edge cities: the rise of the suburban commuter
DESCRIPTION
This PowerPoint is the culmination of 4 months’ hard work and was presented to the Gettysburg College Environmental Studies Department. The project analyzed the commuting trends of suburbanites versus city citizens.TRANSCRIPT
Edge Cities: The Rise of the Suburban Commuter
Sarah Peters
Andrew Weinstein
Penny Zuckerman
ES 400 Senior Seminar
Introduction• 1991 – Edge City
published
• Edge cities
• City decentralization and urban sprawl
Photo Courtesy: www.bookbyte.com
Hypotheses
• Edge city populations increasing
• Public transportation use decreasing
• Human health and ecological impacts
Methods
• Expand on Garreau’s work
• 2000 US Census data
• Center cities vs. center cities
• Center cities vs. edge cities
Methods
• Number of vehicles per house
• Means of commuting
• Travel time by means of commuting
Map Courtesy: http://www.netstate.com/states/index.html
Washington, DC
Baltimore
BostonDetroit
Houston
Phoenix
Salt Lake City
Seattle
Los Angeles
San Francisco
New York CityPhiladelphia
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 20000
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
Eastern Center Cities - Population
Census Year
Po
pu
lati
on
Philadelphia
Detroit
Baltimore
Washington, DCBoston
New York City8,000,000
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 20000
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
Western Center Cities - Population
Census Year
Po
pu
lati
on
Los Angeles
Houston
Phoenix
San Francisco
Salt Lake City
Seattle
1970 1980 1990 20000
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000Washington, DC Edge Cities - Population
Census Year
Po
pu
lati
on Silver Spring
Alexandria
Bethesda
RockvilleReston
BowieGaithersburg
FairfaxLanham Laurel
Leesburg
37%
44%
16%
4%
Washington, DC
0 1 2 3 or more
4%
33%
42%
21%
Fairfax
8%
35%
40%
17%
Rockville
Vehicles Per House – Washington, DC Metropolitan Area
Drive
Alone
Carpo
ol
Public
Tra
nspo
rt
Bicycle
/Mot
orcy
cleW
alk
Other
Wor
k fro
m h
ome
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%Means of Commuting - Washington, DC Metropolitan Area
Washington, DC
Rockville
Fairfax
Pe
rce
nt
of
Co
mm
ute
rs
<30 30-44 45-59 ≥600
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
Travel Time By Means of Commuting - Washington, DC
Other means
Public transporta-tion
Commute Time (minutes)
Nu
mb
er
of
Co
mm
ute
rs
<30 30-44 45-59 ≥600
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
Travel Time By Means of Commuting - Washington, DC Edge City Rockville
Other means
Public transporta-tion
Commute Time (minutes)
Nu
mb
er
of
Co
mm
ute
rs
<30 30-44 45-59 ≥600
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000Travel Time By Means of Commuting – Washington, DC
Edge City Fairfax
Other means
Public transporta-tion
Commute Time (minutes)
Nu
mb
er
of
Co
mm
ute
rs
1970 1980 1990 20000
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000 Los Angeles Edge Cities - Population
Census Year
Po
pu
lati
on
San Bernardino
Torrance
Fullerton
Orange Burbank
Santa MonicaCarson
Newport Beach
Monterey ParkMontebello Gardena
Fountain ValleyTustin
Paramount
Cerritos
16%
40%
31%
12%
Los Angeles
0 1 2 3 or more
11%
52%
30%
7%
Santa Monica
4%
22%
45%
29%
Fountain Valley
Vehicles Per House – Los Angeles Metropolitan Area
Drive Alone
Carpool Public Transport
Bicycle/Motorcycle
Walk Other Work from home
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%Means of Commuting - Los Angeles Metropolitan Area
Los Angeles
Santa Monica
Fountain Valley
Pe
rce
nt
of
Co
mm
ute
rs
<30 30-44 45-59 ≥600
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000Travel Time By Means of Commuting - Los Angeles
Other Means
Public Transportation
Commute Time (minutes)
Nu
mb
er
of
Co
mm
ute
rs
<30 30-44 45-59 ≥600
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000Travel Time By Means of Commuting – Los Angeles Edge
City Fountain Valley
Other Means
Public Transportation
Commute Time (minutes)
Nu
mb
er
of
Co
mm
ute
rs
<30 30-44 45-59 ≥600
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000Travel Time By Means of Commuting – Los Angeles Edge
City Santa Monica
Other Means
Public Transportation
Commute Time (minutes)
Nu
mb
er
of
Co
mm
ute
rs
Discussion
• Our hypotheses supported
• Age and history matter
• Longer commute = greater percent use public transportation
• Center cities = fewer cars, less driving, more public transport use, and more walking
Conclusions
• Garreau’s observed trends continuing
• Ecological and social impacts
• Concentration
Future Studies
• Metropolitan areas
• Smart growth effective?
• 2010 Census?
Bibliography• Banham, Reyner. Los Angeles: The Architecture of
Four Ecologies. Oakland: University of California Press, 2001.
• Garreau, Joel. Edge City – Life on the New Frontier. Knopf Doubleday Publishing, 1991.
• Owen, David. Green Metropolis. New York: Riverhead Books, 2009.
• University of Minnesota. National Historical Geographic System. 2000. Web.
• U.S. Census Bureau. Data Access Tools. Web.