How do you map a city with no centre? Commuting patterns in the San Francisco Bay area

The Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco Bay. Image: Justin Sullivan/Getty.

Dr Alasdair Rae is a senior lecturer in the geography department of the University of Sheffield.

I’ve recently been writing and thinking about polycentric urban regions: partly because I’m interested in how places connect (or not) for one of my research projects, and partly because I’ve been experimenting with ways to map the connections between places in polycentric urban regions.

There was quite a lot of the latter in Peter Hall and Kathy Pain’s ‘The Polycentric Metropolis’ from 2006 – but given that the technology has moved on a little since then I thought I’d explore the topic in more detail. Mind you, I’ve also been looking back on Volumes 1 to 3 of the Chicago Area Transportation Study of 1959, as a reminder that technology hasn’t moved on as much as we think: their "Cartographatron" was capable of mapping over 10m commuting flows even then, although it was the size of a small house and required a team of technicians to operate it.

Anyway, to the point… What’s the best way of mapping polycentricity in an urban region? 

For this, I decided to look at the San Francisco Bay Area since it has been the subject of a few studies by one of my favourite scholars, Prof Robert Cervero of UC Berkeley. Also, a paper by Melanie Rapino and Alison Fields of the US Census Bureau identified the Bay Area as the region with the highest percentage of "mega commuting" in the United States – that is, people who travel 90 or more minutes and 50 or more miles to work. 

Therefore, I decided to look at commuting flows between census tracts in the 9 counties of the Bay Area, from Sonoma County in the north to Santa Clara County in the south. I’ve used a cut-off of 30 miles here instead of the more generous 50 mile cut-off used by Rapino and Fields. I also mapped the whole of the United States in this way, but that’s for another day.

Are you in the big blue blob?

The series of maps below illustrate both patterns of commuting in the Bay Area and the different approaches I’ve taken in an attempt to capture the essence of polycentrism in the area. I don’t attempt to capture the misery of some of these commutes (for that I’d need a different kind of technology).

But, I do think the animations in particular capture the polycentric nature of commuter flows. If you’re represented by one of the dots in the images below, thanks a lot for taking part!

Let’s start with a simple representation of commutes of over 30 miles from San Francisco County (which is coterminous with the City of San Francisco). The animated gif is shown below.

The most noticeable thing here is the big blue blob(©) making its way down from San Francisco to Palo Alto, Mountain View and Cupertino in Santa Clara County. In total, the blue dots represent just over 15,000 commuters going to 803 different destination census tracts.

I’m going to take a wild guess and suggest that some of these commutes are by people who work at Stanford, Google and Apple. But it probably also includes people working at NASA Ames Research Center, Santa Clara University and locations in San Jose. 

These patterns aren’t particularly surprising, since there has been a lot of press coverage about San Francisco’s bus wars and commutes of this kind. However, there is a fairly significant dispersal of San Francisco commuters north and east, even if the numbers don’t match those of the big blue blob. By the way, from San Francisco it's about 33 miles to Palo Alto, 39 miles to Mountain View, 42 to Cupertino and 48 to San Jose. 

The first example above doesn’t reveal anything like the whole story, though. There are actually quite a lot of commuters who travel in the opposite direction from Santa Clara County to San Francisco. And more widely, the commuting patterns in the Bay Area – a metro area of around 7.5 m people – resembles a nexus of mega-commuting.

This is what I’ve attempted to show below, for all tract-to-tract connections of 10 people or more, and no distance cut-off. The point is not to attempt to display all individual lines, though you can see some. I’m attempting to convey the general nature of connectivity (with the lines) and the intensity of commuting in some areas (the orange and yellow glowing areas). 

 

Even when you look at tract-to-tract connections of 50 or more, the nexus looks similar.

 

If we zoom in on a particular location, using a kind of "spider diagram" of commuting interactions, we can see the relationships between one commuter destination and its range of origins. In the example below I’ve taken the census tract where the Googleplex is located, and looked at all Bay Area Commutes which terminate there, regardless of distance.

In the language of the seminal Chicago Area Transportation Study I mentioned above, these are "desire lines" since this represents "the shortest line between origin and destination, and expresses the way a person would like to go, if such a way were available" (CATS, 1959, p. 39) instead of, for example, sitting in traffic on US Route 101 for 90 minutes.

According to the data, this example includes just over 23,000 commuters from 585 different locations across the Bay Area. I've also done an animated line version and a point version, just for comparison.

Commuting connections for the Googleplex census tract.

 

Animated spider diagram of flows to Mountain View.

 

Just some googlers going to work, probably. 

Looking further afield now, to different parts of the Bay Area, I also produced animated dot maps of commutes of 30 miles or more for the other three most populous counties – Alameda, Contra Costa and Santa Clara. I think these examples do a good job of demonstrating the polycentric nature of commuting in this area, since the points disperse far and wide to multiple centres.

Note that I decided to make the dots return to their point of origin – after a slight delay – in order to highlight the fact that commuting is a two way process. The Alameda County animation represents over 12,000 commuters, going to 751 destinations, Contra Costa 25,000 and 1,351, and Santa Clara nearly 28,000 commuters and 1,561 destinations. The totals for within the Bay Area are about 3.3m and 110,000 origin-destination links.

Alameda County commutes of 30+ miles.

 

Contra Costa County commutes of 30+ miles.

 

Santa Clara County commutes of 30+ miles.

 

Finally, I’ve attempted something which is a bit much for one map, but here it is anyway; an animated dot map of all tract-to-tract flows of 30 or more miles in the Bay Area, with dots coloured by the county of origin. Although this gets pretty crazy half way through I think the mixing of the colours does actually tell its own story of polycentric urbanism. For this final animation I’ve added a little audio into the video file as well, just for fun.

A still from the final animation. You can see the whole thing here.

What am I trying to convey with the final animation? Like I said, it's too much for a single map animation but it's kind of a metaphor for the messy chaos of Bay Area commuting (yes, let's go with that). You can make more sense of it if you watch it over a few times and use the controls to pause it. It starts well and ends well, but the bits in the middle are pretty ugly – just like the Bay Area commute, like I said.


My attempts to understand the functional nature of polycentric urbanism continue, and I attempt to borrow from pioneers like Waldo Tobler and the authors of the Chicago Area Transportation Study. This is just a little map-based experimentation in an attempt to bring the polycentric metropolis to life, for a region plagued by gruesome commutes.

It’s little wonder, therefore, that a recent poll suggested Bay Area commuters were in favour of improving public transit. If you're interested in understanding more about the Bay Area's housing and transit problems, I suggest watching this Google Talk from Egon Terplan (54:44).

Dr Alasdair Rae is a senior lecturer in the geography department of the University of Sheffield. 

This article was originally posted on his blog, Under the Raedar, and is reposted here with the author's permission.

 

NOTES: The data I used for this are the 2006-2010 5-year ACS tract-to-tract commuting file, published in 2013. Patterns may have changed a little since then, but I suspect they are very similar today, possibly with more congestion.

There are severe data warnings associated with individual tract-to-tract flows from the ACS data but at the aggregate level they provide a good overview of local connectivity. I used QGIS to map the flows. I actually mapped the entire United States this way, but that’s going into an academic journal (I hope).

I used Michael Minn’s MMQGIS extension in QGIS to produce the animation frames and then I patched them together in GIMP (gifs) and Camtasia (for the mp4s), with IrfanView doing a little bit as well (batch renaming for reversing file order). Not quite a 100% open source workflow but that’s because I just had Camtasia handy. The images are low res and only really good for screen. If you’re looking for higher resolution images, get in touch. 

 
 
 
 

Was the decline in Liverpool’s historic population really that unusual?

A view of Liverpool from Birkenhead. Image: Getty.

It is often reported that Liverpool’s population halved after the 1930s. But is this true? Or is it a myth?

Often, it’s simply assumed that it’s true. The end. Indeed, proud Londoner Lord Adonis – a leading proponent of the Liverpool-bypassing High Speed 2 railway, current chair of the National Infrastructure Commission, and generally a very influential person – stood on the stairs in Liverpool Town Hall in 2011 and said:

“The population of Liverpool has nearly halved in the last 50 years.”

This raises two questions. Firstly, did the population of the City of Liverpool really nearly halve in the 50 year period to 2011? That’s easy to check using this University of Portsmouth website – so I did just that (even though I knew he was wrong anyway). In 2011, the population of the City of Liverpool was 466,415. Fifty years earlier, in 1961, it was 737,637, which equates to a 37 per cent drop. Oops!

In fact, the City of Liverpool’s peak population was recorded in the 1931 Census as 846,302. Its lowest subsequent figure was recorded in the 2001 Census as 439,428 – which represents a 48 per cent decline from the peak population, over a 70 year period.

Compare this to the population figures for the similarly sized City of Manchester. Its peak population also recorded in the 1931 Census as 748,729, and its lowest subsequent figure was also recorded in the 2001 Census, as 392,830. This also represents a 48 per cent decline from the peak population, over the same 70 year period.

So, as can be seen here, Liverpool is not a special case at all. Which makes me wonder why it is often singled out or portrayed as exceptional in this regard, in the media and, indeed, by some badly briefed politicians. Even London has a similar story to tell, and it is told rather well in this recent article by a Londoner, for the Museum of London. (Editor’s note: It’s one of mine.)

This leads me onto the second question: where have all those people gone: London? The Moon? Mars?

Well, it turns out that the answer is bit boring and obvious actually: after World War 2, lots of people moved to the suburbs. You know: cars, commuter trains, slum clearance, the Blitz, all that stuff. In other words, Liverpool is just like many other places: after the war, this country experienced a depopulation bonanza.


So what form did this movement to the suburbs take, as far as Liverpool was concerned? Well, people moved and were moved to the suburbs of Greater Liverpool, in what are now the outer boroughs of the city region: Halton, Knowsley, St Helens, Sefton, Wirral. Others moved further, to Cheshire West & Chester, West Lancashire, Warrington, even nearby North Wales, as previously discussed here.

In common with many cities, indeed, Liverpool City Council actually built and owned large several ‘New Town’ council estates, to which they moved tens of thousands of people to from Liverpool’s inner districts: Winsford in Cheshire West (where comedian John Bishop grew up), Runcorn in Halton (where comedian John Bishop also grew up), Skelmersdale in West Lancashire, Kirkby in Knowsley. There is nothing unique or sinister here about Liverpool (apart from comedian John Bishop). This was common practice across the country – Indeed, it was central government policy – and resulted in about 160,000 people being ‘removed’ from the Liverpool local authority area.

Many other people also moved to the nearby suburbs of Greater Liverpool to private housing – another trend reflected across the country. It’s worth acknowledging, however, that cities across the world are subject to a level of ‘churn’ in population, whereby many people move out and many people move in, over time, too.

So how did those prominent images of derelict streets in the inner-city part of the City of Liverpool local authority area come about? For that, you have to blame the last Labour government’s over-zealous ‘Housing Market Renewal Initiative’ (HMRI) disaster – and the over enthusiastic participation of the then-Lib Dem controlled city council. On the promise of ‘free’ money from central government, the latter removed hundreds of people from their homes with a view to demolishing the Victorian terraces, and building new replacements. Many of these houses, in truth, were already fully modernised, owner-occupied houses within viable and longstanding communities, as can be seen here in Voelas Street, one of the famous Welsh Streets of Liverpool:

Voelas Street before HMRI implementation. Image: WelshStreets.co.uk.

The same picture after HMRI implementation Image: WelshStreets.co.uk. 

Nonetheless: the council bought the houses and ‘tinned them up’ ready for demolition. Then the coalition Conservative/Lib Dem government, elected in 2010, pulled the plug on the scheme. 

Fast forward to 2017 and many of the condemned houses have been renovated, in a process which is still ongoing. These are over-subscribed when they come to market, suggesting that the idea was never appropriate for Liverpool on that scale. 

At any rate, it turns out that the Liverpool metropolitan population is pretty much the same as it was at its peak in 1931 (depending where the local borough boundaries are arbitrarily drawn). It just begs the question: why are well educated and supposedly clever people misrepresenting the Liverpool metropolis, in particular, in this way so often? Surely they aren’t stupid are they?


And why are some people so determined to always isolate the City of Liverpool from its hinterland, while London is always described in terms of its whole urban area? It just confuses and undermines what would otherwise often be worthwhile comparisons and discussions. Or, to put it another way: “never, ever, compare apples with larger urban zones”.

In a recent Channel 4 documentary, for example, the well-known and respected journalist Michael Burke directly compared the forecast population growths, by 2039, of the City of Liverpool single local authority area against that of the combined 33 local authority areas of Greater London: 42,722 versus 2.187,708. I mean, what bizarre point is such an inappropriate comparison even trying to make? It is like comparing the projected growth of a normal sized-person’s head with the projected growth of the whole of an obese person, over a protracted period.

Having said all that, there is an important sensible conversation to be had as to why the populations of the Greater Liverpool metropolis and others haven’t grown as fast as maybe should have been the case, whilst, in recent times, the Greater London population has been burgeoning. But constantly pitching it as some sort of rare local apocalypse helps no one.

Dave Mail has declared himself CityMetric’s Liverpool City Region correspondent. He will be updating us on the brave new world of Liverpool City Region, mostly monthly, in ‘E-mail from Liverpool City Region’ and he is on twitter @davemail2017.