Interaction between Land Use and Urban Transport Addis Abeba (SW) 27 October 2012 Wendell Cox Demographia
OUTLINE Perspective The Evolving Urban Form Transport and the City Realities and Challenges
Los Angeles
Chongqing PERSPECTIVE & RESOURCES
RESOURCES DEMOGRAPHIA WORLD URBAN AREAS (9 TH EDITION 2013) http://demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf THE EVOLVING URBAN FORM http://www.newgeography.com/category/storytopics/evolving-urban-form THE NEW GEOGRAPHY http://www.newgeography.com/ DEMOGRAPHIA INTERNATIONAL HOUSING AFFORDABILITY SURVEY (9 TH EDITION 2013) http://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf WEBSITE http://demographia.com/
History of Humanity ETHIOPIA: BIRTHPLACE OF LUCY Economist Steven Landsburg (2007): Modern humans first emerged about 100,000 years ago. For the next 99,800 years or so, nothing happened. Well, not quite nothing. There were wars, political intrigue, the invention or agriculture but none of that stuff had much effect on the quality of people s lives. Almost everyone lived on the modern equivalent of $400 to $600 a year, just above the subsistence level. True there were always aristocracies who lived far better, but numerically, they were quite insignificant. http://online.wsj.com/article/sb118134633403829656.html
GDP/Capita: Richest Nation: 2000$ Highest National GDPs: 1500-2000 $45,000 $40,000 $35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 650 BC TO PRESENT PRINCIPAL MODE From Maddison (OECD) Walking Mass Transit Auto 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 Figure 9
World s Largest Cities (Urban Areas) 650 BC TO PRESENT Population (Millions) 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 650BC From Chandler 400BC 200BC 100AD 500 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 Year: (Irregular Scale) 1600 1700 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 Figure 10
Urban Areas: Densities from 17 th Century PARIS, LONDON, NEW YORK & LOS ANGELES 70,000 Population per Square Kilometer 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 Paris London New York Data Points 2000, 1950,1900, 1850, 1800 London 1700 (1680), Paris 1650 10,000 Los Angeles 0 1650 1700 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000
Dubai THE PURPOSE OF CITIES
Why Cities (Urban Areas) Exist THE PURPOSE OF CITIES Urban areas exist because of the economic opportunities they provide. The purpose of urban areas is to improve the affluence of their residents
Purpose of Cities is Economic PEOPLE MOVE THERE FOR BETTER LIVES Shanghai
Why Cities Grow (Their Purpose) ALAIN BERTUAD, FORMER WORLD BANK PLANNER The raison d être of large cities is the increasing return to scale inherent to large labor markets. The cities economic efficiency requires, therefore, avoiding any spatial fragmentation of labor markets.
Global Scaling Research Double city size, 15% productivity improvement
Chennonceaux Aspiration
Shenyang THE EVOLVING URBAN FORM
City (Urban Organism) Metropolitan Area or Labor Market (Functional Expanse) Urban Area or Agglomeration (Physical Expanse)
Definition of Urban Terms PARIS METROPOLITAN AREA (AIRE URBAINE) PARIS URBAN AREA PARIS METROPOLITAN AREA Exurban Area (Rural)
Tokyo-Yokohama Jakarta Seoul-Incheon Delhi, DL-HR-UP Shanghai, SHG Manila New York, NY-NJ-CT Sao Paulo Karachi Mexico City Beijing, BJ Guangzhou-Foshan, GD Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto Mumbai, MAH Moscow Los Angeles, CA Cairo Dhaka Kolkota, WB Buenos Aires Largest Urban Areas in the World POPULATION: 2012 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Millions
Largest 10 Year Historical Growth Rates WORLD METROPOLITAN REGIONS Beijing: 2000-2010 Delhi: 2001-2011 Dhaka: 2001-2011 Jakarta: 2000-2010 Karachi: 1998-2011 Manila: 2000-2010 Adjusted to 10 Year Rate Mumbai: 1991-2001 Shanghai: 2000-2010 Shenzhen: 1990-2000 Tokyo: 1960-1970 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Population Change in Millions Figure 24
Dhaka, Bangladesh Chittagong, Bangladesh Most Dense World Urban Areas OVER 2.5 MILLION POPULATION: 2012 Mumbai, India Surat, India Hong Kong, China Ahmadabad, India Bogota, Colombia Medellin, Colombia Jaipur, India Metric Measure Karachi, Pakistan 0 7,500 15,000 22,500 30,000 37,500 45,000 Population per Square Kilometer Figure 26
Urban Area Average Population Densities DHAKA & SELECTED (METRIC MEASURE) Dhaka Mumbai Karachi Hong Kong Manila Seoul Jakarta Paris Vancouver Portland Atlanta Less Developed World More Developed World 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 Population per Square Kilometer Figure 27
Density Profiles at the Same Scale 7 METROPOLITAN AREAS: BERTAUD, 2003
Neighborhood Densities: Examples (WITHIN CITIES) 2,000,000 1,750,000 Population per KM 2 1,500,000 1,250,000 1,000,000 750,000 500,000 250,000 0 Kowloon Walled City 1990 Dhaka-Ward 28 Hong Kong: Tsueng Wan Centre New York: Highest 1910 Mumbai Marine Lines Paris 11 Arr.
Kowloon Walled City (Hong Kong)
Dhaka picture Slum (Dhaka)
Average Population Densities: 2012 URBAN AREAS OVER 2.5 MILLION: SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA Less Developed World More Developed World India Developing Africa China Japan Western Europe Canada Calculated from data in Demographia World Urban Areas 0 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 15,000 Average Population per Square Kilometer Figure 32
India Africa China Latin America Eastern Europe United Kingdom Japan Russia Western Europe New Zealand Canada Australia United States Urban Areas 500,000+: Density AVERAGE URBAN DENSITY (REGIONAL): 2012 0 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 15,000 Population per Square Kilometer
Coming to Terms with Global Urban Expansion
As Cities Become Larger They Become Less Dense
Addis Abeba Urban Area: Evolution 1972-2010
Cairo Urban Area: Evolution 1972-2010
Cairo Population by Governate: 1937-2012 CAIRO METROPOLITAN AREA 25 20 Population in Millions 15 10 Kalyoubia Giza 5 Cairo 0 1937 1947 1957 1966 1976 1986 1996 2006 2012 Figure 39
Guangzhou-Foshan Dongguan Jiangmen Zhongshan Shenzhen Hong Kong Figure 40 Zhuhai Macau Pearl River Delta Urban Areas
Guangzhou-Foshan Pre-Lehman Brothers Population Losses 2000-2010: BY SHARE MARKET OF METROPOLITAN CLASSIFICATION GROWTH Outer Suburbs & Exurbs 38% Core Districts 23% Inner Suburbs 39% Figure 41
Population Increase in Millions 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0-1.0 Shanghai Population by Sector CHANGE: 2000-2010 Source: Census of India Inner Core Outer Core Suburban Figure 42
Shanghai Population Density by Sector CHANGE: 2000-2010 70,000 Population per Square KM 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 2000 2010 0 Inner Core Outer Core Suburban Figure 43
Shenzhen Inner & Outer Area Population 1982-2010 12 10 Population in Millions 8 6 4 OUTER DISTRICTS 2 CORE DISTRICTS 0 1982 1990 2000 2010 Figure 45
30 Jakarta: Population: 1971-2010 CORE & SUBURBAN POPULATION Population in Millions 25 20 15 10 Inner suburb data not available before 2000 SUBURBS & EXURBS OUTER SUBURBS & EXURBS INNER SUBURBS 5 JAKARTA (CORE) 0 1971 1981 1990 2000 2010 Figure 46
Pre-Lehman Jakarta: Growth Brothers by Sector Losses BY MARKET 2000-2010 CLASSIFICATION Jakarta 16% Outer Suburbs & Exurbs 53% Inner Suburbs 31% Figure 47
Population Increase in Millions 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 Delhi Urban Area Population by Sector CHANGE: 2001-2011 Source: Census of India 0.0 Inner NCT Balance Outside NCT Figure 48
Population Increase in Millions 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 Delhi Urban Area Population by Sector CHANGE: 2001-2011 Source: Census of India 0.0 Inner NCT Balance Outside NCT Figure 49
Population by District: 1901-2011 MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION 30,000,000 25,000,000 RAIGAHR 20,000,000 15,000,000 THANE 10,000,000 5,000,000 OUTER MUMBAI 0 INNER MUMBAI 1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011
16 Kolkata Urban Area: 1901-2011 CORE & SUBURBAN POPULATION 14 Population in Millions 12 10 8 6 4 SUBURBS 2 KOLKATA (CORE) 0 1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011 Figure 51
Core & Suburban Population: 1950-2010 MANILA URBAN AREA 25 20 Population in Millions 15 10 5 SUBURBS MANILA (CORE) 0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Figure 52
Manila Pre-Lehman Urban Area Brothers Population Losses by Sector BY MARKET ESTIMATED CLASSIFICATION : 2010 Outer Suburbs 41% Manila 8% Inner Suburbs 51% Figure 53
Moscow Pre-Lehman Area Population Brothers Growth Losses by Sector BY MARKET 2002-2010 CLASSIFICATION Suburban 27% Inner Moscow 3% Outer Moscow 70% Figure 54
Ho Chi Minh City Population by Sector 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 Source: Derived from Asian Development Bank data PAST AND PROJECTED Outside Ho Chi Minh City Millions 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 Urban Fringe Suburban Inner Core Outer Core 0.0 2004 2009 2015 2025
12 Sao Paulo Urban Area Population 1900-2010: CORE CITY AND SUBURBS 10 8 Millions 6 4 2 0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Figure 56
Istanbul Urban Area: 1950-2010 Figure 57
8 7 6 Istanbul: Population by Sector 1985, 2000 & 2012 1985 2000 2011 Millions 5 4 3 2 1 0 Core Inner Suburbs Outer Suburbs Exurbs Figure 58
In Situ Urbanisation
High Income World: 1960s-2000s NEARLY ALL URBAN GROWTH IN SUBURBS: 35+YEARS 114% 97% 94% 93% 92% Australia Canada United States Western Europe Japan Moscow
New York Urban Area Expansion POPULATION & URBAN LAND AREA 1950-2010 200% 180% 160% 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% Urban Land Area 40% 20% Population 0% 1950 2010 Figure 62
New York Urban Area Population Growth 1950-2010 Population in Millions 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 SUBURBS CITY OF NEW YORK 0 1950 2010 Figure 63
Seattle Metropolitan Region: 1950-2010 4,500,000 4,000,000 POPULATION (COMBINED STATISTICAL AREA) 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 Data from US Census Bureau Exurban Outer Suburbs 1,000,000 500,000 City of Seattle Inner Suburbs 0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Figure 64
Paris Urban Area Expansion 1954-1999 1954 1999
Paris Urban Area Population Growth 1950-2010 12 10 Population in Millions 8 6 4 SUBURBS 2 VILLE DE PARIS 0 1954 2008 Figure 66
450,000 Barcelona: Growth By Sector 2001-2011 400,000 350,000 Population Growth 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 401,000 100,000 210,000 50,000 112,000 0 City of Barcelona Balance of Urban Area Balance of Metropolitan Area Figure 67
25,000,000 Seoul Metropolitan Area: 1960-2010 POPULATION BY PROVINCIAL LEVEL JURISDICTION 20,000,000 METROPOLITAN AREA 15,000,000 10,000,000 MUNICIPALITY OF SEOUL GYEONGGI 5,000,000 0 MUNICIPALITY OF INCHEON 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Tokyo Core & Suburban Population 1920-2010 30,000,000 25,000,000 20,000,000 Data: Japan Statistics Bureau 23-Wards (Core) Suburban Population 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 0 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Figure 69
% of Housing Detached Tokyo: Detached Housing Share: 2006 BY DISTANCE FROM CENTRAL TOKYO: 2006 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Data: Japan Statistics Bureau Detached Housing 44.3% (Region) 0% 0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 Distance from Central Tokyo (Kilometers) Figure 70
8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 Hong Kong Population by Sector 1961-2011 New Territories Kowloon Hong Kong Island Population by Sector 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011 Figure 71
1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 Zürich Urban Area Population Growth CITY & SUBURBAN RINGS: 1950-2010 Source: Statistik Stadt Zürich & FSO Suburban Rings 4-6 (1980-2000) Suburban Rings 1-3 (1950-1970) City 0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Figure 72
Why Urban Expansion Happens Natural growth & migration Migrants are lower income Price of land on periphery is less Transport improvements
Population, Households & Employment 160% U.S. CHANGE: 1950-2000 140% Households 120% 100% Employment 80% 60% 40% Population 20% 0% 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
US: Age 25-34 in 2000: Change by 2010 MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS: CORE & SUBURBAN 15.0% 10.0% Change in Population: 2000-2010 5.0% 0.0% -5.0% -10.0% -15.0% Historic Core Cities Suburbs 35-44 Population in 2010 Compared to 25-34 in 2000 Source: US Census Data -20.0%
US: Age 55-64 in 2000: Change by 2010 MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS: CORE & SUBURBAN 0.0% -2.0% Historic Core Cities Suburbs Other Change in Population: 2000-2010 -4.0% -6.0% -8.0% -10.0% -12.0% 55-64 Population in 2010 Compared to 45-54 in 2000 Source: US Census Data -14.0%
Largest Employment Centre in Canada Chicago? Pearson picture PEARSON AIRPORT AREA 355,000 Employees, 120 KM 2 (<10% Transit) Downtown Toronto: 325,000-6 KM 2 (67% Transit) Downtown Montreal 240,000-5 KM 2 (59% Transit)
Difficult for Public Transport To Compete With Auto To Such Locations Luis Berini Center (Peripheral Center)
Cairo TRANSPORT AND THE CITY
Democratization of Prosperity ASSOCIATION BETWEEN MOBILITY & AFFLUENCE Chicago Time is Money Reduced Minority Unemployment With Cars U. of California PRUD HOMME Mobility Improves Productivity U. Of Paris HARTGEN-FIELDS Mobility Improves Productivity
Daily Motorized Trips & GDP/Capita 1995 DATA $40,000 $35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 1995$ (OECD) R 2 = 0.71 (1% Conf. Level) Africa Japan High-Income Asia Low Income Asia Western Europe Latin America Canada United States Eastern Europe Middle-Income Asia Australia-NZ Daily Trips 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Mass Transit Service Densities MILLENNIUM CITIES DATABASE: 1995 Manila Hong Kong Dakar Singapore Zurich Vienna Tokyo Paris Toronto New York Vancouver Denver Calculated from data in Millennium Cities Database (UITP) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Vehicle Kilometers per Square Kilometers Figure 82
Why are all these people in cars? Toronto
Transit: Strong Downtown: Weak Elsewhere SEATTLE URBAN AREA: 2000 EMPLOYMENT # OF TRANSIT COMMUTERS Elsewhere 87% Downtown 13% Elsewhere 43% Downtown 57%
Transit & Auto Access: 30 Minutes FROM CENTRAL VANCOUVER TRANSIT AUTO
Travel by Transit Takes Longer 6 MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS: CANADA One Way Work Trip Minutes 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 44 30 27 All Car Transit
Perth Western Europe, United States & the West There is no practical mass transit for most trips
Capability of Transit: 45 Minute Job Access METROPOLITAN AREAS OVER 2,000,000: 2008 Atlanta Baltimore Boston Chicago Cincinnati Cleveland Dallas-Fort Worth Denver Detroit Houston Kansas City Los Angeles Miami Minneapolis-St. Paul New York Orlando Philadelphia Phoenix Pittsburgh Portland Riverside-San Bernardino Sacramento San Antonio San Diego San Francisco Seattle St. Louis Tampa-St. Petersburg Washington Accessible by Transit Not Accessible by Transit Average Transit Job Access: 5.6% (NYC: 9.8%) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
100% Public Transport: 7 US Largest Markets ACCESS TO TRANSIT STOPS/ACCESS TO JOBS 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 90.3% Public Transport within Walking Distance NY, CHI, LA, WDC, SF, BOS, PHI Average work trip travel time: Car alone: 24.0 minutes Public transport: 47.4 minutes 8.1% 45 Minute Job Access
Paris Suburbs: Cars Provide Quicker Travel FROM MAJOR SUBURBAN RAIL STATIONS: 1 HR TO JOBS Paris Jobs Accessible 84% Auto 16% Not Accessible Transit 59% Not Accessible Jobs Accessible 41%
Public Transport & Auto Market Shares Paris Metropolitan Area Car Public Transport
Transit s Last Kilometer Problem ELSEWHERE TRANSIT IS SLOWER FOR MORE TRIPS Annual Cost: More than gross annual income of metropolitan area An auto competitive system for Portland? 800 Meter Metro Grid Required
Ho Chi Minh City Area: Travel Share 2007 Source: Derived from Asian Development Bank data Transit 8% Automobile 1% Motorcycle 91%
Density & Roadway Travel ROAD VEHICLES: MAJOR METROPOLITAN COUNTIES Daily Vehicle Travel (KMs) per Square KM 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 R 2 = 0.705 99% confidence level 422 Counties in 51 Metropolitan Areas Over 1,000,000 y = 14.142x 0 + 8699.1 R² = 0.7198 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 Population Density (Population per Square KM): 2006-2007
3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 Higher Density Means More Traffic Congestion DENSITY & TRAFFIC VOLUMES: INTERNATIONAL Vehicle Hours/KM 2. R² = 0.8856 1,000 500 0 Population/ KM 2 Hong Kong 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000
3.5 Density & Traffic Congestion UNITED STATES, CANADA & EUROPE Index 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 USA Canada Europe 0.0 Average Urban Density Traffic Congestion (Excess Travel Time) Figure 98
Automobile Market Penetration 0.75 AUTOS PER HOUSEHOLD
Comparing Toronto & Dallas-Fort Worth URBAN AREAS COMPARED (2010 & 2011) Toronto Dallas-Ft. Worth Toronto/ DFW Population (Population Centre/Urban Area) 5,132,794 5,121,892 0.2% Land Area (KM 2 ) 1,751 4,606-62.0% Density 2,931 1,112 163.6% One Way Work Trip 33 26 26.9% Reach Work in 30 Minutes 48% 59% -18.6% Median Multiple (House Price/Household Income 5.5 2.9 89.7% Transit Work Trip Share 21% 2% 935.0%
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Hong Kong & Atlanta: Motorized Travel MASS TRANSIT & AUTO MARKET SHARE Hong Kong Cars (& Motorcycles) Mass Transit Atlanta Figure 101
A well governed city delivers: Mobility & economic growth Lower cost of living (housing affordability) Shenzhen
REALITY & CHALLENGES (CONCLUSION) Kolkata
$50,000 $45,000 $40,000 $35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 Manila Prosperity is not Guaranteed ECONOMIC POLICIES MATTER Japan United States Germany Argentina 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2010
Chennonceaux Aspiration
Bucharest Increasing Motorization
Evolution of Urban Growth Curitiba and Metropolitan Region YEAR POPULATION 1955 360.000 1965 550.000 1975 1.140.000 1985 1.700.000 2000 2.700.000 2010 3.224.286 2020 3.758.358
ECONOMIC GROWTH: REQUIRED FOR SOCIAL COHESION