Abstract
Metropolitan areas vary widely in employment distribution and labour accessibility. Comparing four US metropolitan areas-Atlanta, Boston, Phoenix and Washington, DC-it is found that Atlanta and Washington, DC suffer from low labour accessibility compared with Boston and Phoenix. Moreover, large suburban employment centres in Atlanta and Washington, DC suffer from even lower accessibility than other employment centres within the same metropolitan areas or their counterparts in Boston and Phoenix. Their low labour accessibility is mainly explained by slower commuting speeds. Even though their residential and employment densities are modest, congestion in these employment centres is severe enough to undermine accessibility. The results raise questions about the effectiveness of creating large sub-centres in metropolitan areas, particularly creating auto-oriented edge-city-style employment centres at highway nodes.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 2283-2302 |
| Number of pages | 20 |
| Journal | Urban Studies |
| Volume | 48 |
| Issue number | 11 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2011 Aug |
| Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Environmental Science (miscellaneous)
- Urban Studies
Cite this
US metropolitan spatial structure and labour accessibility. / Matsuo, Miwa.
In: Urban Studies, Vol. 48, No. 11, 08.2011, p. 2283-2302.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - US metropolitan spatial structure and labour accessibility
AU - Matsuo, Miwa
PY - 2011/8
Y1 - 2011/8
N2 - Metropolitan areas vary widely in employment distribution and labour accessibility. Comparing four US metropolitan areas-Atlanta, Boston, Phoenix and Washington, DC-it is found that Atlanta and Washington, DC suffer from low labour accessibility compared with Boston and Phoenix. Moreover, large suburban employment centres in Atlanta and Washington, DC suffer from even lower accessibility than other employment centres within the same metropolitan areas or their counterparts in Boston and Phoenix. Their low labour accessibility is mainly explained by slower commuting speeds. Even though their residential and employment densities are modest, congestion in these employment centres is severe enough to undermine accessibility. The results raise questions about the effectiveness of creating large sub-centres in metropolitan areas, particularly creating auto-oriented edge-city-style employment centres at highway nodes.
AB - Metropolitan areas vary widely in employment distribution and labour accessibility. Comparing four US metropolitan areas-Atlanta, Boston, Phoenix and Washington, DC-it is found that Atlanta and Washington, DC suffer from low labour accessibility compared with Boston and Phoenix. Moreover, large suburban employment centres in Atlanta and Washington, DC suffer from even lower accessibility than other employment centres within the same metropolitan areas or their counterparts in Boston and Phoenix. Their low labour accessibility is mainly explained by slower commuting speeds. Even though their residential and employment densities are modest, congestion in these employment centres is severe enough to undermine accessibility. The results raise questions about the effectiveness of creating large sub-centres in metropolitan areas, particularly creating auto-oriented edge-city-style employment centres at highway nodes.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79961035104&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79961035104&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/0042098010380954
DO - 10.1177/0042098010380954
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:79961035104
VL - 48
SP - 2283
EP - 2302
JO - Urban Studies
JF - Urban Studies
SN - 0042-0980
IS - 11
ER -