interaction between land use and addis abeba (sw) urban ...demographia.com/db-addisland.pdf ·...
Post on 11-Aug-2019
234 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Interaction between Land Use and
Urban Transport
27 October 2012 Wendell Cox Demographia
Addis Abeba (SW)
OUTLINE
• Perspective • The Evolving Urban Form • Transport and the City • Realities and Challenges
PERSPECTIVE & RESOURCES
Chongqing
RESOURCES • DEMOGRAPHIA WORLD URBAN AREAS (9TH EDITION
2013) – http://demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf
• THE EVOLVING URBAN FORM – http://www.newgeography.com/category/story-
topics/evolving-urban-form • THE NEW GEOGRAPHY
– http://www.newgeography.com/ • DEMOGRAPHIA INTERNATIONAL HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY SURVEY (9TH EDITION 2013) – http://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf
• WEBSITE – http://demographia.com/
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
History of Humanity ETHIOPIA: BIRTHPLACE OF “LUCY”
$0 $5,000
$10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000
1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000
GD
P/C
apita
: Ric
hest
Nat
ion:
200
0$
Walking Mass Transit
Highest National GDPs: 1500-2000 650 BC TO PRESENT
Auto PRINCIPAL MODE
Figure 9
From Maddison (OECD)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35 65
0BC
400B
C 20
0BC
100A
D 50
0 90
0 10
00
1100
12
00
1300
14
00
1500
16
00
1700
18
00
1850
19
00
1950
20
00
Popu
latio
n (M
illio
ns)
Year: (Irregular Scale)
World’s Largest Cities (Urban Areas) 650 BC TO PRESENT
Figure 10
From Chandler
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
1650 1700 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000
Popu
latio
n pe
r Squ
are
Kilo
met
er
Paris London New York Los Angeles
Urban Areas: Densities from 17th Century PARIS, LONDON, NEW YORK & LOS ANGELES
Data Points 2000, 1950,1900, 1850, 1800 London
1700 (1680), Paris 1650
THE PURPOSE OF CITIES
Dubai
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
Shanghai
Purpose of Cities is Economic PEOPLE MOVE THERE FOR BETTER LIVES
–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.
Why Cities Grow (Their Purpose) ALAIN BERTUAD, FORMER WORLD BANK PLANNER
Global Scaling
Research
Double city size, 15%
productivity improvement
Aspiration
Chennonceaux
THE EVOLVING URBAN FORM
Shenyang
City (Urban Organism)
Metropolitan Area or Labor Market
(Functional Expanse)
Urban Area or Agglomeration
(Physical Expanse)
PARIS METROPOLITAN
AREA
PARIS URBAN AREA
Exurban Area (Rural)
Definition of Urban Terms PARIS METROPOLITAN AREA (AIRE URBAINE)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Buenos Aires Kolkota, WB
Dhaka Cairo
Los Angeles, CA Moscow
Mumbai, MAH Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto
Guangzhou-Foshan, GD Beijing, BJ
Mexico City Karachi
Sao Paulo New York, NY-NJ-CT
Manila Shanghai, SHG
Delhi, DL-HR-UP Seoul-Incheon
Jakarta Tokyo-Yokohama
Millions
Largest Urban Areas in the World POPULATION: 2012
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Tokyo: 1960-1970
Shenzhen: 1990-2000
Shanghai: 2000-2010
Mumbai: 1991-2001
Manila: 2000-2010
Karachi: 1998-2011
Jakarta: 2000-2010
Dhaka: 2001-2011
Delhi: 2001-2011
Beijing: 2000-2010
Population Change in Millions
Largest 10 Year Historical Growth Rates WORLD METROPOLITAN REGIONS
Adjusted to 10 Year Rate
Figure 24
0 7,500 15,000 22,500 30,000 37,500 45,000
Karachi, Pakistan
Jaipur, India
Medellin, Colombia
Bogota, Colombia
Ahmadabad, India
Hong Kong, China
Chittagong, Bangladesh
Surat, India
Mumbai, India
Dhaka, Bangladesh
Population per Square Kilometer
Most Dense World Urban Areas OVER 2.5 MILLION POPULATION: 2012
Figure 26
Metric Measure
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000
Atlanta Portland
Vancouver Paris
Jakarta Seoul
Manila Hong Kong
Karachi Mumbai
Dhaka
Population per Square Kilometer
Less Developed World More Developed World
Urban Area Average Population Densities DHAKA & SELECTED (METRIC MEASURE)
Figure 27
Density Profiles at the Same Scale 7 METROPOLITAN AREAS: BERTAUD, 2003
0
250,000
500,000
750,000
1,000,000
1,250,000
1,500,000
1,750,000
2,000,000
Kowloon Walled City
1990
Dhaka-Ward 28
Hong Kong: Tsueng Wan
Centre
New York: Highest 1910
Mumbai Marine Lines
Paris 11 Arr.
Pop
ulat
ion
per K
M2
Neighborhood Densities: Examples (WITHIN CITIES)
Kowloon Walled City (Hong Kong)
Dhaka picture
Slum (Dhaka)
0 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 15,000
Canada
Western Europe
Japan
China
Developing Africa
India
More Developed World
Less Developed World
Average Population per Square Kilometer
Calculated from data in Demographia World
Urban Areas
Average Population Densities: 2012 URBAN AREAS OVER 2.5 MILLION: SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA
Figure 32
0 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 15,000
United States Australia Canada
New Zealand Western Europe
Russia Japan
United Kingdom Eastern Europe
Latin America China Africa India
Population per Square Kilometer
Urban Areas 500,000+: Density AVERAGE URBAN DENSITY (REGIONAL): 2012
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
0
5
10
15
20
25
1937 1947 1957 1966 1976 1986 1996 2006 2012
Popu
latio
n in
Mill
ions
Cairo Population by Governate: 1937-2012
CAIRO METROPOLITAN AREA
Cairo
Figure 39
Giza
Kalyoubia
Pearl River Delta Urban Areas
Guangzhou-Foshan Dongguan
Shenzhen
Hong Kong
Zhongshan Jiangmen
Zhuhai
Macau
Figure 40
Pre-Lehman Brothers Losses BY MARKET CLASSIFICATION
Core Districts
23%
Inner Suburbs
39%
Outer Suburbs &
Exurbs 38%
Guangzhou-Foshan Population 2000-2010: SHARE OF METROPOLITAN GROWTH
Figure 41
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Inner Core Outer Core Suburban
Popu
lation
Incre
ase i
n Milli
ons
Shanghai Population by Sector CHANGE: 2000-2010
Source: Census of India
Figure 42
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
Inner Core Outer Core Suburban
Popu
lation
per S
quar
e KM
Shanghai Population Density by Sector CHANGE: 2000-2010
Figure 43
2000 2010
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1982 1990 2000 2010
Popu
latio
n in
Mill
ions
Shenzhen Inner & Outer Area Population
1982 - 2010
CORE DISTRICTS
OUTER DISTRICTS
Figure 45
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1971 1981 1990 2000 2010
Popu
latio
n in
Mill
ions
Jakarta: Population: 1971-2010
CORE & SUBURBAN POPULATION
JAKARTA (CORE)
SUBURBS & EXURBS
OUTER SUBURBS & EXURBS
INNER SUBURBS
Inner suburb data not available
before 2000
Figure 46
Pre-Lehman Brothers Losses BY MARKET CLASSIFICATION
Jakarta 16%
Inner Suburbs
31%
Outer Suburbs &
Exurbs 53%
Jakarta: Growth by Sector 2000-2010
Figure 47
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Inner NCT Balance Outside NCT
Popu
latio
n In
crea
se in
Milli
ons
Delhi Urban Area Population by Sector CHANGE: 2001-2011
Source: Census of India
Figure 48
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Inner NCT Balance Outside NCT
Popu
latio
n In
crea
se in
Milli
ons
Delhi Urban Area Population by Sector CHANGE: 2001-2011
Source: Census of India
Figure 49
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000 19
01
1911
1921
1931
1941
1951
1961
1971
1981
1991
2001
2011
Population by District: 1901-2011 MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION
OUTER MUMBAI
INNER MUMBAI
THANE
RAIGAHR
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011
Popu
latio
n in
Mill
ions
Kolkata Urban Area: 1901-2011
CORE & SUBURBAN POPULATION
KOLKATA (CORE)
SUBURBS
Figure 51
0
5
10
15
20
25
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Popu
latio
n in
Mill
ions
Core & Suburban Population: 1950-2010
MANILA URBAN AREA
MANILA (CORE)
SUBURBS
Figure 52
Pre-Lehman Brothers Losses BY MARKET CLASSIFICATION
Manila 8%
Inner Suburbs
51%
Outer Suburbs
41%
Manila Urban Area Population by Sector ESTIMATED : 2010
Figure 53
Pre-Lehman Brothers Losses BY MARKET CLASSIFICATION
Inner Moscow
3%
Outer Moscow
70%
Suburban 27%
Moscow Area Population Growth by Sector 2002-2010
Figure 54
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
2004 2009 2015 2025
Mill
ions
Ho Chi Minh City Population by Sector
PAST AND PROJECTED
Outside Ho Chi Minh City
Inner Core
Outer Core Urban Fringe
Suburban
Source: Derived from Asian
Development Bank data
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Mill
ions
Sao Paulo Urban Area Population
1900-2010: CORE CITY AND SUBURBS
Figure 56
Istanbul Urban Area: 1950-2010
Figure 57
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Core Inner Suburbs Outer Suburbs Exurbs
Mill
ions
1985 2000 2011
Istanbul: Population by Sector 1985, 2000 & 2012
Figure 58
In Situ Urbanisation
Moscow
97% 94% 93%
114%
92%
High Income World: 1960s-2000s NEARLY ALL URBAN GROWTH IN SUBURBS: 35+YEARS
Aust
ralia
Cana
da
Unite
d St
ates
Wes
tern
Eur
ope
Japa
n
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
180%
200%
1950 2010
New York Urban Area Expansion POPULATION & URBAN LAND AREA 1950 - 2010
Population
Figure 62
Urban Land Area
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1950 2010
Popu
latio
n in
Mill
ions
New York Urban Area Population Growth
1950 - 2010
CITY OF NEW YORK
SUBURBS
Figure 63
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Seattle Metropolitan Region: 1950-2010 POPULATION (COMBINED STATISTICAL AREA)
City of Seattle
Figure 64
Data from US Census Bureau
Inner Suburbs
Outer Suburbs
Exurban
Paris Urban Area Expansion 1954 - 1999
1954 1999
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1954 2008
Popu
latio
n in
Mill
ions
Paris Urban Area Population Growth
1950 - 2010
VILLE DE PARIS
SUBURBS
Figure 66
112,000
401,000
210,000
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
City of Barcelona Balance of Urban Area
Balance of Metropolitan Area
Popu
latio
n G
row
th
Figure 67
Barcelona: Growth By Sector 2001-2011
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Seoul Metropolitan Area: 1960-2010 POPULATION BY PROVINCIAL LEVEL JURISDICTION
MUNICIPALITY OF SEOUL GYEONGGI
MUNICIPALITY OF INCHEON
METROPOLITAN AREA
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Popu
latio
n
23-Wards (Core) Suburban
Tokyo Core & Suburban Population 1920-2010
Data: Japan
Statistics Bureau
Figure 69
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70
% o
f Hou
sing
Det
ache
d
Distance from Central Tokyo (Kilometers)
Tokyo: Detached Housing Share: 2006 BY DISTANCE FROM CENTRAL TOKYO: 2006
Data: Japan
Statistics Bureau
Figure 70
Detached Housing 44.3% (Region)
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011
Popu
latio
n by
Sec
tor
New Territories Kowloon Hong Kong Island
Hong Kong Population by Sector 1961-2011
Figure 71
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Suburban Rings 4-6 (1980-2000) Suburban Rings 1-3 (1950-1970) City
Zürich Urban Area Population Growth CITY & SUBURBAN RINGS: 1950-2010
Source: Statistik Stadt Zürich & FSO
Figure 72
Why Urban Expansion Happens
• Natural growth & migration • Migrants are lower income • Price of land on periphery is less • Transport improvements
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Households
Employment
Population, Households & Employment U.S. CHANGE: 1950-2000
Population
-20.0%
-15.0%
-10.0%
-5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
Historic Core Cities Suburbs
Chan
ge in
Pop
ulat
ion:
200
0-20
10
US: Age 25-34 in 2000: Change by 2010 MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS: CORE & SUBURBAN
35-44 Population in 2010 Compared to 25-34 in 2000 Source: US Census Data
-14.0%
-12.0%
-10.0%
-8.0%
-6.0%
-4.0%
-2.0%
0.0% Historic Core Cities Suburbs Other
Chan
ge in
Pop
ulat
ion:
200
0-20
10
US: Age 55-64 in 2000: Change by 2010 MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS: CORE & SUBURBAN
55-64 Population in 2010 Compared to 45-54 in 2000 Source: US Census Data
Pearson picture
• Chicago?
Largest Employment Centre in Canada PEARSON AIRPORT AREA
355,000 Employees, 120 KM2 (<10% Transit)
Downtown Toronto: 325,000 - 6 KM2 (67% Transit) Downtown Montreal 240,000 - 5 KM2 (59% Transit)
Luis Berini Center (Peripheral Center)
Difficult for Public Transport
To Compete With Auto
To Such Locations
TRANSPORT AND THE CITY
Cairo
Democratization of Prosperity ASSOCIATION BETWEEN MOBILITY & AFFLUENCE
Chicago
Reduced Minority Unemployment
With Cars U. of California
PRUD’HOMME Mobility Improves
Productivity U. Of Paris
HARTGEN-FIELDS Mobility Improves
Productivity
“Time is Money”
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Daily Motorized Trips & GDP/Capita 1995 DATA
1995$ (OECD)
United States
Australia-NZ Canada
Western Europe
Japan
High-Income Asia Eastern Europe
Middle-Income Asia Latin America
Low Income Asia
Africa
R2 = 0.71 (1% Conf. Level)
Daily Trips
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Denver
Vancouver
New York
Toronto
Paris
Tokyo
Vienna
Zurich
Singapore
Dakar
Hong Kong
Manila
Vehicle Kilometers per Square Kilometers
Mass Transit Service Densities MILLENNIUM CITIES DATABASE: 1995
Figure 82
Calculated from data in Millennium Cities Database
(UITP)
Toronto
Why are all these people in cars?
Downtown 13%
Elsewhere 87%
Transit: Strong Downtown: Weak Elsewhere SEATTLE URBAN AREA: 2000
Downtown 57%
Elsewhere 43%
EMPLOYMENT # OF TRANSIT COMMUTERS
TRANSIT AUTO
Transit & Auto Access: 30 Minutes FROM CENTRAL VANCOUVER
30 27
44
0 5
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
All Car Transit
One
Way
Wor
k Tr
ip M
inut
es
Travel by Transit Takes Longer 6 MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS: CANADA
Western Europe, United
States & the West
There is no
practical mass transit for
most trips
Perth
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Washington Tampa-St. Petersburg
St. Louis Seattle
San Francisco San Diego
San Antonio Sacramento
Riverside-San Bernardino Portland
Pittsburgh Phoenix
Philadelphia Orlando
New York Minneapolis-St. Paul
Miami Los Angeles Kansas City
Houston Detroit Denver
Dallas-Fort Worth Cleveland Cincinnati
Chicago Boston
Baltimore Atlanta
Accessible by Transit Not Accessible by Transit
Capability of Transit: 45 Minute Job Access METROPOLITAN AREAS OVER 2,000,000: 2008
Average Transit Job
Access: 5.6% (NYC: 9.8%)
90.3%
8.1% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Public Transport within Walking Distance
45 Minute Job Access
Public Transport: 7 US Largest Markets ACCESS TO TRANSIT STOPS/ACCESS TO JOBS
NY, CHI, LA, WDC, SF, BOS, PHI
Average work trip travel time: Car alone: 24.0 minutes
Public transport: 47.4 minutes
16%
84%
59%
41%
Jobs Accessible
Not Accessible
Jobs Accessible
Not Accessible
Auto Transit
Paris
Paris Suburbs: Cars Provide Quicker Travel FROM MAJOR SUBURBAN RAIL STATIONS: 1 HR TO JOBS
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
Motorcycle 91%
Automobile 1%
Transit 8%
Ho Chi Minh City Area: Travel Share 2007
Source: Derived from Asian
Development Bank data
y = 14.142x + 8699.1 R² = 0.7198
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000
Daily
Veh
icle
Tra
vel (
KMs)
per
Squ
are
KM
Population Density (Population per Square KM): 2006-2007
Density & Roadway Travel ROAD VEHICLES: MAJOR METROPOLITAN COUNTIES
422 Counties in 51 Metropolitan Areas
Over 1,000,000
R2 = 0.705 99% confidence
level
R² = 0.8856
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000
Vehicle Hours/KM2.
Population/ KM2
Hong Kong
Higher Density Means More Traffic Congestion DENSITY & TRAFFIC VOLUMES: INTERNATIONAL
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Average Urban Density Traffic Congestion (Excess Travel Time)
Index
Density & Traffic Congestion UNITED STATES, CANADA & EUROPE
Figure 98
USA
Canada
Europe
Automobile Market Penetration 0.75 AUTOS PER HOUSEHOLD
Toronto Dallas-Ft. Worth
Toronto/ DFW
Population (Population Centre/Urban Area)
5,132,794
5,121,892 0.2%
Land Area (KM2)
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%
Comparing Toronto & Dallas-Fort Worth URBAN AREAS COMPARED (2010 & 2011)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
100%
Hong Kong Atlanta
Cars (& Motorcycles) Mass Transit
Hong Kong & Atlanta: Motorized Travel MASS TRANSIT & AUTO MARKET SHARE
Figure 101
A well governed city delivers:
Mobility & economic growth Lower cost of living (housing affordability)
Shenzhen
REALITY & CHALLENGES (CONCLUSION)
Kolkata
$0 $5,000
$10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $45,000 $50,000
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2010
Argentina
United States
Germany Japan
Manila
Prosperity is not Guaranteed ECONOMIC POLICIES MATTER
Aspiration
Chennonceaux
Increasing Motorization
Bucharest
Curitiba and Metropolitan Region
YEAR POPULATION
2000 2.700.000
1985 1.700.000
1975 1.140.000
1965 550.000
1955 360.000
2010 3.224.286
2020 3.758.358
Evolution of Urban Growth
ECONOMIC GROWTH:
REQUIRED
FOR SOCIAL
COHESION
top related