[sustran] New Urbanism, Portland and THE ECONOMIST

[Wendell Cox]

There is no question that the US urbanized area is a relatively unique
"animal" --- though urbanized areas in Australia and New Zealand are similar
in density --- with Canadian urbanized areas a it more dense.

For all of the volumnous work done by Newman & Kenworthy, their estimates of
urban density have been eclipsed by better data, which is availalbe on my
website at

        http://www.publicpurpose.com/wldurb91.htm

This data is for urbanized areas, and limited to the portions of urbanized
areas with more than 5,000 per square mile. It represents, by far, the best
data that is comparable between metropolitan areas. Source is US Census
Bureau. This data is not comparable to the density data for US urbanized
areas that I have been citing, because the Census Bureau uses a
significantly different standard for comparison within the country --- for
example, for international comparison purposes, LA has a density of 9100 per
square mile, while the internal data says 5800 (it all has to do with the
5000 per sqmi threshhold, which is not used in the US data set).

There are problems with the Newman-Kenworthy data --- for example

        The Greater Toronto region contains large expanses of unurbanized
land (especially in the regional municipalities of York and Durham), which
causes an understatement of density.

        The "tri-state" region of New York contains much unurbanized land
--- the urbanized area would have been  more appropriate. 

Nonetheless, Newman and Kenworthy are to be complimented for the aggressive
depth of their work on densities.

Unfortunately, there is a tendancy among many in the US to not understand
the difference between US urban areas and those in Europe or Asia. US
urbanized areas are generally 1/2 to 1/5 as dense as European, and from
1/10 to 1/50 (generally speaking) that of Asian. Yet we often hear that we
should follow European or Asian urban transport models --- quite appropriate
in Europe and Asia --- but largely beyond hope in US urban areas. Atlanta's
urbanized area has a population density below that of the entire nation of
Bangladesh. It is because of these differences that light rail can carry
close to (I'm told) 30,000 per peak hour in peak direction in Manila, and
struggles to reach 3,000 in the US.

Best regards,

Wendell Cox


>The discussions on Portland are interesting... but I feel compelled to
>offer some perspective on cities outside North America, Australia or New
>Zealand.
>
>Almost everywhere else in the world, urban population densities are much
>higher than in the USA.   In most cities in Asia, Africa or Latin America,
>high densities are a reality that must be coped with rather than a policy
>goal to debate.
>
>High urban densities cause their own transport challenges and
>opportunities. Dense cities do have the chance to achieve a high role for
>public transport and non-motorised transport.  But they also face the  very
>great danger that even relatively small numbers of vehicles can cause a big
>problem -- vehicle numbers can shoot up during an economic boom MUCH faster
>than the urban fabric (and road systems) can possibly adapt (witness
>appalling traffic problems in Bangkok, Seoul, Jakarta, etc).  In many ways,
>this is the opposite issue to that of places like Portland, which is trying
>to avoid some of the problems associated with extremely low densities.
>
>Here are some 1990 density figures (in PERSONS PER HECTARE) published by
>the team led by Jeff Kenworthy of ISTP, Murdoch University, Western
>Australia (of which I have been a part). These density figures carefully
>exclude non-urban land uses in the calculation so that they should be truly
>comparable.   Wherever possible, the entire metropolitan area is included:
>so for example, New York's figure is for the whole Tri-State Area and not
>just New York City.
>
>        Low Density Cities
>Houston 10,   Perth 11,  Portland  12,  Washington DC  14,  Chicago 17,
>Sydney  17, New York   19,  Vancouver  21, Los Angeles   24  (unfortunately
>this LA figure is LA County only - the entire metro region would be
>slightly lower)
>
>        Lower Middle Density Cities
>Toronto 26 (whole Greater Toronto Area),  Copenhagen  29, Montreal  34,
>Hamburg 40,  London  42,  Paris  46,  Zürich  47
>
>        Upper Middle Density Cities
>Stockholm   53,  Munich  54,  Kuala Lumpur (entire Klang Valley metro
>region) 59,  Vienna  68,  Tokyo  (entire metro region) 71, Brussels  75,
>Singapore   87
>
>        High Density Cities
>Bangkok 149, DKI Jakarta 171, Surabaya  177, Metro Manila  198,  Seoul
>(entire metro region) 245,  Hong Kong   301
>
>Various estimates that I have seen suggest that these Asian figures are not
>exceptions. Most large developing Asian cities are above 100 persons per
>hectare.  Some Latin American cities may be a little sparser but are still
>mostly well above 60 persons per hectare.
>
>I hope this helps give a broader perspective.
>
>Paul.
>
>A. Rahman Paul BARTER
>Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia & the Pacific (SUSTRAN)
>Secretariat, c/o Asia Pacific 2000, PO Box 12544,   50782 Kuala Lumpur,
>Malaysia.   Fax: +603 253 2361, E-mail: <tkpb at barter.pc.my>
>-------------------------------------------------
>SUSTRAN is dedicated to promoting transport policies and investments
>which foster accessibility for all; social equity; ecological sustainability;
>health and safety; public participation; and high quality of life.
>
>
>
WENDELL COX CONSULTANCY
International Public Policy, Economics, Labour, Transport & Strategic Planning
The Public Purpose: Internet Public Policy Journal
http://www.publicpurpose.com
Voice +1 618 632 8507; Fax  +1 618 632 8538
P.O. Box 841- Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA

"To facilitate the ideal of government as the servant  of the people by
identifying and implementing strategies to achieve public purposes at a cost
that is no higher than necessary."