| 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 |
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:
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.