Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
What do Chicago, Paris and Los Angeles have in common?                  Alex Anas          Professor of Economics   State ...
• Chicago, Paris, L.A. have developed differentlybecause of history and initial        conditions• But they are shaped by ...
• The same economic model can be  used to study all three places• A Computable General Equilibrium model  based on theory ...
The RELU-TRAN Model         (Regional Economy Land Use             and Transportation)• There is a working version for the...
STARTING POINT                   p, w, R,V,S G, g      RELU-TRAN CYCLE                         RELU            RELU LOOPS ...
START POINT                                 p, w, R, V, S, G, g                 RELU LOOP                                 ...
RELU TRIPS       AUTO MODE CHOICE         PROBABILITIES  ROUTE CHOICE & NETWORK   EQUILIBRIUM FLOWITERATIONS CONVERGED  CO...
DecisionsDecisions are hierarchically linked and involve discrete as well as continuous choices                           ...
A mix of discrete andcontinuous choices                                     Discrete choice of                            ...
FIRMS                          BUILDING    LABOR                           TYPES    TYPES    PRODUCTION FUNCTION          ...
INTER-INDUSTRY STRUCTURE AGRICULTURE               MANUFACTURINGBUSINESS                    RETAILSERVICES                ...
Congestion and urban             development• Many issues can be studied using a model  such as RELU-TRAN• Today I will fo...
Congestion’s effect    on urban development     depends strongly on:• 1. How much public transit is available• 2. How spre...
1. Use of public transit varies• Los Angeles                2%• USA (average)             4.9%• Chicago                   ...
2. Job concentration varies• Greater Paris      50% in the core                  (City of Paris & CDTs)• Chicago         3...
3. Trips are decentralized and          getting more so• Most travel occurs in the suburbs• Suburban to suburban travel is...
US & Canadian Commuting Patterns                        United States    Canada                                          2...
Commute time increaseswith city size in the US
Doubling population increases      commute time by 10%URBAN AREA WORKERS                     AVERAGE                      ...
Avoidance behavior: workers• Workers avoid congestion by  1) Switching from driving topublic mass transit;    2) Relocatin...
Avoidance behavior: firms• Firms respond to congestion by  1) Paying higher wages to attractworkers;  2) Relocate closer t...
Combined effects of       workers and firms• Workers’ response increases  housing and job density in the  centers of citie...
Household                           Firm                Access to jobs/shops   Household                            Firm  ...
Urban sprawl in the US• One way in which an urban area reduces  congestion is by sprawling• Because public transit is not ...
How much urban sprawl      has happened in the US?• 1972 to 1996: the U.S. urbanized land has  sprawled at a rate of 2.48%...
Chicago’s congestion1• How does congestion affect public  transit, urban sprawl and travel  behavior in Chicago?• What wou...
Levels of network and zonal aggregation                                  CITY                                 (5 zone)    ...
Central Business District Lake      Rest of City of ChicagoMichigan           Inner ring suburbs           Outer ring subu...
Real Estate Growth (2000-2030)                   Single family houses                    Other buildings                  ...
Change in Aggregate and Per Capita VMT (Without Highway Capacity Additions )
Change in Aggregate and Per Capita VMT  (With Highway Capacity Additions)                         Aggregate VMT           ...
The Constancy of Commuting Time by Car Despite    Population Growth and Increasing Sprawl                              Per...
Round-trip commuting by mode
Travel time per day
Driving-related aggregates                 Non-work trips                             Gasoline                            ...
Per-capita changes in driving-related variables                                     Non-work trips                        ...
Effect of Growth on Job Sprawl
Other results from Chicago• Do not add any road capacity  more congestion, more sprawl, less VMT.• Improve transit travel...
• Stable gasoline prices   more intra-zonal trips, more  non-work trips, more sprawl• Improve car fuel economy (4%  per d...
How will rapid rail investments2    affect the Grand Paris Region                by 2035?• The RELU-TRAN model was used fo...
Population changes after projects
Job changes after projects
Rent increases after projects
3 What would be the effects of higher congestion in Los Angeles? • 2% of the trips are by public transit • 30% of the jobs...
Commute time increaseswith city size in the US
Job sub-centers in theLos Angeles MSA
Highways in theLos Angeles MSA
Highways and jobcenters in L.A.
Expected effects of higher        congestion in L.A.• Will new job sub-centers emerge?• Will existing job sub-centers get ...
What do Chicago, Paris and Los Angeles have in common?
What do Chicago, Paris and Los Angeles have in common?
What do Chicago, Paris and Los Angeles have in common?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

What do Chicago, Paris and Los Angeles have in common?

1,363 views

Published on

Public Seminar by Alex Anas (Professor of Economics, State University of New York at Buffalo)
18.02.2013, NES

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

What do Chicago, Paris and Los Angeles have in common?

  1. 1. What do Chicago, Paris and Los Angeles have in common? Alex Anas Professor of Economics State University of New York at Buffalo Public Lecture New Economic School Moscow, Russia February 18, 2013
  2. 2. • Chicago, Paris, L.A. have developed differentlybecause of history and initial conditions• But they are shaped by the same economic processes
  3. 3. • The same economic model can be used to study all three places• A Computable General Equilibrium model based on theory and econometrics can be applied to any metropolitan area• To use these models, we just have to recognize that the different areas are shaped by the same processes
  4. 4. The RELU-TRAN Model (Regional Economy Land Use and Transportation)• There is a working version for the Chicago, MSA and the Greater Paris Region• There is a current project underway that will apply the model to the Greater Los Angeles Region.
  5. 5. STARTING POINT p, w, R,V,S G, g RELU-TRAN CYCLE RELU RELU LOOPS CONVERGEDUpdateG and g RELU TRIPSfor next cycle TRAN TRAN ITERATIONS CONVERGED G and g converged? p, w, R, V converged? Excess demands, profits converged? YES RELU-TRAN CYCLES CONVERGED Cyclical linking of the RELU and TRAN algorithms in RELU-TRAN
  6. 6. START POINT p, w, R, V, S, G, g RELU LOOP PRICES, p ( w, R ) p OUTPUTS, X ( p, w, R, S,V ) X WAGES, w ( p, X, R,S,V )w Updatep, w, R, V for next loop RENTS, R (p, X, w, S,V) R VALUES, V RV STOCKS, S VS NO YES p, w, R, V converged? Excess demands converged? Economic profits converged? RELU loops converged The RELU algorithm
  7. 7. RELU TRIPS AUTO MODE CHOICE PROBABILITIES ROUTE CHOICE & NETWORK EQUILIBRIUM FLOWITERATIONS CONVERGED CONGESTED HIGHWAY LINK TRAVEL TIMES ZONE-TO-ZONE EXPECTED TIMES & COSTS G and gTRAN The TRAN Algorithm
  8. 8. DecisionsDecisions are hierarchically linked and involve discrete as well as continuous choices Consumer Workplace- residence Voluntary locations unemployment • Labor supply / leisure All choices on left • Commuting mode choice / vehicle choice apply except those in red • Housing (quantity / type) • Vehicle ownership (quantity / type) • Discretionary travel pattern to obtain goods and services Where to go ? Where not to go ? How many trips per period ? How much to spend ? Mode choice / vehicle choice on each trip
  9. 9. A mix of discrete andcontinuous choices Discrete choice of Working/not workingEnter labor market Stay out of labor market Discrete choice of triplet: i: residence zone j: workplace zone (i,j,k) k: type of housing Discrete choice of mode for commuting Auto Transit Continuous variables•Floor space of type k in residence zone I•Labor hours of work supplied to place of work at j• Number of non-work trips and their destinations and modes• Quantity of goods purchased on non-work trips
  10. 10. FIRMS BUILDING LABOR TYPES TYPES PRODUCTION FUNCTION OUTPUT INTERMEDIATEINPUTS FROM OTHER INDUSTRIES
  11. 11. INTER-INDUSTRY STRUCTURE AGRICULTURE MANUFACTURINGBUSINESS RETAILSERVICES TRADE CONSUMER
  12. 12. Congestion and urban development• Many issues can be studied using a model such as RELU-TRAN• Today I will focus on one issue mainly:• How does urban development respond to increases in traffic congestion in Chicago, Paris, Los Angeles
  13. 13. Congestion’s effect on urban development depends strongly on:• 1. How much public transit is available• 2. How spread out geographically are the jobs in the urban arae • 3. How decentralized trips are
  14. 14. 1. Use of public transit varies• Los Angeles 2%• USA (average) 4.9%• Chicago 13%• Greater Paris 50%
  15. 15. 2. Job concentration varies• Greater Paris 50% in the core (City of Paris & CDTs)• Chicago 30% in 4 job centers• Los Angeles 30% in 30 job centers
  16. 16. 3. Trips are decentralized and getting more so• Most travel occurs in the suburbs• Suburban to suburban travel is the most rapidly increasing• This effect is bigger when public transit is less available
  17. 17. US & Canadian Commuting Patterns United States Canada 2001Residence Workplace 2000 Census (%) Census(%)Central Central city city 27.5 46.1Central city Suburb 8.9 7.5 CentralSuburb city 20.2 16.2Suburb Suburb 43.4 30.2 100.0 100.0
  18. 18. Commute time increaseswith city size in the US
  19. 19. Doubling population increases commute time by 10%URBAN AREA WORKERS AVERAGE COMMUTE LOUISVILLE 0.5 million 22.7 minutes PITTSBURG 1.0 million 25.5 minutes HOUSTON 2.0 million 28.8 minutes CHICAGO 4.0 million 31.0 minutes NEW YORK 8.0 million 34.0 minutes• New York has 16 times more workers than Louisville but only 50% higher commute time
  20. 20. Avoidance behavior: workers• Workers avoid congestion by 1) Switching from driving topublic mass transit; 2) Relocating their homes closerto their jobs; 3) Other
  21. 21. Avoidance behavior: firms• Firms respond to congestion by 1) Paying higher wages to attractworkers; 2) Relocate closer to workers andcustomers;
  22. 22. Combined effects of workers and firms• Workers’ response increases housing and job density in the centers of cities• Firms’ response spreads jobs to less congested outlying areas and makes more urban sprawl
  23. 23. Household Firm Access to jobs/shops Household Firm Access to labor and customersLinkages between firms and households
  24. 24. Urban sprawl in the US• One way in which an urban area reduces congestion is by sprawling• Because public transit is not plentiful and easily accessible• US urban areas have adjusted to congestion by jobs moving out to suburbs
  25. 25. How much urban sprawl has happened in the US?• 1972 to 1996: the U.S. urbanized land has sprawled at a rate of 2.48% per annum (2.5 times the 0.98% growth rate of urbanized population)• An example follows about the Buffalo- Niagara Falls area in which I live
  26. 26. Chicago’s congestion1• How does congestion affect public transit, urban sprawl and travel behavior in Chicago?• What would be the effects of a London type or Stockholm type cordon policy in Chicago?
  27. 27. Levels of network and zonal aggregation CITY (5 zone) SUBURBS (9 zone)CHICAGO 14+1 ZONE TEST VERSION Larger Chicago 111+6 zones
  28. 28. Central Business District Lake Rest of City of ChicagoMichigan Inner ring suburbs Outer ring suburbs Exurban areaxban area The Chicago MSA
  29. 29. Real Estate Growth (2000-2030) Single family houses Other buildings Land available for development
  30. 30. Change in Aggregate and Per Capita VMT (Without Highway Capacity Additions )
  31. 31. Change in Aggregate and Per Capita VMT (With Highway Capacity Additions) Aggregate VMT Per capita VMT
  32. 32. The Constancy of Commuting Time by Car Despite Population Growth and Increasing Sprawl Percent commuting by car Minutes of two way commuting
  33. 33. Round-trip commuting by mode
  34. 34. Travel time per day
  35. 35. Driving-related aggregates Non-work trips Gasoline VMT Fuel Economy. MPG
  36. 36. Per-capita changes in driving-related variables Non-work trips Gasoline VMT all trips VMT in commuting
  37. 37. Effect of Growth on Job Sprawl
  38. 38. Other results from Chicago• Do not add any road capacity  more congestion, more sprawl, less VMT.• Improve transit travel times (5% per decade)  less sprawl, less congestion but slightly, more transit ridership, centralization.
  39. 39. • Stable gasoline prices  more intra-zonal trips, more non-work trips, more sprawl• Improve car fuel economy (4% per decade) Similar to gas price, but not as strong.
  40. 40. How will rapid rail investments2 affect the Grand Paris Region by 2035?• The RELU-TRAN model was used for the “Ile de France” to model the effect of an estimated 35 billion Euros in planned rapid rail investments.
  41. 41. Population changes after projects
  42. 42. Job changes after projects
  43. 43. Rent increases after projects
  44. 44. 3 What would be the effects of higher congestion in Los Angeles? • 2% of the trips are by public transit • 30% of the jobs are in 30 sub-centers • It is the 2nd largest metro area in the US but has lower than expected travel times
  45. 45. Commute time increaseswith city size in the US
  46. 46. Job sub-centers in theLos Angeles MSA
  47. 47. Highways in theLos Angeles MSA
  48. 48. Highways and jobcenters in L.A.
  49. 49. Expected effects of higher congestion in L.A.• Will new job sub-centers emerge?• Will existing job sub-centers get bigger or smaller?• How much will VMT per-capita decrease?

×