The true size of London: London's Functional Urban Region

Measuring Metropolitan London: a rationale

Alan FreemanGLA Economics

It is important to know London’s ‘true’ boundaries Need to compare London’s performance with

other cities on a consistent basis Need to analyse the forces at work in London’s

economy – this requires a definition based on an economic, not just an administrative, rationale.

The ‘administrative’ boundary does not cease to be important – this is where ‘London’ policies operate.

GLA boundary also happens to correspond well to its ‘economic core’, because of the Green Belt

However it does not include a wider area which interacts with London on a daily basis, principally through commuting.

A case in point: London and Paris

GLA London – Population (MYE 2004) 7,420,000– Area 1,584 Km2

Little Paris (TBA) Isle de France Paris

– Population 11,362,000 – Area 12,012 Km2

Hence our current activities: a London-Paris comparison, and a sensitivity testing– Method will be extended to other cities– We are working with BAK on sensitivity testing

Benchmarking – not just a London issue

Governments need common standards – to compare the performance of cities– to allocate and implement policy resources.

Urban regions are relevant spatial units for the application of significant policy functions.

An Urban region is an ‘economic unit’ We have to be able to measure and compare

cities on the basis of their economic function Comparability is paramount It is a distinct issue from ‘how should cities be

governed’ although it can inform the governance agenda

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

-0.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5

Supplier 1

Supp

liers

2 a

nd 3

Supplier 2Supplier 3

Estimates from the different suppliers

would be the same if they lay on this line

Why a standard is needed

Estimates of 10-year

productivity growth rates

from 23 cities and 3 suppliers

What kind of standard?

City definition cannot take political or administrative boundaries as a starting point. It should arise from socio-economic study of what a city is and does.

We need comparisons across the world and at least with ‘world cities’ hence US, Europe and ideally Japan

There are broad continental variations – US cities evolved historically differently from European cities leading to different patterns of settlement. This has to be recognised.

For the GLA, the requirement for a standard dominates over the requirement of scope for local variation.

But we want to know how big the difference really is before decisions are made.

Four main existing approaches US metro system

+ long period of development+ existing data for comparisons- different historical course of evolution

GEMACA+ Sound and robust methodology+ Already tested and demonstrated– Not much extended outside Europe

Urban Audit+ official buy-in and support- uses administrative unit as core- permits a wide degree of local variation- not really a standard

- TWA approach

What is in common and what differs?

TWA is a distinctive approach. We will discuss separately Common feature of US, UA, and GEMACA is a ‘core-

hinterland’ or ‘Functional Urban Region’ (FUR) Core may be either as an area of high population density

or of high job density (or otherwise eg building density) Commuting field: people that regularly communicate

with, or travel to, the core, for economic purposes principally work.

Both thresholds and criteria vary. – US system has ‘core’ defined by population, with a relatively low

density (1000/500 per square mile = 4/ha), but relatively high commuting threshold (25 percent but includes out-commuting)

– GEMACA has ‘core’ defined by employment with 7/ha = 1813/sq mile density threshold, and 10 per cent in-commuting threshold

Issues

Core defined by population, work density, or other criterion such as morphology

What are the economic purposes of travel and communication?

What size units are appropriate to define the core What is the threshold density for the core What threshold densities for in- and out-

commuting? What size units to define the hinterland City-Regions: what criteria lead to the exclusion or

separation of distinct conglomerations which fall statistically within a metro area eg Reading, Harlow?

Some initial results

FUR size highly sensitive to the size of core ‘building block’ FUR size relatively insensitive to the choice between

population or work density Core size varies with core threshold densities, but FUR size

varies by small magnitude over large spectrum of densities We have not yet investigated the sensitivity of FUR size to

commuting densities or to the inclusion of out-commuting FUR size sensitive (for London) to whether the hinterland is

composed of NUTS3 or NUTS4 building blocks. This is a significant problem since statutory Eurostat data is

available only at NUTS3 level, which are relatively large in the UK

If NUTS3 used, the issue boils down to the inclusion or exclusion of one NUTS3 area (Kent) with a population of about 1,300,000 [London FUR without Kent = 13,700,000]

Maps

1000 employees per square mile










1813 residents per square mile



1813 residents per square mile

London FUR – Jobs

568585217

446

477

487

498

533

1,659

2,294

2,884

Thurrock Medway Towns LutonBuckinghamshire CC Berkshire Surrey

Hertfordshire Essex Kent CCOuter London Inner London

Thousands of workforce jobs in 2004

Inner London

Outer London

Commuter Belt

Paris FUR – Jobs

434

530

428

850

526

498

422274201

152

1,656 4,313

Seine-et-Marne Yvelines Essonne Hauts-de-Seine

Seine-Saint-Denis Val-de-Marne Val-d'Oise Oise

Eure Eure-et-Loir Paris

Thousands of workforce jobs in 2004

Paris

Some summary indicators

Population 2003 (000s of resident population)

Workforce Employment 2003 (000s of

workforce jobs)

GVA 2003 (€billion current)

Inner London 2,892 2,485 160 GLA 7,371 4,431 260 Surrounds 6,617 3,358 171 FUR 13,988 7,789 431

Paris 2,166 1,656 141 Surrounds 9,872 3,961 277 FUR 12,038 5,616 418

Sensitivities and data summary

Employment Density Threshold Level 1000 1500 1813 2000 2500

Lowest/ Highest Density

LAU2 units in total FUR 1,786 1,736 1,676 1,685 1,613 90% Resident population of total FUR 13,310,717 13,017,914 12,766,609 12,729,043 12,407,213 93% Workplace population of total FUR 6,653,364 6,495,638 6,388,281 6,349,001 6,197,473 93% Geographic area (sq mi) 5,230 4,913 4,757 4,716 4,355 83% LAU1 (NUTS4) units enclosing FUR 83 85 83 82 80 96% Resident population of LAU1 units enclosing FUR 12,645,988 12,868,188 12,660,293 12,454,272 12,255,906 97% Workplace population of LAU1 units enclosing FUR Geographic area (sq mi) 4,578 4,263 4,103 4,019 3,732 82% Number of NUTS3 units enclosing FUR 14 14 14 13 12 86% Resident population of NUTS3 units enclosing FUR 13,922,024 13,922,024 13,922,024 13,737,653 12,407,935 89% Workplace population of NUTS3 units enclosing FUR Geographic area (sq mi) 5,855 5,855 5,855 5,838 4,470 76%

Education

The true size of London: London's Functional Urban Region