THE GEOGRAPHY OF TRANSPORT SYSTEMS


  Class I Class II Class III Class IV Class V
Land use intensity
Urban density (pers./ha) 12.2 15.4 42.1 58.0 117.3
Employment density (jobs/ha) 6.0 7.3 23.9 32.9 53.9
Outer area density (pers./ha) 10.7 12.8 32.8 48.7 83.9
Outer area employment density (jobs/ha) 4.3 5.0 12.5 18.8 28.5
Inner area density (pers./ha) 23.7 45.1 81.7 83.0 331.4
Inner area employment density (jobs/ha) 19.5 37.2 65.4 67.1 211.3
Orientation to non-automobile modes
Total vehicles per 1000 people 684 570 422 366 254
Car per 1000 people 539 479 367 318 192
Per capita car passenger kms 12,822 11,359 7,384 5,185 2,966
Per capita public transportation passenger kms 362 887 1,664 1,890 2,519
Proportion of passenger kms on public transportation (%) 2.9 7.4 18.6 27.2 49.2
Proportion of workers using public transportation (%) 8.6 19.3 32.0 33.3 52.5
Proportion of workers using private transportation (%) 87.2 74.4 51.7 45.4 23.7
Proportion of workers using foot and bicycle (%) 4.2 6.3 16.3 21.3 23.8
Level of traffic restraint
Length of road per person (m) 8.8 5.7 3.0 1.9 1.1
Parking spaces per 1000 CBD jobs 514 208 160 185 137
Vehicles per km of road 91 105 159 193 247
Car kms per km of road 1,068,857 1,364,838 1,723,132 1,725,693 1,665,405
Degree of centralization
CBD population density (pers./ha) 14.2 45.6 78.7 89.2 158.6
Proportion of population in CBD (%) 0.3 0.7 1.5 3.9 3.9
Proportion of jobs in CBD (%) 11.4 15.0 18.4 20.7 19.8
Public transportation performance
Vehicle kms per person 29.6 47.9 74.1 86.6 86.1
Passenger trips per person 46.1 106.3 229.6 324.3 371.4
Passenger trips per vehicle km 1.5 2.3 3.3 3.9 4.4
System average speed (km/hr) 24.0 31.3 30.8 30.9 31.5
Energy use per passenger km (Mj) 2.12 1.13 0.88 0.58 0.52
Proportion public transport passenger kms on trains (%) 13.3 53.9 54.9 51.0 51.4
Transportation energy conservation status Very poor Generally poor but a few positive features Significant conservation Strongly conserving Very strongly conserving
Gasoline use per capita 53,049 44,355 22,846 12,445 8,588
Cities Phoenix, Houston, Denver, Detroit, Perth, Adelaide, Los Angeles, Brisbane Washington, Melbourne, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Sydney Toronto, New York, Copenhagen, Hamburg, Zurich, Brussels Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Berlin (West), Vienna, London, Stockholm Munich, Singapore, Paris, Hong Kong, Tokyo
Source: adapted from Kenworthy and Newman, 1990.

Typology of World Cities According to their Level of Automobile Dependence and Gasoline Use

The above table undertakes a comparison between transportation / land use systems of 31 large cities in developed countries. Five major classes can be identified:

  • Class I. Very high automobile dependence, almost no role for public transport, walking and cycling, very high gasoline use.
  • Class II. High automobile dependence, minor though significant role for public transport, walking and cycling, high gasoline use.
  • Class III. Moderate automobile dependence, important role for public transport walking and cycling, moderate gasoline use.
  • Class IV. Low automobile dependence, public transport, walking and cycling equal with cars, low gasoline use.
  • Class V. Very low automobile dependence, public transport, walking and cycling more important than cars, very low gasoline use.

Efficient and productive cities are not necessarily linked with energy consumption per capita because of the heterogeneity of conditions. The first two groups of cities (class I and II) are characterized by low densities and a reliance on the car for mobility, while the last three (class III, IV and V) have higher densities and rely on public transit. It is even possible to suggest that land use externalities are likely to be major sources of diminishing returns for urban environments. Class I and II cities will be the first to face acute environmental externalities imposed by land uses.