国产bbaaaaa片,成年美女黄网站色视频免费,成年黄大片,а天堂中文最新一区二区三区,成人精品视频一区二区三区尤物

首頁> 外文學(xué)位 >Metropolitan form, transportation, and labor accessibility: Empirical evidence from four US metropolitan areas.
【24h】

Metropolitan form, transportation, and labor accessibility: Empirical evidence from four US metropolitan areas.

機譯：大都市的形式，交通和勞動力的可及性：來自美國四個大都市地區(qū)的經(jīng)驗證據(jù)。

獲取原文
獲取原文并翻譯 | 示例
  • 摘要
  • 著錄項
  • 相似文獻
  • 相關(guān)主題

摘要

Urban planners and economists have long debated the optimal size and spatial structure of metropolitan areas, including the question of whether low density development or sprawl is desirable or not. One aspect generally overlooked in the debate is whether sprawl enhances or reduces agglomeration economies. This thesis explores the extent to which jobs in metropolitan areas are concentrated in employment centers and whether those centers are accessible to large numbers of workers; both factors thought to contribute to agglomeration economies. These issues are explored by examining four metropolitan areas with similar populations but different spatial structures: Atlanta, Boston, Phoenix and Washington, DC. Boston and Washington DC are relatively dense while Atlanta and Phoenix are not.;Approximately 30 percent of the metropolitan employment is concentrated in centers either in the Central Business District (CBD) or the suburbs, but the size and location of these centers vary considerably. The employment centers are identified using the approach pioneered by Giuliano and her colleagues but with additional tests to confirm that the differences in the size of the analysis zones do not contaminate the result. While Boston's employment centers are dominated by its CBD, Atlanta and Washington DC are more polycentric having an important CBD and some strong and large suburban business districts (SBDs). Phoenix exhibits more dispersed pattern with a smaller CBD and smaller SBDs.;The labor accessibility to the employment centers also varies considerably and in unexpected ways. The CBDs are not the most accessible centers in their metropolitan areas. Moreover, the centers in Boston and Phoenix are much more accessible than the centers in Atlanta and Washington, DC. Although Atlanta and Washington DC enjoy the polycentric form many planners favor, their centers are relatively less accessible because they suffer both from a modest residential density and fairly low speeds. A statistical analysis suggests that increasing residential density would not increase the size of the accessible labor force proportionally because higher density makes it harder to maintain high commuting speeds. Public transit appears to have far less effect on labor market accessibility than highways, although its contribution is difficult to measure.
機譯：長期以來，城市規(guī)劃者和經(jīng)濟學(xué)家一直在爭論大都市區(qū)的最佳規(guī)模和空間結(jié)構(gòu)，包括是否需要低密度發(fā)展或擴張的問題。辯論中通常被忽略的一個方面是蔓延是增加還是減少集聚經(jīng)濟。本文探討了大都市地區(qū)就業(yè)集中在就業(yè)中心的程度以及這些中心是否可供大量工人使用；這兩個因素都被認為有助于集聚經(jīng)濟。通過研究四個人口相似但空間結(jié)構(gòu)不同的大都市區(qū)來探索這些問題：亞特蘭大，波士頓，鳳凰城和華盛頓特區(qū)。波士頓和華盛頓特區(qū)相對密集，而亞特蘭大和菲尼克斯則不。；大約30％的大都市就業(yè)集中在中央商務(wù)區(qū)（CBD）或郊區(qū)的中心，但是這些中心的規(guī)模和位置相差很大。使用Giuliano和她的同事率先采用的方法來識別就業(yè)中心，但還要進行額外的測試，以確認分析區(qū)域大小的差異不會污染結(jié)果。波士頓的就業(yè)中心以中央商務(wù)區(qū)為主導(dǎo)，而亞特蘭大和華盛頓特區(qū)則更為多元化，擁有重要的中央商務(wù)區(qū)和一些強大而大型的郊區(qū)商業(yè)區(qū)（SBD）。鳳凰城呈現(xiàn)出更分散的格局，CBD較小，SBD較小。;就業(yè)中心的勞動力可及性也以意想不到的方式變化很大。 CBD并非其大都市地區(qū)最容易接近的中心。此外，波士頓和鳳凰城的中心比亞特蘭大和華盛頓特區(qū)的中心要方便得多。盡管亞特蘭大和華盛頓特區(qū)享有許多規(guī)劃者青睞的多中心形式，但由于居住密度不高且速度較慢，它們的中心相對較難到達。統(tǒng)計分析表明，增加居住密度并不會成比例地增加可利用的勞動力的規(guī)模，因為更高的密度使保持高通勤速度變得更加困難。公共交通對勞動力市場可及性的影響似乎遠不及高速公路，盡管其貢獻難以衡量。

著錄項

相似文獻

  • 外文文獻
  • 中文文獻
  • 專利
獲取原文

客服郵箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公網(wǎng)安備：11010802029741號 ICP備案號：京ICP備15016152號-6 六維聯(lián)合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司?版權(quán)所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服務(wù)號