Cook County, Illinois
Cook County is a county located in the U.S. state of Illinois. As of 2006, the population was 5,288,655, making it the second largest county by population in the United States (after Los Angeles County, California), and accounting for 43.3% of the state's population (if Cook County were an independent state, it would have the 21st largest population). The county seat is Chicago, the principal city of its metropolitan area; Chicago makes up about 54% of the population of the county, the rest being provided by various suburbs. Cook County is the 19th largest government in the United States. Cook County has by far more Democratic Party members than any other Illinois county, and is one of the most Democratic counties in the United States. It has only voted once for a Republican candidate in a Presidential election in the last forty years, in 1972, when county voters preferred Richard Nixon to George McGovern by 53.4% to 46%.
Cook County's current County Board president is Todd Stroger.
History
Cook County was created on January 15, 1831 by an act of the Illinois State Legislature. It was the 54th county established in Illinois and was named after Daniel Pope Cook, one of the earliest and youngest statesmen in Illinois history, who served as the second U.S. Representative from Illinois and the first Attorney General of the State of Illinois. Shortly thereafter, in 1839, DuPage County was carved out of Cook County.
Government
The Circuit Court of Cook County, which is the largest unified court system in the world, disposing of over 6 million cases in 1990 alone, the Cook County Department of Corrections, which is the largest single-site jail in the nation, and the Cook County Juvenile Detention Center, the first juvenile center in the nation and one of the largest in the nation, are solely the responsibility of Cook County government. The Cook County Law Library is the second largest county law library in the nation.
The Bureau of Health Services administers the county's public health services and is the second largest public health system in the nation. Three hospitals are part of this system: John H. Stroger, Jr. Hospital of Crook County, Provident Hospital, and Oak Forest Hospital of Cook County, along with over 30 outpatient clinics.
The Cook County Highway Department is responsible for the design and maintenance of over 578 miles of roadways in the county. These thoroughfares are mostly composed of major and minor arterials, with a few local roads. Although the Highway Department was instrumental in designing many of the expressways in the county, today they are under the jurisdiction of the state.
The Forest Preserve District, organized in 1915, is a separate, independent taxing body, but the Cook County Board of Commissioners also acts as the Forest Preserve District Board of Commissioners. The District is a belt of 68,000 acres (275 km²) of forest reservations surrounding the City of Chicago. The Brookfield Zoo (managed by the Chicago Zoological Society) and the Chicago Botanic Garden (managed by the Chicago Horticultural Society) are located in the forest preserves.
In the 1980s, Cook County was ground zero to an extensive FBI investigation named Operation Greylord. Ninety-two officials were indicted, including 17 judges, 48 lawyers, 8 policemen, 10 deputy sheriffs, 8 court officials, and 1 state legislator.
Cook County is the fifth largest employer in Chicago.[1]
Secession movements
To establish more localized government control and policies which reflect the often different values and needs of large suburban sections of the sprawling county, several secession movements have been made over the years which called for certain townships or municipalities to form their own independent counties.
In the late 1970s, a movement started which proposed a separation of six northwest suburban townships, Cook County's panhandle (Barrington, Hanover, Palatine, Wheeling, Schaumburg, and Elk Grove) from Cook to form Lincoln County, in honor of the native former U.S. president who ironically does not have an Illinois county named after him.[2] It is likely that Arlington Heights would have been the county seat. This northwest suburban region of Cook is moderately conservative and has a population over 500,000. Local legislators, led by State Senator Dave Regnar, went so far as to propose it as official legislation in the Illinois House. The legislation died, however, before coming to a vote.
In 2004, Blue Island mayor Donald Peloquin tried to organize a coaliton of fifty-five south and southwest suburban municipalities to form a new county, also proposing the name Lincoln County. The county would include everything south of Burbank, stretching as far west as Orland Park, as far east as Calumet City, and as far south as Matteson, covering an expansive area with a population of over one million residents. Peloquin cited that the south suburbs are often shunned by the city and blamed the Chicago-centric policies of Cook County government for failing to jumpstart the long-depressed local economy of the south suburban region. Pending sufficient interest from local communities, Peloquin planned a petition drive to place a question regarding the secession on the general election ballot.[3]
Geography
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the county has a total area of 4,235 km² (1,635 sq mi). 2,449 km² (946 sq mi) of it is land and 1,785 km² (689 sq mi) of it (42.16%) is water, most of it in Lake Michigan.
Adjacent counties
Lake County, Illinois - north
Berrien County, Michigan - east; boundary is in Lake Michigan
Porter County, Indiana - southeast; boundary is in Lake Michigan
Lake County, Indiana - southeast
Will County, Illinois - south
DuPage County, Illinois - west
Kane County, Illinois - west
McHenry County, Illinois - northwest
Demographics
As of the 2000 Census², there were 5,376,741 people, 1,974,181 households, and 1,269,398 families residing in the county. The population density was 2,195/km² (5,686/sq mi). There were 2,096,121 housing units at an average density of 856/km² (2,216/sq mi). The racial makeup of the county was 56.27% White, 26.14% Black or African American, 0.29% Native American, 4.84% Asian, 0.05% Pacific Islander, 9.88% from other races, and 2.53% from two or more races. 19.93% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race. 17.63% reported speaking Spanish at home; 3.13% speak Polish [1].
2005 Census estimates placed the non-Hispanic white popuation of Cook County at 45.4% of the total population of the county. Other racial groups were African-Americans at 26.4%, Latinos at 22.2% and Asians at 5.5%.[5] 2006 estimates showed the non-Hispanic white percentage of the population down to 44.7%.[6]
According to the 2000 Census there were 1,974,181 households out of which 30.9% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 44.0% were married couples living together, 15.6% had a female householder with no husband present, and 35.7% were non-families. 29.4% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.3% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.68 and the average family size was 3.38.
In the county the population was spread out with 26.0% under the age of 18, 9.9% from 18 to 24, 31.7% from 25 to 44, 20.7% from 45 to 64, and 11.7% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 34 years. For every 100 females there were 93.9 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 90.5 males.
The median income for a household in the county was $45,922, and the median income for a family was $53,784. Males had a median income of $40,690 versus $31,298 for females. The per capita income for the county was $23,227. About 10.6% of families and 13.5% of the population were below the poverty line, including 18.9% of those under age 18 and 10.3% of those age 65 or over.
According to Census Bureau estimates, the county's population was down to 5,303,683 in 2005 [2].
Townships
Suburban townships by population
Thornton Township - 180,802
Wheeling Township - 155,834
Proviso Township - 155,831
Worth Township - 152,239
Maine Township - 135,623
Schaumburg Township - 134,114
Palatine Township - 112,740
Bremen Township - 109,575
Lyons Township - 109,264
Niles Township - 102,638
Elk Grove Township - 94,969
Leyden Township - 94,685
Bloom Township - 93,901
Orland Township - 91,418
Cicero Township - 85,616
Hanover Township - 83,471
Northfield Township - 82,880
Evanston Township - 74,239
Rich Township - 67,623
New Trier Township - 56,716
Berwyn Township - 54,016
Palos Township - 53,419
Oak Park Township - 52,524
Stickney Township - 38,673
Norwood Park Township - 26,176
Calumet Township - 22,374
Lemont Township - 18,002
Riverside Township - 15,704
Barrington Township - 14,026
River Forest Township - 11,635
Chicago townships
The city of Chicago had a population of 2,896,016 as of the 2000 Census. Its eight former townships and annexed parts of others no longer have any formal structure or responsibility since their annexation, but their names and boundaries are still used by Cook County for tax assessment purposes.
Calumet Township
Cicero Township
Jefferson Township
Hyde Park Township
Lake Township
Lake View Township
Leyden Township
Maine Township
Norwood Park Township
Rogers Park Township
Stickney Township
Lake View Township
Communities
Cities
Berwyn
Blue Island
Burbank
Calumet City
Chicago - small part of O'Hare in DuPage
Chicago Heights
Country Club Hills
Countryside
Des Plaines
Elgin - mostly in Kane County
Evanston
Harvey
Hickory Hills
Markham
Northlake
Oak Forest
Palos Heights
Palos Hills
Park Ridge
Rolling Meadows
Towns
Calumet Park
Cicero
Villages
Alsip
Arlington Heights
Barrington - partly in Lake County
Barrington Hills - partly in Kane, Lake, McHenry Counties
Bartlett - partly in DuPage County, very small parcel in Kane County
Bedford Park
Bellwood
Bensenville - primarily in DuPage County
Berkeley
Bridgeview
Broadview
Brookfield
Buffalo Grove - partly in Lake County
Burnham
Burr Ridge - partly in DuPage County
Chicago Ridge
Crestwood
Deer Park - primarily in Lake County
Deerfield - primarily in Lake County
Dixmoor
Dolton
East Dundee - primarily in Kane County
East Hazel Crest
Elk Grove Village - partly in DuPage County
Elmwood Park
Evergreen Park
Flossmoor
Ford Heights
Forest Park
Forest View
Frankfort - primarily in Will County
Franklin Park
Glencoe
Glenview
Glenwood
Golf
Hanover Park - partly in DuPage County
Harwood Heights
Hazel Crest
Hillside
Hinsdale - partly in DuPage County
Hodgkins
Hoffman Estates - very small parcel in Kane County
Hometown
Homewood
Indian Head Park
Inverness
Justice
Kenilworth
La Grange
La Grange Park
Lansing
Lemont
Lincolnwood
Lynwood
Lyons
Matteson
Maywood
McCook
Melrose Park
Merrionette Park
Midlothian
Morton Grove
Mount Prospect
Niles
Norridge
North Riverside
Northbrook
Northfield
Oak Lawn
Oak Park
Olympia Fields
Orland Hills
Orland Park
Palatine
Palos Park
Park Forest - partly in Will County
Phoenix
Posen
Prospect Heights
Richton Park
River Forest
River Grove
Riverdale
Riverside
Robbins
Roselle - primarily in DuPage County
Rosemont
Sauk Village - small parcel in Will County
Schaumburg - partly in DuPage County
Schiller Park
Skokie
South Barrington
South Chicago Heights
South Holland
Steger - partly in Will County
Stickney
Stone Park
Streamwood
Summit
Thornton
Tinley Park - partly in Will County
University Park - primarily in Will County
Westchester
Western Springs
Wheeling
Willow Springs
Wilmette
Winnetka
Woodridge - primarily in DuPage, small section in Will County and a very small parcel in Cook County.
Worth
Pop culture references
In the 1980 film, The Blues Brothers, the title characters are racing to the offices of the Assessor of Cook County to pay the back taxes owed by the orphanage in which they grew up. In reality, however, back taxes are paid in the Office of the Cook County Treasurer, and church-owned property is tax exempt anyway. Murphy Dunne, who played the pianist in the movie, is the son of then Cook County Board President George Dunne.[7]
In the film The Fugitive, jail visitation is placed not in the jail but in the County Building, again for better visual effect. This film also places the lead character in the old Cook County Hospital for some key scenes.
In “Otis”, an episode of the television series Prison Break, LJ Burrows is sent to a court hearing at the Cook County Courthouse, while his father, Lincoln Burrows, and his uncle, Michael Scofield, attempt to take him out of custody by extracting him while he is in the elevator.
In the film Chicago, Roxie is sent to the Cook County Jail.
External links
Cook County Government Website
Cook County Assessor
Cook County Board of Review
Circuit Court of Cook County
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County
Clerk of Cook County
Vote! from the Cook County Election Department
Cook County Recorder of Deeds
Cook County Sheriff
Cook County Jail
Cook County State's Attorney
Cook County Treasurer
Forest Preserve District of Cook County
Ward 49 of the City of Chicago includes most of Rogers Park and parts of West Ridge.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Global city
Global city
A global city or world city is a concept promoted by the geography department at Loughborough University which postulates that globalisation can be broken down in terms of strategic geographic locales that see global processes being created, facilitated and enacted. The most complex of these entities is the "global city," whereby the linkages binding a city have a direct and tangible effect on global affairs through more than just socio-economic means, with influence in terms of culture, or politics.[1] The terminology of "global city", as opposed to megacity, is thought to have been first coined by Saskia Sassen in reference to London, New York and Tokyo in her 1991 work The Global City.[2]
General characteristics
International, first-name familiarity; whereby a city is recognised without the need for a political subdivision. For example, although there are numerous cities and other political entities with the name Paris or variations on it, one would say "Paris", not "Paris, France".
Active influence on and participation in international events and world affairs; for example, New York City is home to the United Nations headquarters complex and consequently contains a vast majority of the permanent missions to the UN.[3]
A fairly large population (the centre of a metropolitan area with a population of at least one million, typically several million).
A major international airport that serves as an established hub for several international airlines.
An advanced transportation system that includes several freeways and/or a large mass transit network offering multiple modes of transportation (rapid transit, light rail, regional rail, ferry, or bus).
In the West, several international cultures and communities (such as a Chinatown, a Little Italy, or other immigrant communities). In other parts of the world, cities which attract large foreign businesses and related expatriate communities; for example, Singapore, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Tokyo, and Moscow.
International financial institutions, law firms, corporate headquarters, international conglomerates, and stock exchanges (for example the World Bank, or the London Stock Exchange) that have influence over the world economy.
An advanced communications infrastructure on which modern trans-national corporations rely, such as fiberoptics, Wi-Fi networks, cellular phone services, and other high-speed lines of communications.
World-renowned cultural institutions, such as museums and universities.
A lively cultural scene, including film festivals, premieres, a thriving music or theatre scene (for example, West End theatre and Broadway); an orchestra, an opera company, art galleries, and street performers.
Several powerful and influential media outlets with an international reach, such as the BBC, Reuters, The New York Times, or Agence France-Presse.
A strong sporting community, including major sports facilities, home teams in major league sports, and the ability and historical experience to host international sporting events such as the Olympic Games, Football World Cup, or Grand Slam tennis events.
To some, London, New York City, Paris, and Tokyo have been traditionally considered the 'big four' world cities – not coincidentally, they also serve as symbols of global capitalism.[citation needed] However, many people have their own personal lists, and any two lists are likely to differ based on cultural background, values, and experience.
GaWC Inventory of World Cities, 1999
An attempt to define and categorise world cities was made in 1999 by the Globalization and World Cities Study Group and Network (GaWC), based primarily at Loughborough University in Loughborough, Leicestershire, England. The roster was outlined in the GaWC Research Bulletin 5[4] and ranked cities based on provision of "advanced producer services" such as accountancy, advertising, finance and law, by international corporations. The GaWC inventory identifies three levels of world cities and several sub-ranks.
Note that this roster generally denotes cities in which there are offices of certain multinational companies providing financial and consulting services rather than other cultural, political, and economic centres. There is a schematic map of GaWC cities at their website.[5]
Alpha world cities / full service world cities[6]
12 points: London, New York City, Paris, Tokyo
10 points: Chicago, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Los Angeles, Milan, Singapore
Beta world cities / major world cities
9 points: San Francisco, Sydney, Toronto, Zürich
8 points: Brussels, Madrid, Mexico City, São Paulo
7 points: Moscow, Seoul
Gamma world cities / minor world cities
6 points: Amsterdam, Boston, Caracas, Dallas, Düsseldorf, Geneva, Houston, Jakarta, Johannesburg, Melbourne, Osaka, Prague, Santiago, Taipei, Washington, D.C.
5 points: Bangkok, Beijing, Montreal, Rome, Stockholm, Warsaw
4 points: Atlanta, Barcelona, Berlin, Budapest, Buenos Aires, Copenhagen, Hamburg, Istanbul, Kuala Lumpur, Manila, Miami, Minneapolis, Munich, Shanghai
Evidence of world city formation
Strong evidence
3 points: Athens, Auckland, Dublin, Helsinki, Luxembourg, Lyon, Mumbai, New Delhi, Philadelphia, Rio de Janeiro, Tel Aviv, Vienna
Some evidence
2 points: Abu Dhabi, Almaty, Birmingham (UK), Bogotá, Bratislava, Brisbane, Bucharest, Cairo, Cleveland, Cologne, Detroit, Dubai, Ho Chi Minh City, Kiev, Lima, Lisbon, Manchester (UK), Montevideo, Oslo, Riyadh, Rotterdam, Seattle, Stuttgart, The Hague, Vancouver
Minimal evidence
1 point: Adelaide, Antwerp, Aarhus, Baltimore, Bangalore, Bologna, BrasÃlia, Calgary, Cape Town, Colombo, Columbus, Dresden, Edinburgh, Genoa, Glasgow, Gothenburg, Guangzhou, Hanoi, Kansas City, Leeds, Lille, Marseille, Richmond, St. Petersburg, Tashkent, Tehran, Tijuana, Turin, Utrecht, Wellington
GaWC Leading World Cities, 2004
An attempt to redefine and recategorise leading world cities was made by PJ Taylor at GaWC in 2004.
Global Cities [7]
Well rounded global cities
Very large contribution: London and New York City.
Smaller contribution and with cultural strengths: Los Angeles, Paris and San Francisco.
Incipient global cities: Amsterdam, Boston, Chicago, Madrid, Milan, Moscow, Toronto.
Global niche cities - specialised global contributions
Financial: Hong Kong, Singapore, and Tokyo.
Political and social: Brussels, Geneva and Washington, D.C.
World Cities
Subnet articulator cities
Cultural: Berlin, Copenhagen, Melbourne, Munich, Oslo, Rome, Stockholm.Political: Bangkok, Beijing, Vienna.
Social: Manila, Nairobi, Ottawa.
Worldwide leading cities
Primarily economic global contributions: Frankfurt, Miami,Mumbai, Munich, Osaka, Singapore, Sydney, Zurich
Primarily non-economic global contributions: Abidjan, Addis Ababa, Atlanta, Basel, Barcelona, Cairo, Denver, Harare, Lyon, Manila, Mexico City, New Delhi, Shanghai.
Other criteria
The GaWC list is based on specific criteria and, thus, may not include other cities of global significance or elsewhere on the spectrum. For example, cities with the following:
Global Cities Program
In 2007, a new trilateral "Global Cities" Program is created between Northwestern University (Chicago), Universidad Panamericana (Mexico City) and Sciences Po (Paris).
This program is designed to introduce students to the common issues faced by global cities and to engage them in research projects in a range of transnational issues of relevance to globalized cities and countries, such as migration, integration, environmental degradation, global culture and national identity.
Students are integrated into a program consisting of ten or so students from each institution and spend the whole year as part of this group, sharing culture, learning and conducting research in the three countries. The program begins at Northwestern in the Fall quarter, continues at Panamericana in the Winter quarter, and ends at Sciences Po in the Spring quarter.
This program offers a new perspective on international student exchanges and could be defined as the symbol of a new "global education", focusing on contemporary issues and multiculturalism.
External links
Repository of Links Relating to Urban Places
World Cities article by Jennifer Curtis of Charles Sturt University
The World-System’s City System: A Research Agenda by Jeffrey Kentor and Michael Timberlake of the University of Utah and David Smith of University of California, Irvine
The State of the World's Cities, 2001, UN Human Settlements Programme
"U.S. Cities in the 'World City Network'", by Peter J. Taylor and Robert E. Lang, February 2005 (Full Report in PDF)
A global city or world city is a concept promoted by the geography department at Loughborough University which postulates that globalisation can be broken down in terms of strategic geographic locales that see global processes being created, facilitated and enacted. The most complex of these entities is the "global city," whereby the linkages binding a city have a direct and tangible effect on global affairs through more than just socio-economic means, with influence in terms of culture, or politics.[1] The terminology of "global city", as opposed to megacity, is thought to have been first coined by Saskia Sassen in reference to London, New York and Tokyo in her 1991 work The Global City.[2]
General characteristics
International, first-name familiarity; whereby a city is recognised without the need for a political subdivision. For example, although there are numerous cities and other political entities with the name Paris or variations on it, one would say "Paris", not "Paris, France".
Active influence on and participation in international events and world affairs; for example, New York City is home to the United Nations headquarters complex and consequently contains a vast majority of the permanent missions to the UN.[3]
A fairly large population (the centre of a metropolitan area with a population of at least one million, typically several million).
A major international airport that serves as an established hub for several international airlines.
An advanced transportation system that includes several freeways and/or a large mass transit network offering multiple modes of transportation (rapid transit, light rail, regional rail, ferry, or bus).
In the West, several international cultures and communities (such as a Chinatown, a Little Italy, or other immigrant communities). In other parts of the world, cities which attract large foreign businesses and related expatriate communities; for example, Singapore, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Tokyo, and Moscow.
International financial institutions, law firms, corporate headquarters, international conglomerates, and stock exchanges (for example the World Bank, or the London Stock Exchange) that have influence over the world economy.
An advanced communications infrastructure on which modern trans-national corporations rely, such as fiberoptics, Wi-Fi networks, cellular phone services, and other high-speed lines of communications.
World-renowned cultural institutions, such as museums and universities.
A lively cultural scene, including film festivals, premieres, a thriving music or theatre scene (for example, West End theatre and Broadway); an orchestra, an opera company, art galleries, and street performers.
Several powerful and influential media outlets with an international reach, such as the BBC, Reuters, The New York Times, or Agence France-Presse.
A strong sporting community, including major sports facilities, home teams in major league sports, and the ability and historical experience to host international sporting events such as the Olympic Games, Football World Cup, or Grand Slam tennis events.
To some, London, New York City, Paris, and Tokyo have been traditionally considered the 'big four' world cities – not coincidentally, they also serve as symbols of global capitalism.[citation needed] However, many people have their own personal lists, and any two lists are likely to differ based on cultural background, values, and experience.
GaWC Inventory of World Cities, 1999
An attempt to define and categorise world cities was made in 1999 by the Globalization and World Cities Study Group and Network (GaWC), based primarily at Loughborough University in Loughborough, Leicestershire, England. The roster was outlined in the GaWC Research Bulletin 5[4] and ranked cities based on provision of "advanced producer services" such as accountancy, advertising, finance and law, by international corporations. The GaWC inventory identifies three levels of world cities and several sub-ranks.
Note that this roster generally denotes cities in which there are offices of certain multinational companies providing financial and consulting services rather than other cultural, political, and economic centres. There is a schematic map of GaWC cities at their website.[5]
Alpha world cities / full service world cities[6]
12 points: London, New York City, Paris, Tokyo
10 points: Chicago, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Los Angeles, Milan, Singapore
Beta world cities / major world cities
9 points: San Francisco, Sydney, Toronto, Zürich
8 points: Brussels, Madrid, Mexico City, São Paulo
7 points: Moscow, Seoul
Gamma world cities / minor world cities
6 points: Amsterdam, Boston, Caracas, Dallas, Düsseldorf, Geneva, Houston, Jakarta, Johannesburg, Melbourne, Osaka, Prague, Santiago, Taipei, Washington, D.C.
5 points: Bangkok, Beijing, Montreal, Rome, Stockholm, Warsaw
4 points: Atlanta, Barcelona, Berlin, Budapest, Buenos Aires, Copenhagen, Hamburg, Istanbul, Kuala Lumpur, Manila, Miami, Minneapolis, Munich, Shanghai
Evidence of world city formation
Strong evidence
3 points: Athens, Auckland, Dublin, Helsinki, Luxembourg, Lyon, Mumbai, New Delhi, Philadelphia, Rio de Janeiro, Tel Aviv, Vienna
Some evidence
2 points: Abu Dhabi, Almaty, Birmingham (UK), Bogotá, Bratislava, Brisbane, Bucharest, Cairo, Cleveland, Cologne, Detroit, Dubai, Ho Chi Minh City, Kiev, Lima, Lisbon, Manchester (UK), Montevideo, Oslo, Riyadh, Rotterdam, Seattle, Stuttgart, The Hague, Vancouver
Minimal evidence
1 point: Adelaide, Antwerp, Aarhus, Baltimore, Bangalore, Bologna, BrasÃlia, Calgary, Cape Town, Colombo, Columbus, Dresden, Edinburgh, Genoa, Glasgow, Gothenburg, Guangzhou, Hanoi, Kansas City, Leeds, Lille, Marseille, Richmond, St. Petersburg, Tashkent, Tehran, Tijuana, Turin, Utrecht, Wellington
GaWC Leading World Cities, 2004
An attempt to redefine and recategorise leading world cities was made by PJ Taylor at GaWC in 2004.
Global Cities [7]
Well rounded global cities
Very large contribution: London and New York City.
Smaller contribution and with cultural strengths: Los Angeles, Paris and San Francisco.
Incipient global cities: Amsterdam, Boston, Chicago, Madrid, Milan, Moscow, Toronto.
Global niche cities - specialised global contributions
Financial: Hong Kong, Singapore, and Tokyo.
Political and social: Brussels, Geneva and Washington, D.C.
World Cities
Subnet articulator cities
Cultural: Berlin, Copenhagen, Melbourne, Munich, Oslo, Rome, Stockholm.Political: Bangkok, Beijing, Vienna.
Social: Manila, Nairobi, Ottawa.
Worldwide leading cities
Primarily economic global contributions: Frankfurt, Miami,Mumbai, Munich, Osaka, Singapore, Sydney, Zurich
Primarily non-economic global contributions: Abidjan, Addis Ababa, Atlanta, Basel, Barcelona, Cairo, Denver, Harare, Lyon, Manila, Mexico City, New Delhi, Shanghai.
Other criteria
The GaWC list is based on specific criteria and, thus, may not include other cities of global significance or elsewhere on the spectrum. For example, cities with the following:
- Large populations, proper and agglomerated
- Diverse demographic constituencies[8]
- Based on various indicators:[9]
- Population, habitat,[10] mobility,[11] and urbanisation[12]
- Significant financial capacity/output:
- city/regional[13] GDP[14]
- Stock market indices[15]/market capitalisation
- Headquarters for multinational corporations
- Financial service provision;[16] e.g., banks, accountancy
- Employment
- Based on quality of life[17] or city development[18]
- Based on costs of living[19]
- Based on personal wealth; e.g., number of billionaires[20]
- Significant transport infrastructure:
- Airports with significant passenger traffic[21] or cargo movements
- Extensive and popular[22] mass transit systems
- Prominent rail usage[23]
- Road vehicle usage[24]
- Major seaports[25]
- Significant technological capabilities/infrastructure:
- Prominent skylines/skyscrapers[26]
- Significant institutions:
- Educational institutions; e.g., universities,[27] international student attendance[28]
- Research facilities
- Health facilities; e.g. hospitals, medical laboratories
- Sites of pilgrimage for world religions
- Hosting headquarters for international organizations
- Cities containing World Heritage Sites of historical and cultural significance[29]
- High endowments of cultural facilities:
- Notable museums and galleries
- Notable opera
- Notable orchestras
- Notable film centres and film festivals
- Notable theatre centres
- Sites of major international sports events; e.g., Olympic Games sites[30]
- Tourism throughput:
- Visitors
- Economy
- Events
- Site or subject in Arts and Media
- TV, Film, Video Games, Music
- Literature, Magazines, Articles, Documentary
- Historic Reference, Showcase
Global Cities Program
In 2007, a new trilateral "Global Cities" Program is created between Northwestern University (Chicago), Universidad Panamericana (Mexico City) and Sciences Po (Paris).
This program is designed to introduce students to the common issues faced by global cities and to engage them in research projects in a range of transnational issues of relevance to globalized cities and countries, such as migration, integration, environmental degradation, global culture and national identity.
Students are integrated into a program consisting of ten or so students from each institution and spend the whole year as part of this group, sharing culture, learning and conducting research in the three countries. The program begins at Northwestern in the Fall quarter, continues at Panamericana in the Winter quarter, and ends at Sciences Po in the Spring quarter.
This program offers a new perspective on international student exchanges and could be defined as the symbol of a new "global education", focusing on contemporary issues and multiculturalism.
External links
Repository of Links Relating to Urban Places
World Cities article by Jennifer Curtis of Charles Sturt University
The World-System’s City System: A Research Agenda by Jeffrey Kentor and Michael Timberlake of the University of Utah and David Smith of University of California, Irvine
The State of the World's Cities, 2001, UN Human Settlements Programme
"U.S. Cities in the 'World City Network'", by Peter J. Taylor and Robert E. Lang, February 2005 (Full Report in PDF)
Urban area
Urban area
An urban area is an area with an increased density of human-created structures in comparison to the areas surrounding it. This term is at one end of the spectrum of suburban and rural areas. An urban area is more frequently called a city or town.
Urban areas are created and further developed by the process of urbanization. Measuring the extent of an urbanized area helps in analyzing population density and urban sprawl, and in determining urban and rural populations(Cubillas 2007).
Unlike an urban area, a metropolitan area includes not only the urban area, but also satellite cities plus intervening rural land that is socio-economically connected to the urban core city, typically by employment ties through commuting, with the urban core city being the primary labor market. This makes metropolitan areas a less relevant statistic for determining per capita land usage and densities(Dumlao & Felizmenio 1976).
Definitions
Definitions vary somewhat amongst different nations. The minimum density requirement is generally 400 persons per square kilometer[citation needed]. In Australia, urban areas are referred to as "urban centres" and are defined as population clusters of 1000 or more people, with a density of 200 or more persons per square kilometre.[1] In Japan urbanized areas are defined as contiguous areas of densely inhabited districts (DIDs) using census enumeration districts as units with a density requirement of 4,000 people per square kilometer. European countries define urbanized areas on the basis of urban-type land use, not allowing any gaps of typically more than 200 meters, and use satellite photos instead of census blocks to determine the boundaries of the urban area. In less developed countries, in addition to land use and density requirements, a requirement that a large majority of the population, typically 75%, is not engaged in agriculture and/or fishing is sometimes used. Statistics New Zealand defines New Zealand urban areas for statistical purposes as a settlement with a population of a thousand people or more.
United States
In the United States there are two categories of urban area. The term urbanized area denotes an urban area of 50,000 or more people. Urban areas under 50,000 people are called urban clusters. Urbanized areas were first delineated in the United States in the 1950 census, while urban clusters were added in the 2000 census. There are 1371 United States Urban Areas & Urban Clusters with more than 10,000 people.
The US Census Bureau defines an urban area as: "Core census block groups or blocks that have a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile (386 per square kilometer) and surrounding census blocks that have an overall density of at least 500 people per square mile (193 per square kilometer)."
The concept of Urbanized Areas as defined by the US Census Bureau are often used as a more accurate gauge of the size of a city, since in different cities and states the lines between city borders and the urbanized area of that city are often not the same. For example, the city of Greenville, South Carolina has a city population under 60,000 but an urbanized area over 300,000, while Greensboro, North Carolina has a city population over 200,000 but an urbanized area population of around 270,000--meaning that Greenville is actually "larger" for some intents and purposes, but not for others, such as taxation, local elections, etc.
External links
United Nations Statistics Division (UNSTAT): Definition of "urban"
World Urban Areas All identified world urbanized areas 500,000+ and others: Population & Density. Author seeks advice on any that appear to be missing: wcox@demographia.com
United States Urbanized Areas All 452 urbanized areas from 2000 census: Population, Land Area & Density
U.S. Census Bureau: Maps of urban areas
U.S. Census Bureau: Maps of urban clusters
U.S. Census Bureau: Census 2000 Urban and Rural Classification
Geopolis research group at the University of Avignon, France for European urban areas
Gridded Population of the World - contains links to urban area definitions and maps for over 230 countries/territories
City Mayors - The World's Largest Urban Areas in 2006
City Mayors - The World's Largest Urban Areas Projected for 2020
An urban area is an area with an increased density of human-created structures in comparison to the areas surrounding it. This term is at one end of the spectrum of suburban and rural areas. An urban area is more frequently called a city or town.
Urban areas are created and further developed by the process of urbanization. Measuring the extent of an urbanized area helps in analyzing population density and urban sprawl, and in determining urban and rural populations(Cubillas 2007).
Unlike an urban area, a metropolitan area includes not only the urban area, but also satellite cities plus intervening rural land that is socio-economically connected to the urban core city, typically by employment ties through commuting, with the urban core city being the primary labor market. This makes metropolitan areas a less relevant statistic for determining per capita land usage and densities(Dumlao & Felizmenio 1976).
Definitions
Definitions vary somewhat amongst different nations. The minimum density requirement is generally 400 persons per square kilometer[citation needed]. In Australia, urban areas are referred to as "urban centres" and are defined as population clusters of 1000 or more people, with a density of 200 or more persons per square kilometre.[1] In Japan urbanized areas are defined as contiguous areas of densely inhabited districts (DIDs) using census enumeration districts as units with a density requirement of 4,000 people per square kilometer. European countries define urbanized areas on the basis of urban-type land use, not allowing any gaps of typically more than 200 meters, and use satellite photos instead of census blocks to determine the boundaries of the urban area. In less developed countries, in addition to land use and density requirements, a requirement that a large majority of the population, typically 75%, is not engaged in agriculture and/or fishing is sometimes used. Statistics New Zealand defines New Zealand urban areas for statistical purposes as a settlement with a population of a thousand people or more.
United States
In the United States there are two categories of urban area. The term urbanized area denotes an urban area of 50,000 or more people. Urban areas under 50,000 people are called urban clusters. Urbanized areas were first delineated in the United States in the 1950 census, while urban clusters were added in the 2000 census. There are 1371 United States Urban Areas & Urban Clusters with more than 10,000 people.
The US Census Bureau defines an urban area as: "Core census block groups or blocks that have a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile (386 per square kilometer) and surrounding census blocks that have an overall density of at least 500 people per square mile (193 per square kilometer)."
The concept of Urbanized Areas as defined by the US Census Bureau are often used as a more accurate gauge of the size of a city, since in different cities and states the lines between city borders and the urbanized area of that city are often not the same. For example, the city of Greenville, South Carolina has a city population under 60,000 but an urbanized area over 300,000, while Greensboro, North Carolina has a city population over 200,000 but an urbanized area population of around 270,000--meaning that Greenville is actually "larger" for some intents and purposes, but not for others, such as taxation, local elections, etc.
External links
United Nations Statistics Division (UNSTAT): Definition of "urban"
World Urban Areas All identified world urbanized areas 500,000+ and others: Population & Density. Author seeks advice on any that appear to be missing: wcox@demographia.com
United States Urbanized Areas All 452 urbanized areas from 2000 census: Population, Land Area & Density
U.S. Census Bureau: Maps of urban areas
U.S. Census Bureau: Maps of urban clusters
U.S. Census Bureau: Census 2000 Urban and Rural Classification
Geopolis research group at the University of Avignon, France for European urban areas
Gridded Population of the World - contains links to urban area definitions and maps for over 230 countries/territories
City Mayors - The World's Largest Urban Areas in 2006
City Mayors - The World's Largest Urban Areas Projected for 2020
Metropolitan planning organization
Metropolitan planning organization
A metropolitan planning organization (MPO) is a transportation policy-making organization made up of representatives from local government and transportation authorities. In the early 1970s, the United States Congress passed legislation that required the formation of an MPO for any Urbanized Area (UZA) with a population greater than 50,000. Congress created MPOs in order to ensure that existing and future expenditures for transportation projects and programs are based on a continuing, cooperative and comprehensive (“3-C”) planning process. Federal funding for transportation projects and programs are channeled through this planning process. As of 2005, there are 385 MPOs in the U.S.
Why congress created MPOs
In creating the requirements for MPOs and a metropolitan planning process, Congress identified several key reasons MPOs are essential:
Transportation investment means allocating scarce federal and other transportation funding resources appropriately;
Planning needs to reflect the region’s shared vision for its future;
Adequate transportation planning requires a comprehensive examination of the region’s future and investment alternatives; and
An MPO is needed to facilitate collaboration of governments, interested parties and residents in the planning process.
In other words, the federal government wishes to see federal transportation funds spent in a manner that has a basis in metropolitan regionwide plans developed through inter-governmental collaboration, rational analysis and consensus-based decision-making.
Governance of MPOs
An MPO governance structure typically includes a variety of committees as well as a professional staff. The “Policy Committee” is the top-level decision-making body for the organization. In most MPOs, the Policy Committee comprises:
Elected and/or appointed officials from local municipalities;
Representatives of different transportation modes (e.g., public transit, freight, bicycle/pedestrian); and
State agency officials (e.g., state Department of Transportation, environmental agency, etc.).
With only a few unique exceptions nationwide, MPO Policy Committee members are not directly citizen-elected. Rather, a Policy Committee member is typically an elected or appointed official of one of the MPO’s constituent local jurisdictions. The Policy Committee member thus has legitimate authority to speak and act on behalf of that jurisdiction in the MPO setting.
The Policy Committee’s responsibilities include debating and making decisions on key MPO actions and issues, including adoption of the metropolitan Long-range Transportation Plan, Transportation Improvement Program, annual planning work program and budget and other policy documents. The Policy Committee may also play an active role in key decision points or milestones associated with MPO studies and plans and conduct public hearings and meetings.
Most MPOs also establish a Technical Committee to act as an advisory body to the Policy Committee for transportation issues that are primarily technical in nature. The Technical Committee interacts with the MPO’s professional staff on technical matters related to planning and analysis tasks and projects. Through this work, the Technical Committee develops recommendations on projects and programs for Policy Committee consideration. The Technical Committee is typically comprising staff-level officials of local, state & federal agencies. In addition, a Technical Committee may include representatives of interest groups, various transportation modes and, in some cases, local citizens.
MPOs usually also retain a core professional staff in order to ensure the ability to carry out the required metropolitan planning process in an effective and expeditious manner. The size and qualifications of this staff may vary by MPO since no two metropolitan areas are the same nor have the same planning needs. However, most MPOs require at least some staff dedicated solely to MPO process oversight and management because of the complexity of the process and need to ensure requirements are being addressed properly.
An MPO's core functions
There are five core functions of an MPO:
Establish a setting:
Establish and manage a fair and impartial setting for effective regional decision-making in the metropolitan area.
Evaluate alternatives:
Evaluate transportation alternatives, scaled to the size and complexity of the region, to the nature of its transportation issues, and to the realistically available options.
Maintain a Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP):
Develop and update a fiscally-constrained long-range transportation plan for the metropolitan area covering a planning horizon of at least 20 years that fosters mobility and access for people and goods, efficient system performance and preservation, and quality of life.
Develop a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP):
Develop a fiscally-constrained program based on the long-range transportation plan and designed to serve the area’s goals, using spending, regulating, operating, management, and financial tools.
Involve the public:
Involve the general public and all the significantly affected sub-groups in the four essential functions listed above.
Presently, most MPOs have no authority to raise revenues (e.g., levy taxes) on their own; rather, they are designed to allow local officials to collaboratively decide how available federal and non-federal transportation funds should be spent in urbanized areas. The funding for the operations of the MPO agency itself comes from a combination of federal transportation funds and required matching funds from state and local governments.
It is also important to note that a metropolitan area’s designation as an air quality nonattainment or maintenance area creates additional requirements for transportation planning. Most significantly, transportation plans, programs, and projects must conform with the air quality plan, known as the “state implementation plan” (SIP), for the state within which the UZA lies.
A changing MPO role
The enactment of the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) ushered in a “renaissance” for MPOs. After a decade or more of being consigned to a minimal role in transportation planning, ISTEA directed additional funding to MPOs, expanded their authority to select projects and mandated new metropolitan planning initiatives. State transportation officials, for the first time, were required to seriously consult with local representatives on MPO governing boards on matters of project prioritization and decision-making. These changes had their roots in the need to address increasingly difficult transportation problems – in particular, the more complicated patterns of traffic congestion that arose with the suburban development boom in the previous decades. Many recognized that the problems could only be effectively addressed through a stronger federal commitment to regional planning.
The legislation that emerged, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), was signed into law by the president in December 1991. It focused on improving transportation not as end in itself but as the means to achieve important national goals including economic progress, cleaner air, energy conservation and social equity. ISTEA promoted a transportation system in which different modes and facilities – highway, transit, pedestrian, bicycle, aviation and marine -- were integrated to allow a "seamless" movement of both goods and people. New funding programs provided greater flexibility in the use of funds, particularly regarding using previously restricted highway funds for transit development, supported improved "intermodal" connections and emphasized upgrades to existing facilities over building new capacity – particularly roadway capacity.
To accomplish more serious metropolitan planning, ISTEA doubled funding for MPO operations and required the agencies to evaluate a variety of multimodal solutions to roadway congestion and other transportation problems. MPOs were also required to broaden public participation in the planning process and see that investment decisions contributed to meeting the air quality standards of the Clean Air Act Amendments.
In addition, ISTEA placed a new requirement on MPOs to conduct “fiscally-constrained planning,” and ensure that long range transportation plans and short-term transportation improvement programs were fiscally-constrained; in other words, adopted plans and programs cannot include more projects than can be reasonably expected to be funded through existing or projected sources of revenues. This new requirement represented a major conceptual shift for many MPOs (and others in the planning community), since the imposition of fiscal discipline on plans now required not only understanding how much money might be available but how to prioritize investment needs and make hard choices between competing needs. Adding to this complexity is the need to plan across transportation modes and develop approaches for multimodal investment prioritization and decision-making. It is in this context of greater prominence, funding and requirements that MPOs function today.
MPOs differ greatly in various parts of the country and even within states. Some have large staffs, while others may include only a director and a transportation planner. Sometimes MPOs are staffed by a county or a council of government. In many urban areas existing organizations like counties or councils of government also function as MPOs. The MPO role can also be played by an independent organization or a regional government. In the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area, for example, the Metro is the MPO. In the Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota metropolitan area, the Metropolitan Council is the MPO. An example of a medium sized MPO is the Lexington Area MPO in the Lexington, Kentucky region.
External links
Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations
History of MPOs
History of MPOs at njtpa.org
FHWA's Page on Metropolitan Transportation Planning (includes searchable database of MPOs)
A metropolitan planning organization (MPO) is a transportation policy-making organization made up of representatives from local government and transportation authorities. In the early 1970s, the United States Congress passed legislation that required the formation of an MPO for any Urbanized Area (UZA) with a population greater than 50,000. Congress created MPOs in order to ensure that existing and future expenditures for transportation projects and programs are based on a continuing, cooperative and comprehensive (“3-C”) planning process. Federal funding for transportation projects and programs are channeled through this planning process. As of 2005, there are 385 MPOs in the U.S.
Why congress created MPOs
In creating the requirements for MPOs and a metropolitan planning process, Congress identified several key reasons MPOs are essential:
Transportation investment means allocating scarce federal and other transportation funding resources appropriately;
Planning needs to reflect the region’s shared vision for its future;
Adequate transportation planning requires a comprehensive examination of the region’s future and investment alternatives; and
An MPO is needed to facilitate collaboration of governments, interested parties and residents in the planning process.
In other words, the federal government wishes to see federal transportation funds spent in a manner that has a basis in metropolitan regionwide plans developed through inter-governmental collaboration, rational analysis and consensus-based decision-making.
Governance of MPOs
An MPO governance structure typically includes a variety of committees as well as a professional staff. The “Policy Committee” is the top-level decision-making body for the organization. In most MPOs, the Policy Committee comprises:
Elected and/or appointed officials from local municipalities;
Representatives of different transportation modes (e.g., public transit, freight, bicycle/pedestrian); and
State agency officials (e.g., state Department of Transportation, environmental agency, etc.).
With only a few unique exceptions nationwide, MPO Policy Committee members are not directly citizen-elected. Rather, a Policy Committee member is typically an elected or appointed official of one of the MPO’s constituent local jurisdictions. The Policy Committee member thus has legitimate authority to speak and act on behalf of that jurisdiction in the MPO setting.
The Policy Committee’s responsibilities include debating and making decisions on key MPO actions and issues, including adoption of the metropolitan Long-range Transportation Plan, Transportation Improvement Program, annual planning work program and budget and other policy documents. The Policy Committee may also play an active role in key decision points or milestones associated with MPO studies and plans and conduct public hearings and meetings.
Most MPOs also establish a Technical Committee to act as an advisory body to the Policy Committee for transportation issues that are primarily technical in nature. The Technical Committee interacts with the MPO’s professional staff on technical matters related to planning and analysis tasks and projects. Through this work, the Technical Committee develops recommendations on projects and programs for Policy Committee consideration. The Technical Committee is typically comprising staff-level officials of local, state & federal agencies. In addition, a Technical Committee may include representatives of interest groups, various transportation modes and, in some cases, local citizens.
MPOs usually also retain a core professional staff in order to ensure the ability to carry out the required metropolitan planning process in an effective and expeditious manner. The size and qualifications of this staff may vary by MPO since no two metropolitan areas are the same nor have the same planning needs. However, most MPOs require at least some staff dedicated solely to MPO process oversight and management because of the complexity of the process and need to ensure requirements are being addressed properly.
An MPO's core functions
There are five core functions of an MPO:
Establish a setting:
Establish and manage a fair and impartial setting for effective regional decision-making in the metropolitan area.
Evaluate alternatives:
Evaluate transportation alternatives, scaled to the size and complexity of the region, to the nature of its transportation issues, and to the realistically available options.
Maintain a Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP):
Develop and update a fiscally-constrained long-range transportation plan for the metropolitan area covering a planning horizon of at least 20 years that fosters mobility and access for people and goods, efficient system performance and preservation, and quality of life.
Develop a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP):
Develop a fiscally-constrained program based on the long-range transportation plan and designed to serve the area’s goals, using spending, regulating, operating, management, and financial tools.
Involve the public:
Involve the general public and all the significantly affected sub-groups in the four essential functions listed above.
Presently, most MPOs have no authority to raise revenues (e.g., levy taxes) on their own; rather, they are designed to allow local officials to collaboratively decide how available federal and non-federal transportation funds should be spent in urbanized areas. The funding for the operations of the MPO agency itself comes from a combination of federal transportation funds and required matching funds from state and local governments.
It is also important to note that a metropolitan area’s designation as an air quality nonattainment or maintenance area creates additional requirements for transportation planning. Most significantly, transportation plans, programs, and projects must conform with the air quality plan, known as the “state implementation plan” (SIP), for the state within which the UZA lies.
A changing MPO role
The enactment of the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) ushered in a “renaissance” for MPOs. After a decade or more of being consigned to a minimal role in transportation planning, ISTEA directed additional funding to MPOs, expanded their authority to select projects and mandated new metropolitan planning initiatives. State transportation officials, for the first time, were required to seriously consult with local representatives on MPO governing boards on matters of project prioritization and decision-making. These changes had their roots in the need to address increasingly difficult transportation problems – in particular, the more complicated patterns of traffic congestion that arose with the suburban development boom in the previous decades. Many recognized that the problems could only be effectively addressed through a stronger federal commitment to regional planning.
The legislation that emerged, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), was signed into law by the president in December 1991. It focused on improving transportation not as end in itself but as the means to achieve important national goals including economic progress, cleaner air, energy conservation and social equity. ISTEA promoted a transportation system in which different modes and facilities – highway, transit, pedestrian, bicycle, aviation and marine -- were integrated to allow a "seamless" movement of both goods and people. New funding programs provided greater flexibility in the use of funds, particularly regarding using previously restricted highway funds for transit development, supported improved "intermodal" connections and emphasized upgrades to existing facilities over building new capacity – particularly roadway capacity.
To accomplish more serious metropolitan planning, ISTEA doubled funding for MPO operations and required the agencies to evaluate a variety of multimodal solutions to roadway congestion and other transportation problems. MPOs were also required to broaden public participation in the planning process and see that investment decisions contributed to meeting the air quality standards of the Clean Air Act Amendments.
In addition, ISTEA placed a new requirement on MPOs to conduct “fiscally-constrained planning,” and ensure that long range transportation plans and short-term transportation improvement programs were fiscally-constrained; in other words, adopted plans and programs cannot include more projects than can be reasonably expected to be funded through existing or projected sources of revenues. This new requirement represented a major conceptual shift for many MPOs (and others in the planning community), since the imposition of fiscal discipline on plans now required not only understanding how much money might be available but how to prioritize investment needs and make hard choices between competing needs. Adding to this complexity is the need to plan across transportation modes and develop approaches for multimodal investment prioritization and decision-making. It is in this context of greater prominence, funding and requirements that MPOs function today.
MPOs differ greatly in various parts of the country and even within states. Some have large staffs, while others may include only a director and a transportation planner. Sometimes MPOs are staffed by a county or a council of government. In many urban areas existing organizations like counties or councils of government also function as MPOs. The MPO role can also be played by an independent organization or a regional government. In the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area, for example, the Metro is the MPO. In the Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota metropolitan area, the Metropolitan Council is the MPO. An example of a medium sized MPO is the Lexington Area MPO in the Lexington, Kentucky region.
External links
Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations
History of MPOs
History of MPOs at njtpa.org
FHWA's Page on Metropolitan Transportation Planning (includes searchable database of MPOs)
Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning
Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning
The Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) is an agency that integrates land use planning and transportation planning for the counties of Cook, DuPage, Kane, Kendall, Lake, McHenry and Will in northeastern Illinois. CMAP and its partners aim to remove barriers to cooperation across geographical boundaries and subject areas such as land use, transportation, natural resources, housing, and economic development.
CMAP's goal is to coordinate the efforts of the multitude of local governmental agencies and supply them with the best technical assistance and analysis to improve land use and transportation decision-making for the region.
History
Public Act 094-0510, signed by Governor Rod Blagojevich in the summer of 2005,[1] called for the merger of the Chicago Area Transportation Study (CATS) and the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC). CATS was the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Chicago region, responsible for regional transportation planning. NIPC was the comprehensive planning agency for the six county region. [2]
Responsibilities
The legislation that created CMAP gave the agency the task of integrating the previously separate topics of land use and transportation into one agency that would protect natural resources, improve mobility, and minimize traffic congestion in the seven-county region. Under SAFETEA-LU legislation, CMAP is responsible for creating a regional comprehensive plan by fall of 2010 that integrates land use, transportation, and economic development. This plan must be updated every four years, use visualization techniques, engage the general public, and include a separate Transportation Improvement Program document.[3]
External links
Official website
Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission
Chicago Area Transportation Study
The Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) is an agency that integrates land use planning and transportation planning for the counties of Cook, DuPage, Kane, Kendall, Lake, McHenry and Will in northeastern Illinois. CMAP and its partners aim to remove barriers to cooperation across geographical boundaries and subject areas such as land use, transportation, natural resources, housing, and economic development.
CMAP's goal is to coordinate the efforts of the multitude of local governmental agencies and supply them with the best technical assistance and analysis to improve land use and transportation decision-making for the region.
History
Public Act 094-0510, signed by Governor Rod Blagojevich in the summer of 2005,[1] called for the merger of the Chicago Area Transportation Study (CATS) and the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC). CATS was the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Chicago region, responsible for regional transportation planning. NIPC was the comprehensive planning agency for the six county region. [2]
Responsibilities
The legislation that created CMAP gave the agency the task of integrating the previously separate topics of land use and transportation into one agency that would protect natural resources, improve mobility, and minimize traffic congestion in the seven-county region. Under SAFETEA-LU legislation, CMAP is responsible for creating a regional comprehensive plan by fall of 2010 that integrates land use, transportation, and economic development. This plan must be updated every four years, use visualization techniques, engage the general public, and include a separate Transportation Improvement Program document.[3]
External links
Official website
Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission
Chicago Area Transportation Study
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)