐lot large‐lot large‐lot large‐lot low‐density suburban low‐density suburban large‐lot low‐density suburban low‐density suburban low‐density suburban low‐density suburban large‐lot low‐density suburban low‐density suburban large‐lot low‐density suburban large‐lot low‐density suburban low‐density suburban large‐lot large‐lot low‐density suburban low‐density suburban low‐density suburban large‐lot low‐density suburban low‐density suburban low‐density suburban low‐density suburban low‐density suburban low‐density suburban large‐lot low‐density suburban Page 10 of 11 presence of a center no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified road 2010 density bus access Census population category level population 55+ % 55+ % 55 to 64 % 65 to 84 % 85+ low very low very low low low low low low low low low medium low low very low very low medium medium low very low low low low low low very low low medium low low medium low medium medium low low low very low medium low medium medium low low low low low low medium medium low medium low medium medium low 27.3% 37.4% 37.8% 34.1% 29.5% 34.0% 25.1% 23.4% 23.1% 29.3% 24.8% 20.0% 24.0% 35.5% 32.9% 30.3% 26.9% 21.4% 30.4% 28.5% 29.8% 25.0% 28.5% 33.2% 23.1% 23.8% 28.6% 22.1% 48.2% 26.5% 30.5% 21.9% 24.2% 28.0% 21.9% 32.7% 36.9% 28.2% 31.2% 32.8% 27.7% 30.7% 26.5% 38.0% 23.5% 26.7% 27.9% 27.4% 25.1% 31.1% 19.6% 21.9% 27.3% 26.2% 80.7% 26.0% 14.1% 16.9% 19.8% 13.5% 14.0% 16.4% 13.1% 12.9% 12.6% 16.7% 15.1% 10.8% 13.4% 19.4% 18.8% 15.0% 13.5% 12.8% 14.4% 15.6% 14.7% 13.0% 15.0% 16.9% 13.5% 12.4% 14.4% 11.3% 13.4% 13.0% 14.2% 11.9% 12.9% 14.0% 13.8% 18.9% 11.4% 14.3% 14.2% 14.8% 12.6% 13.1% 13.3% 17.0% 12.7% 14.5% 13.2% 14.9% 12.9% 13.6% 10.6% 12.6% 13.1% 13.6% 33.1% 14.7% 11.4% 18.2% 15.7% 16.5% 13.6% 15.5% 10.5% 9.4% 9.6% 10.9% 9.0% 7.9% 9.6% 14.4% 12.3% 13.3% 12.0% 7.8% 14.0% 10.9% 13.3% 9.9% 12.0% 15.0% 9.0% 10.5% 12.3% 9.3% 27.7% 12.0% 13.5% 8.6% 9.9% 11.9% 7.2% 11.7% 16.3% 13.0% 14.2% 13.8% 12.2% 14.8% 12.0% 18.4% 9.8% 11.2% 13.0% 11.3% 10.4% 14.7% 7.9% 8.3% 12.7% 11.0% 44.3% 10.3% 1.8% 2.2% 2.4% 4.2% 1.9% 2.1% 1.6% 1.2% 0.9% 1.7% 0.7% 1.3% 1.1% 1.8% 1.8% 2.0% 1.4% 0.8% 2.0% 2.0% 1.8% 2.2% 1.5% 1.3% 0.6% 0.9% 1.8% 1.4% 7.1% 1.5% 2.8% 1.4% 1.4% 2.1% 0.9% 2.0% 9.3% 1.0% 2.8% 4.2% 3.0% 2.9% 1.2% 2.6% 1.0% 1.0% 1.7% 1.2% 1.9% 2.8% 1.1% 0.9% 1.5% 1.6% 3.4% 1.1% none none none none none none low low none none none none none none none none none none none none none low none none none none none low low low none low low low none none low none low none none none none none none low none none none low none low low low none low 3,119 1,585 804 4,571 516 1,431 4,216 16,820 3,162 4,938 3,979 870 13,478 4,563 4,013 3,195 1,401 3,648 5,291 3,845 6,588 22,185 16,126 5,993 5,908 3,840 17,304 27,165 39,132 10,142 16,773 51,075 40,191 66,522 10,566 882 17,892 6,902 26,164 4,263 10,452 1,649 7,838 3,838 21,314 10,248 8,702 5,869 3,651 22,306 28,117 25,734 24,156 23,324 296 12,228 850 592 304 1,559 152 486 1,060 3,942 729 1,445 988 174 3,238 1,619 1,321 969 377 781 1,609 1,095 1,966 5,547 4,603 1,989 1,365 912 4,942 6,003 18,862 2,691 5,118 11,178 9,741 18,616 2,314 288 6,605 1,949 8,175 1,399 2,897 507 2,078 1,459 5,001 2,738 2,426 1,607 917 6,928 5,499 5,628 6,583 6,102 239 3,180
- 11. Places To Age in New Jersey Individual Municipal Scores on Four Metrics of Aging‐Friendliness scoring well on aging-friendliness metrics: county Salem Salem Salem Salem Salem Salem Salem Somerset Somerset Somerset Somerset Somerset Sussex Sussex Sussex Sussex Sussex Sussex Sussex Sussex Sussex Sussex Sussex Warren Warren Warren Warren Warren Warren Warren Warren Warren Warren Warren Warren Warren municipality name Alloway Twp. Elsinboro Twp. Lower Alloways Creek Twp. Oldmans Twp. Pilesgrove Twp. Pittsgrove Twp. Quinton Twp. Bernards Twp. Branchburg Twp. Hillsborough Twp. Montgomery Twp. Peapack and Gladstone Andover Twp. Byram Twp. Fredon Twp. Green Twp. Hampton Twp. Hardyston Twp. Lafayette Twp. Ogdensburg Stillwater Twp. Walpack Twp. Wantage Twp. Allamuchy Twp. Blairstown Twp. Franklin Twp. Frelinghuysen Twp. Greenwich Twp. Hardwick Twp. Harmony Twp. Independence Twp. Knowlton Twp. Liberty Twp. Lopatcong Twp. Mansfield Twp. White Twp. # of compactness contains local road bus stop density density metrics (top 3 net at least activity density one "good" or "good" or scoring better well center better categories) ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 road 2010 density bus access Census population category level population 55+ low low very low very low low low very low low medium low low low low low low low very low very low low medium low very low low very low low low very low low very low low low low low medium low very low Page 11 of 11 presence of a center no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified no centers identified none none none low low none none none low low low none none none none none none low none none none none none none none low none low none none none none none low low none % 55+ % 55 to 64 % 65 to 84 % 85+ 3,467 1,036 1,770 1,773 4,016 9,393 2,666 26,652 14,459 38,303 22,254 2,582 6,319 8,350 3,437 3,601 5,196 8,213 2,538 2,410 4,099 16 11,358 4,323 5,967 3,176 2,230 5,712 1,696 2,667 5,662 3,055 2,942 8,014 7,725 4,882 864 385 551 490 1,447 2,556 789 6,870 3,504 8,392 4,606 643 2,018 2,033 967 875 1,604 2,434 735 589 1,168 9 2,932 1,476 1,833 844 758 971 468 832 1,396 817 691 2,404 1,931 2,150 24.9% 37.2% 31.1% 27.6% 36.0% 27.2% 29.6% 25.8% 24.2% 21.9% 20.7% 24.9% 31.9% 24.3% 28.1% 24.3% 30.9% 29.6% 29.0% 24.4% 28.5% 56.3% 25.8% 34.1% 30.7% 26.6% 34.0% 17.0% 27.6% 31.2% 24.7% 26.7% 23.5% 30.0% 25.0% 44.0% 13.1% 16.8% 13.8% 14.2% 15.0% 14.7% 13.4% 12.3% 13.2% 12.6% 10.8% 12.9% 15.9% 14.3% 14.5% 13.5% 16.1% 15.1% 16.2% 13.0% 17.3% 31.3% 14.0% 16.6% 15.2% 14.4% 16.2% 10.6% 15.0% 15.1% 13.8% 14.1% 13.9% 11.9% 12.2% 15.2% 10.8% 18.1% 15.4% 12.0% 15.5% 10.9% 14.1% 10.9% 10.0% 7.9% 8.2% 10.5% 13.3% 9.4% 12.4% 9.5% 13.5% 13.2% 11.5% 10.2% 9.9% 18.8% 10.7% 15.8% 13.6% 10.7% 13.5% 5.7% 11.1% 13.7% 10.0% 11.3% 8.4% 14.2% 10.4% 24.6% 1.1% 2.2% 1.9% 1.4% 5.5% 1.6% 2.1% 2.6% 1.1% 1.3% 1.7% 1.5% 2.7% 0.7% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 1.4% 1.3% 1.2% 1.3% 6.3% 1.1% 1.7% 1.9% 1.4% 4.3% 0.8% 1.5% 2.4% 0.9% 1.4% 1.2% 3.9% 2.4% 4.3% 8,791,894 net activity density category large‐lot large‐lot large‐lot large‐lot large‐lot large‐lot large‐lot low‐density suburban low‐density suburban low‐density suburban low‐density suburban low‐density suburban large‐lot low‐density suburban large‐lot large‐lot large‐lot large‐lot large‐lot low‐density suburban large‐lot large‐lot large‐lot low‐density suburban large‐lot large‐lot large‐lot large‐lot large‐lot large‐lot low‐density suburban large‐lot large‐lot low‐density suburban low‐density suburban large‐lot 2,232,158 25.4% 11.9% 11.4% 2.0%