International Practices of Metropolitan Public Disclosure Authorized Governance A Compendium of 2020 Collaborative Arrangements in Metropolitan Areas Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized
April, 2020 Public Disclosure Authorized
International Practices of Metropolitan Governance A Compendium of Collaborative Arrangements in Metropolitan Areas
April, 2020
5
Table of Contents
Page
1. Introduction...... 7 1.1 Background ...... 7 1.2 Objectives and Scope of the Paper...... 8 1.3 Structure of the Paper...... 8 2. Metropolitan Areas...... 9 2.1 Definitions...... 9 2.2 Metropolitan versus Local Functions...... 10 2.3 Cases...... 11 3. Metropolitan Governance Arrangements...... 13 3.1 Introduction...... 13 3.2 Metropolitan Governance Models ...... 13 3.3 Metropolitan Arrangements Internationally...... 15 3.4 Observations...... 17 4. Megaregions...... 19
Annexes Annex A: References...... 21 Annex B: Common Local versus Metropolitan-level Service Provision...... 22 Annex C: Case of the Greater Washington Area, USA...... 23 Annex D: Case of the San Francisco Bay Area, USA...... 25 Annex E. Case of the Greater Paris Metropolis, France...... 29 Annex F: Examples of Regional-level Public Transport Authorities...... 31 Annex G: Case of Metro Vancouver, Canada...... 32 Annex H: Case of London, United Kingdom (UK)...... 34 Annex I: Case of Seoul Metropolitan Government...... 37 Annex J: Case of the Tokyo Metropolitan Area...... 38 Annex K: Case of Toronto, Canada...... 40 Annex L: Case of the New York Metropolitan Region, USA ...... 42 Annex M: Case of Shanghai...... 46 Annex N: The Northern California Megaregion, USA...... 47 Annex O: Case of Randstad Region, The Netherlands...... 49 6
List of Tables Table 1. Roles of metropolitan and local governance for selective functions/services...... 10 Table 2. Who should do what in terms of planning and delivery of services?...... 11 Table 3. Comparison of Ten Metropolitan Areas (in the order of area population)...... 12 7
1. Introduction
1.1 Background1
As the world is becoming increasingly urban, it is also becoming increasingly metropolitan. Cities have expanded outwards and satellite cities and towns have over time become more closely connected to an urban center. Urban development changes an area, but administrative boundaries tend to be quite stable. Many cities have become more economically interdependent with their neighboring cities (and peri-urban and rural areas), constituting a single economy and labor market (a functional economic area), usually including various local government jurisdictions metropolitan (metro) area or city-region. Such area is usually (but not always) within one regional/ – defined here as a provincial/ state jurisdiction.
Inadequate metropolitan arrangements can be costly. Lack of dialogue and coordination among the local governments in a metro area, can have many negative consequences and missed opportunities. For example:
• Fragmentation of some public services (particularly those of common interest like public
transport) which result in higher costs and financing challenges for each local government. 2 Inefficiencies due to lack of broad-based planning can also fester in such sectors as solid • Negativewaste disposal spillovers. and flood management,
• Free ridership. For example, Air pollution, the core flooding city may and need crime to do address not respect such problemsjurisdictional such borders, as congestion from its own resources without fair contribution from the neighboring
• Underutilizationjurisdictions, who of benefit some land from which positive may effects have limitedof the agglomeration, value locally, but potentially carry a higher value from a regional perspective, and
• Disparity creating large differences in the quality of amenities and services. between parts of the metro area, e.g. differences in the local financial capacities, Fragmentation can impede productivity and economic growth.
1 A study of five OECD countries
consultant as the main author under the guidance of Francis Ghesquiere. Team members include Yuan Xiao, Barjor Mehta, The paper was developed by the World Bank’s China Urban and Disaster Risk Management Team, with Mats Andersson, Wanli Fang and Xiao Wu. Photos on the cover page are by Barjor Mehta. 2 There may also be missed opportunities related to branding of the area, or coordination to attract events, joint
procurement, or pooling of funds for a facility or initiative that all will benefit from. 8
(Germany, Mexico, Spain, United Kingdom and United States) found that cities with a fragmented governance structure (measured by the number of municipalities in the metropolitan area) tend to have lower levels of productivity. An area with a similar population size, but twice the number of municipalities, was associated with six percent (6%) lower productivity. Possible reasons for this are that fragmentation can negatively impact transportation investment and land use planning, increasing congestion, and reducing a city’s overall attractiveness. Fragmentation can also impede increasing the cost of doing business. According to the study, the impact of fragmentation on growth because firms may have to face overlapping business and environmental regulations, productivity is only about half (3%), when there is a metropolitan governance body.[1]
1.2 Objectives and Scope of the Paper
The objective of this paper is to provide conceptual reference material and examples on metropolitan governance models applied internationally, as basic input to cities in developing countries for their efforts to establish or enhance their metropolitan governance arrangements. The paper aims to highlight opportunities for cooperation and collaboration on joint initiatives by local governments in a metropolitan area.3
1.3 Structure of the Paper
After this introduction, basic concepts of metropolitan areas and their governance are described, highlighting the roles of metropolitan scale and local governance for selective functions and services. Basic comparative data on ten metropolitan areas around the world are presented. Metropolitan governance arrangements (models) applied internationally are then presented with city examples,
Annexes.4 These annexes provide descriptions of the respective organizational arrangements and and selective characteristics commented upon. Details on the city examples are provided in selective details on their planning and operations which may be useful references for other metro
The paper concludes with a section on megaregions (networks of metropolitan areas) with global areas that aim to enhance or refine their metropolitan governance arrangements or activities. examples. References and additional supporting material are also in Annexes.
3 The terms collaboration, cooperation and coordination among local governments in a metro area are often used in the paper. The paper does not aim to make a detailed distinction between these terms. However, we consider that collaboration is when a group of governments come together and work on something in support of a shared objective or mission. Cooperation cooperation are modes of effective teamwork, often occurring in tandem. Coordination relates more to harmonization of, reflects more when the group work together in support of each other’s goals. Both collaboration and for example, services, regulations, etc. 4
Details are provided on Metro Vancouver Regional District, Canada; Greater Washington, DC, USA; Greater Paris Metropolis, France; San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA; the Randstad Area, the Netherlands; Greater London Area, UK; the New York Metropolitan Region, USA; Toronto, Canada; Shanghai, China; Seoul Metropolitan Area, South Korea; and Tokyo Capitol Region, Japan. 9
2. Metropolitan Areas
2.1 Definitions
A metropolitan area. Many cities are economically interdependent with their neighbouring cities and semi-rural areas, constituting a single economy and labour market - a metropolitan area or city-region, usually with many local government jurisdictions. The term metropolitan (metro) areas generally refer to cities with a large urban core plus adjacent urban and rural areas that are integrated socially and economically with the core, a functional economic area.[8] It forms a community with common interests and opportunities for joint action. Transport and communications advances tend to extend such areas. The economic links between the core and the are city-region, megacity5 and megalopolis.6 area’s periphery can become so close, that one part cannot succeed without the other. Related terms
Urban growth changes the character of an area and its economy, while administrative boundaries tend to be quite stable. This mismatch of urban/economic integration along with administrative fragmentation creates a need for collaboration among local governments for development effectiveness. For example, formulating wide-coverage spatial plans (structural land use plans to seize opportunities of agglomeration economies), facilitating economic development, seizing opportunities for efficiencies in the delivery of certain public services, for example solid embankments), and preventing wasteful local competition. Many people live in one local jurisdiction, waste disposal and flood prevention (But not necessarily solid waste collection or maintenance of work in another, and may shop or enjoy recreational activities in a third, requiring integrated transport services. Pollution doesn’t respect jurisdictional borders. Large differences may exist in access to public amenities and service provision. Coordination may be needed at different scales for the financial as well as administrative capacities among the local jurisdictions, creating inequities in different functions though.
Demarcation of a metropolitan (metro) area is usually based on one of three factors: (a) the contiguous built-up area; (ii) an area based on distance or travelling time from the core city center daily (often an area with 30-40 km radius or one hour travel time, usually conducive to daily commuting); or (iii) an area based on significant functional relations, for example defined by a proxy of
5 Typically considered a city with population of more than 10 million. Today, more than 40 such cities exist globally. 6 A megalopolis geographically or may merge into a continuous, mostly urban region. Similarly, in China, the concept of metropolitan is typically defined as a chain of roughly adjacent metropolitan areas, which may be somewhat separated circles (MC) around larger cities has recently been introduced, which includes a number of metropolitan areas. 10
commuting by at least 10-15% of the working population.7
While a definition of a metropolitan area is required for planning and administrative purposes, an exact definition tends to be important only if any funding is allocated strictly to the defined area, or if a fiscal-sharing (taxation) arrangement area. is put in place for the specific area, and does not apply to the areas immediately outside the defined
2.2 Metropolitan versus Local Functions
A metro level governance arrangement should be responsible for “services that provide region-wide benefits, generate externalities, entail some redistribution, and display economies of scale”, while the individual local governments should be responsible for services that “provide local benefits”.[8] Table 1 shows how metropolitan and single jurisdictions have different roles to play in the provision of certain functions or services. Further details on common local versus metropolitan-level service provision are included in Annex B.
Table 1. Roles of metropolitan and local governance for selective functions/services
To address jointly in the To address by each local Function/service metropolitan area government in the area
Strategic planning Planning at regional scale Implementation locally (including by sector)
Economic development Attract business
Tourism Promotion of the area RetainService business provision locally (as a destination)
Land management Structural land use plan enforcement Local plans; building permits; Transport Transport system Permits (taxi, buses, etc.)
Solid waste management Collection (SWM) Overall SWM planning Resilience (landslides, DisposalPrevention system design Maintenance of facilities floods, earthquakes, etc.) overall
Environment Funds mobilization Local implementations Harmonized rules
Health epidemic Prevention and mitigation policies Enforcement of policies Business support Policy harmonization, e.g. General business support at permits and regulations local level
7 An assessment of the area with frequent business connections (e.g. supply chains) or the area for key public services, e.g. hospitals, higher education, etc. is sometimes used as well. 11
Who should do what in terms of planning and service delivery? Sharing of services between a local government and a metropolitan level entity comprise four main modes of delivery as summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Who should do what in terms of planning and delivery of services?
Planning
Local Metropolitan
Services that have traditionally been executed wide planning optimization Services that benefit from area- by municipalities that will (either across municipal boundaries, need arbitration, or to citizens, and do not have involve population movements also benefit from proximity across municipal boundaries) should be planned and but are better delivered locally significant scale benefits, delivered locally. by municipalities, fall into this Local category. These services include local town planning, local roads, Such services are most public goods and include land use and waste collection. planning (with issuance of street lighting, fire brigades, building permits locally), Delivery affordable housing, education, health care, parks, and overall solid waste management planning.
Services whose requirements are determined by individual economies and optimization Services that benefit from scale municipalities but whose across municipal boundaries are good candidates to be driven by a scale and strong capabilities. metropolitan-level entity. implementation benefit from Metropolitan While likely to vary across These services often include cities, these services could transportation (inter-municipal include special projects in and inter-modal integration), environmental management, water supply, solid waste disposal, bulk (raw) water supply, and and economic development. joint procurement.
2.3 Cases
Basic comparative data on ten metropolitan areas are shown in Table 3, including their metropolitan Annexes which provide descriptions of the arrangements. Details on these cases are included in 12
respective organizational arrangement and selective details on their planning and operations. governance arrangements or activities. They may be useful references for metro areas that aim to enhance or refine their metropolitan
Table 3. Comparison of Ten Metropolitan Areas
Metro Greater Tokyo –The San Randstad Greater New York Shanghai Seoul Vancouver Greater Paris National Francisco Area, the London Metrop. Municipal Metrop. Regional Washington Metro- Capital Bay Area, Nether- Area, UK Region, Area, China Area, South District, DC, USA polis, Region, California lands * USA ** Korea Canada France Japan
9 million 2.5 million 6.2 million 7.2 mill. 7.8 million 8.2 million 23 million 25 million 26 million 38.1 mill. Population (2019 (2016) (2017) (2019est) (2018) (2016) (2019 est.) (2019 est.) (2016) (2016) est.)
2,883 14,400 814 6,410 8,287 1,572 34,490 6,400 11,700 13,500 Area (Sq.km) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 km km km km km km km km km km
Population 900 430 8,800 1,200 1,000 5,700 700 3,900 2,200 2,800 density per km2 per km2 per km2 per km2 per km2 per km2 per km2 per km2 per km2 per km2 (approximately)
131 9 counties No. of local 23 local 24 munici- 32 (including munici- and 101 (4 main 31 counties 16 districts 25 districts governments authorities palities boroughs Numeroussix large palities cities Numerouscities) prefectures)
Metro Informal Greater Municipal Bay Area London government Tokyo Metropolitan Council of entity and coordina- Authority Plan (covering its Seoul Metrop. Metro- governance Vancouver Governments various � adtion hoc (GLA) AssociationRegional metropolitan Metropolitan Council politan arrangement Regional sector among and a area) with Government Government aDistrict public authorities four city- Metro planning subordinated corporation(MVRD), (COG) provinces Mayor (NGO) for districts
Further details Annex G Annex C Annex F Annex H Annex L Annex M Annex I are in Annex E Annex O Annex J and the London Commuter Belt (London Metropolitan Area) 19,096 km2 with about 15 million * Two other areas are: Greater London Built-up Area 1,738 km2 with about 10 million residents; residents. (Annex I)
** In 2019, a Shanghai Metropolitan Circle of about 87,000 km2 with some 70 million people was discussed for coordination, including about eight large municipalities. (Annex M) 13
3. Metropolitan Governance Arrangements
3.1 Introduction
This section describes common. metropolitan governance arrangements (models) applied concludes with a list of generic observations on the subject. internationally. This is followed by a summary of specific city applications globally. The section
3.2 Metropolitan Governance Arrangements
in annexes. Further details and global examples are found in [2]. It is important to note that effective The following models are briefly explained below with city examples. The city examples are detailed governance may depend more on how an arrangement is implemented than on the choice of arrangement.
1. An Inter-Municipal Forum or Council (a light structure)
sometimes called special purpose district)8 2. Metropolitan authority/is (either for a single sector, or broader for multiple sectors; 3. A Metropolitan government (a separate metropolitan-level government for some
functions; either as a local government for selective functions, or a true second-tier 4. Alocal consolidated government local with government subordinated (by first-tieramalgamation local governments) of municipalities or by land annexation)
needs 5. Regional government (provincial or state government) fulfilling metro coordination 1. An inter-municipal forum or council. This is a light arrangement applied in fragmented local governance situations for coordination and to explore potential for joint action. Inter- municipal cooperation mechanisms are common internationally in areas with fragmented
8
Special Purpose Districts (SPDs) are also very common in the United States. They are independent special-purpose For example, for water supply, drainage, transit, education, health care and environmental functions. governmental units that exist separately from local governments, with substantial administrative and fiscal independence. 14
local governance, particularly in the United States, France and Brazil, where small, fragmented local governments are common and local autonomy considered very important. These may take the form of councils, commissions, consultative platforms, consortiums, etc.
They are bodies (forums) for coordination, sometimes on a specific issue, but more often
for broader collaboration in planning and9 identification of joint initiatives. A metropolitan level council - called Council of Governments (COG) or Metropolitan Planning Organization by each member local government. They are normally voluntary, regional coordinating (MPO) - is common in the United States, sometimes with decisions required to be ratified bodies controlled by their member local governments. They were incentivized by the US federal government through conditional allocation of national funding for transport and Annex C) and the San Francisco Bay Area ( Annex wastewater infrastructure. Examples are found in Greater Washington Area (see ). Annex D) in the United States; and in Paris, France ( E 2. One or more metropolitan authorities. with economies of scale. Such an authority can be for a single sector or for multiple sectors. This is common for specific infrastructure sectors 2a. Single sector authorities, e.g. a transport authority (e.g. Transport for London described in Annex F), a water authority, and/or a waste authority for a metro area. Some metropolitan authorities are focused on area-wide spatial planning and land development, as in India and Bangladesh.
2b. A multi-sector authority with a more comprehensive mandate of both planning and
Canada (Annex G) and the Greater London Authority, UK (Annex H service delivery (operations) for selective sectors. Examples are Metro Vancouver, started with regional planning and replaced metropolitan agencies for sewerage ). Metro Vancouver service, water supply, health and hospitals, and business development. Affordable
emergency response were functions added later. It also provides human resource housing, regional parks, air quality, environmental monitoring, fire protection and
particularly strong land use planning powers though. (HR) management services to some municipalities on a contract basis. It does not have 3. A separate metropolitan-level local government. This can be either for a set of selective functions or as a second-tier local government.
3a. For certain metropolitan functions. In one sense this is somewhat similar to a multi- sector metropolitan authority, but it is a separate local government, either appointed,
respectively), or indirectly elected by the other local governments in the area. directly elected (e.g. Seoul and Tokyo Metropolitan Government; see Annex I and J 3b. A second-tier local government with broader authority. This is a true second- tier local government with broader authority over a lower tier, usually with the
metropolitan area approximately coinciding with its jurisdiction. Examples are found in Budapest (Hungary); in the municipal and prefecture governments in China, with 9 subordinatedhttp://www.ampo.org/about-us/about-mpos/ district and county governments (Annex M); and in London (UK) with
Link to COGs and MPOs 15
a Mayor of London and a Greater London Authority (GLA) with partly subordinated boroughs (Annex H). The Mayor of London has powers to reject applications of potential strategic importance submitted to a local (borough) government for consideration but may not direct it to approve such development initiative.
4. A consolidated (one-tier) local government for an area which coincides with its metropolitan area, i.e. the functional economic area and labor market. While a second- tier metropolitan-level local governments in 3b above tend to cover its respective metropolitan
created through either (a) amalgamation of local governments as in Toronto, Canada (Annex area (defined based on daily commuting), a one-tier, consolidated local governments is K) and in South Africa in 1999 after the apartheid era, were eight new, large metropolitan municipalities were established, or (b) by annexation of adjacent land areas (as in Istanbul, Turkey).
5. State/provincial governments responsible for metropolitan area coordination, and managing some local services at that scale, is a model applied in some countries. For
metropolitan level coordination in larger cities in Mexico is to a large extent lead by the example, in Australia all public transport services are managed by the state governments;
have state-wide water authorities. states; and in Santiago (Chile) by the head of the regional government. Many states in India
Another, not as common, model is for the local governments in an area to have much of the area planning and coordination accomplished through a joint research, planning and advocacy organization. An example of this approach is found in New York City, which is part of the New York The metropolitan research and planning for this area are done by the Regional Plan Association City – New Jersey – Connecticut Metropolitan Region, the largest urban region in the United States. (RPA) Annex L)
, a non-governmental organization (NGO). (see 3.3 Metropolitan Arrangements Internationally
Most large cities in high- and middle-income countries have special metropolitan governance arrangements.
Significant international experience exists on successful metropolitan governance 10).[4][5] The models applied are of great variety though, as arrangements in high- and middle-income countries, particularly in Europe, North America, and Box 1 and in the typology of arrangements described in Section 3.2. Some arrangements East Asia (South Korea, Japan and China are established bottom up (i.e., through initiatives and agreements among the local governments in reflected in the area) and some top down (i.e., by a provincial, state, or national government).
10
In China (not an OECD country), the areas of municipal and prefecture-level governments are often coinciding with the challenge in China is that many metropolitan areas have become even larger, an area called ‘metropolitan circle’ (see city’s metropolitan area (defined as >10-15% daily commuting). This facilitates metropolitan-level coordination. A current Annex M on Shanghai). 16
Box 1: Metropolitan governance arrangements globally
In some of the most developed countries, for example in the United States, France and Australia, small, fragmented local governments are common and local autonomy considered very important. In the United States, inter-municipal arrangements called Council of Governments government through conditional allocation of national funding for transport and wastewater (COG) or Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) are very common, incentivized by the federal
France has various legal provisions and incentives encouraging inter-municipal cooperation, called infrastructure. Special Purpose District organization are also very common (see footnote 7). communauté urbaine (urban community) and syndicats inter-communaux (syndicate). Australia is more centralized, with the provincial governments playing an important role in the delivery of some functions usually considered local, particularly public transport.11
Latin America is home to many metropolitan areas. [3] While the frameworks for metropolitan very developed, the larger cities in Colombia (e.g. Bogota, Medellin) have well-established inter- governance, for example in São Paulo, Mexico City, Buenos Aires, and Rio de Janeiro are still not municipal councils, and the Metropolitan District of Quito in Ecuador is an example of a second particularly in Brazil and Mexico, where very recent legislations mandate state governments to tier metropolitan government with a metropolitan mayor. Significant developments are underway ensure that coordination arrangements are institutionalized for the larger urban areas. Since 1987, organization formed by 14 local governments (in two provinces) in the city’s metropolitan area of San Salvador, the capital of El Salvador, has a metropolitan council and a planning and advisory about 600 km2. The now autonomous planning body is credited for achieving improved land use patterns and fairly similar service access across the area.
In East Asia
, Japan and South Korea have separate local metropolitan governments for certain functions in their larger cities. (Annex I and J). Municipal jurisdictions in China tend to cover areas thatIn South coincide Asia with their metropolitan areas as defined in this paper. most large metropolitan areas, particularly in India and Bangladesh, sometimes complemented by , Development Authorities (DA) appointed by the State governments are common for State-wide water and sanitation authorities.
In Middle East and North Africa, a national government driven metropolitan planning and coordination structure exist for Greater Amman. Tunis has a research body, the Agence Urbaine du Grand Tunis (AUGT), for the Greater Tunis area.
Sub-Saharan Africa is rapidly urbanizing, but most cities lack effective institutions to govern at metropolitan scale. South Africa is an exception, having established eight large municipalities in 1999 through amalgamations of local governments after the apartheid era, each new municipality new constitution in 2010 established 47 large counties, replacing local governments and facilitating (e.g. Cape Town, Durban, etc.) essentially covering their respective metropolitan area. In Kenya, a urban-rural coordination. Nairobi metropolitan area includes areas in 5 counties (including the City ofWhere Nairobi). institutional arrangements at local levels are lacking or weak, some coordination at
11 State, provincial, and other regional governments are all referred to in this paper as regional governments. 17
metropolitan scale tends to be exercised by state or provincial governments; for example, in Lagos State, Nigeria. 3.4 Observations
The process is as important as the outcome. For a governance arrangement to be effective and sustainable, an extensive process of stakeholder consultation is required. While a cost saving argument may be attractive, to achieve broad political support may still require significant efforts. Experience shows that: (a) metropolitan arrangements need to be tailored to the specific national governance arrangement tends to become fully effective or sustainable unless the local governments and local circumstances; (b) clarity on ‘who does what’ is required in any model; and (c) no in the area are actively supporting it.[7] Since proposals may create - at least perceived, if not real - of a metro area governance system. winners and losers, factors other than economy, efficiency and equity may determine the evolution
More than one model can exist in a metro area at the same time. For example, one or more divided between a state/provincial government and another arrangement. sectoral authorities in parallel with any of the other models; or functional responsibilities may be
Coordination may be needed at different scales for different purposes. For example, the appropriate area for coordinated economic development may be even larger than the commuting area of a large city (its metropolitan area). Preventing and addressing health epidemics is another
“isolation” of the Hubei Province in central China, an area of 185,900 km2 with about 60 million topic which needs area-wide measures. Examples from the recent COVID-19 case are the temporary
California at the same time, an area of close to 6,000 km2 with 7 million people. Metropolitan people; and a shelter-in-place policy issued by seven local jurisdictions around San Francisco, governance arranged through various authorities in the area - for different functions and at different
. scales - is exemplified by the case of San Francisco Bay Area covering nine counties and 101 cities and towns. Details about the San Francisco Bay Area are in Annex D Numerous design variations of the mentioned models exist due to the following factors.
o Formation: A metropolitan entity: (i) indirectly elected by the member local
governments (e.g. Vancouver, Canada); (ii) appointed by a higher tier government (e.g. the Twin Cities in the State of Minnesota, USA); or (iii) directly elected (e.g. London, UK; o Authorityand Seoul, South Korea; and Stuttgart, Germany).
o Scope: For: Degreeplanning of and decision-making coordination authorityonly, or responsible or having advisoryfor one or function more service only. delivery functions (operations) as well.
o Funding on budget transfers (e.g. London Greater Authority), or contributions from the member : Having access to own sources of revenues (e.g. Metro Vancouver), depending local governments (e.g. The Greater Washington Area, USA). 18
o Flexibility. Member governments must participate in all functions carried out by the metro-level organization or can choose to participate in only some of them (as in
Flexibility inVancouver, the engagement Canada). by the local governments is possible.
One example of a relatively flexible metropolitan governance arrangement is found in the Metro Vancouver Regional Service that is owned by 23 member local governments providing various services for its members on District (MVRD), or Metro Vancouver, Canada as it is usually referred to. It is a public corporation them. demand. Each local government chooses which MVRD service(s) that they want MVRD to provide for
The metropolitan arrangements tend to evolve as an area changes and experience is gained. London, UK and Toronto, Canada are examples of how the institutional arrangements have changed Annex H and K respectively. many times as circumstances have changed. Details on these evolutions are found in
To be stronger by acting together. At an early stage of metropolitan level coordination, emphasis can be on identifying a few initial joint initiatives with high probability of success, to build trust and momentum. Low-risk examples can, for example, joint procurement to save on cost (from light bulbs to garbage trucks), joint training programs for staff, marketing (branding) of the area, and establishing a joint research entity.
Effectiveness.
A metropolitan area as defined here needs a metropolitan coordination arrangement to overcome differences in views and build trust and achieve socio-economic cohesion and urban that enables consensus and serves the common good; an arrangement that will facilitate dialogue integration. At a minimum, it is important to have a functional forum or meeting platform through which to: (a) develop and maintain common views on a vision and key priorities for the region; and (b) generate ideas and proposals for joint initiatives that will benefit all. An effective governance arrangement should facilitate capturing economies of scale and service negative impacts that an arrangement may have on the access of citizens to their local governments, efficiencies, and address spill-overs and regional disparities. However, it should also prevent possible the degree of public participation in decision-making, and the responsiveness and accountability of the government entities in the area. 19
4. Megaregions
Megalopolises - a number of somewhat adjacent metropolitan areas - and even larger megaregions, are increasingly becoming the new competitive units in the global economy, characterized by increasing movement of goods, people and capital within the regions.
The Concept of a Metropolitan Circle (MC) in China. functional economic area with certain level of daily commuting) are in China similar to the municipal Metropolitan areas (as defined here: a areas due to their large geographical coverage. Some of the municipalities (metro areas) have become increasingly inter-connected with their neighboring municipalities, forming large networks of metropolitan areas. This has in China recently been called a metropolitan circle (MC), a concept similar to metropolis or megaregion. The largest such areas are the Beijing - Hebei - Tianjin area, the an area of 87,100 km2 including many large cities in two neighboring provinces (see Annex M). Hong Kong - Guangzhou - Macao area (the China Bay Area), and the Shanghai Metropolitan Region,
MCs in China are comparable to international megaregions. Internationally, such areas are, ), which covers six large for example: (a) the Tokyo region, the National Capital Region (Annex J which covers 26 counties (Annex L prefectures (including Tokyo and Yokohama) and many more; (b) the New York metropolitan region Area (also known as the Southeast metropolitan area) (Annex H ), including some sizeable cities; (c) the London Metropolitan Annex ); (d) the Randstad area in the Netherlands with Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, and Utrecht as the four larger cities ( connected metropolitan areas ( O); and (e) the San Francisco Bay Area, with San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland as three inter- United States ( ). Annex D), extending to a Northern California megaregion in the Annex N There is no single definition of a megaregion. According to the America 2050 program megaregions comprise multiple, adjacent metropolitan areas connected by overlapping commuting patterns, business travel, environmental landscapes and watersheds, linked economies, and social networks
. America 2050 is a national infrastructure planning and policy program by the Regional on a range of issues impacting America’s growth in the 21st century. Plan Association (RPA) in New York City. The program was launched in 2005 and provides leadership and Mexico (see map below). These megaregions are large networks of metropolitan areas, where America 2050 identified eleven (11) megaregions in the United States, including areas in Canada most of the population growth by 2050 is expected to take place. More than 70 percent of the
US population and jobs are already located in these megaregions. Examples are the Northeast Mexico. However, megaregions are not formally recognized in the hierarchy of governance structures Megaregion, from Boston to Washington; and Southern California, from Los Angeles to Tijuana in 20
in the US, as are a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) or a city. The emerging megaregions in . the United States are shown in the map below. The Northern California Megaregion is described in Annex N
http://www.america2050.org/about.html
Region Plan Association (RPA) map. Opportunities at the megaregion scale. Underperforming parts of a megaregion may be linked through improved transportation with the more dynamic centers, creating good jobs and affordable the United States offers an example. While there is substantial housing pressure on some of the housing throughout the region without creating more sprawl. The Northeast megaregion of
Northeast’s “hot market” cities (New York, Boston, Washington, DC), the megaregion contains many suggested that one strategy is to better link “hot market” cities with “cold market” cities through “cold market” cities that have experienced disinvestments (e.g. Baltimore, Philadelphia). RPA has enhanced transportation. Equity benefits, the studies argue, are that: (a) residents of hot-market residents of cold-market cities would be able to access job opportunities in hot-market cities. cities would be able to access affordable housing opportunities in cold-market cities; and (b) 21
Annex A: References
What Makes Cities More Productive? Evidence on the Role of Urban Governance from Five OECD Countries [1] Ahrend, R., Farchy, E., Kaplanis, I., and Lembke, A. (2014), , OECD Regional Development Working Papers, Paris: OECD Publishing. Unpacking Metropolitan Governance for Sustainable Development,
[2] GIZ-UN Habitat (2015), Discussion Paper. Steering the metropolis: metropolitan governance for sustainable urban development [3] Gómez-Álvarez D., Rajack R., López-Moreno E., Lanfranchi G. (Editors) (2017), , Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). Governing the City
[4] OECD (2015), , Paris, OECD Publishing. The Metropolitan Century: Understanding Urbanisation and its Consequences, Paris:
[5] OECD (2015), OECD Publishing, Paris. Governing the metropolis: Principles and cases [6] Rojas, E., Cuadro-Roura, J. R., and Fernandez Guell, J. M. (eds). (2008). . Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank. Managing the Coordination of Service Delivery in Metropolitan Cities—the Role of Metropolitan Governance [7] Slack, Enid, , Policy Research Paper, The World Bank, 2007 Governance and Finance of Metropolitan Areas in Federal Systems [8] Slack, Enid, Chattopadhyay, Rupak (editors), , Forum of Federations, Oxford University Press, 2013 [9] Wong Hing (2014), Regional Governance in the San Francisco Bay Area: The History of the Association of Bay Area Governments, Association of Bay Area Governments 2014 22
Annex B: Common Local versus Metropolitan-level Service Provision (general theory)
Central Metro Local Private Rationale for metropolitan level (or No Function Gov’t level* Gov’t sector well-coordinated) service provision Strategic dev. planning 1 √ √ Externalities (i.e. spillovers) Local Tourism promotion Economic development √ √ Externalities Major markets √ Externalities Informal economy Policy harmonization may be needed Economy √ √ Externalities Land use planning √ Land allocation 2 √ √ Externalities Land surveying Services contracted by local government Land Mgmt. √ Titles / tenure provision But possibly some scale economies √ √ Building permits √ Housing √ 3 Social housing But some joint metro-level planning Housing and √ Community upgrading Community √ √ Cultural facilities Facilities √ √ √ Parks and recreation But some joint metro-level planning √
Public transit 4 Roads and bridges √ √ √ Depending on type of road Street lighting Transport √ √ Externalities; economies of scale Street cleaning √ Car parking √ Police / security √ 5 √ √ Externalities; economies /of scale Security Fire/emergency/rescue Specialized services at metro level Traffic management √ Ambulance services √ √ Water supply system √ Economies of scale; externalities 6 Water, √ Economies of scale Piped sewerage system Sanitation Drainage/flood protect. √ Economies of scale (externalities) Solid waste collection Less economies of scale/externalities and Waste √ Economies of scale (built up areas) Solid waste disposal √ 7 √ PrimaryEconomies & secondary of scale; externalities vs. higher Public health Education √ √ Health, Welfare assistance Education, √ √ Scale economy; externalities Social care Childcare services √ 8 Power Power (electricity) √ √
Libraries √ 9 Promoting major events √ Business licensing √ Externalities Local agriculture Policy harmonization may be needed Other √ √ √ * Metropolitan (or very well coordinated) service provision 23
Annex C: Case of the Greater Washington Area, USA
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG). Metropolitan Washington is an area of 14,412 km2 which comprises 24 urban and rural local governments. The area is home to more than 6 million people. Managing continued economic and population growth requires partnership. For this, the region relies on the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG).
Founded in 1957, the COG is an independent, nonprofit association, with representatives of the (U.S. Congress). It is a Metropolitan Council with limited independent decision-making authority, local governments, two state governments (Virginia and Maryland), and the national government so as not to undermine the accountability of the local governments. Decisions in the COG need to be contributions from its member governments, grants and contracts, and donations from foundations ratified by all member local governments to take effect. The COG secretariat is supported by financial to the public. https://www.mwcog.org/ and the private sector. It has a Board of Directors as its governing body with monthly meetings open
COG’s Region Forward Vision. In 2010, the COG issued a document “Region Forward—A Comprehensive Guide for Regional Planning and Measuring Progress in the 21st Century,” a planning guide for environment, housing, transportation, and other regional priorities. It aims to create a more prosperous, accessible, livable, and sustainable metropolitan Washington region. It sets ambitious goals and targets to guide future decisions and measure progress. These are grouped by the vision categories — prosperity, accessibility, livability, and sustainability. All area governments pledged to advance the goals articulated in this document to their best effort. It aims to create a more prosperous, accessible, livable, and sustainable metropolitan Washington region. Targets and indicators evaluate progress at the regional scale rather than jurisdiction by jurisdiction. determine if the region as a whole is heading in the right direction. A baseline evaluation report of (e.g. green space, affordable housing units, school graduation rates, financial performance), to the region’s performance on these targets was issued in 2012. The targets have been updated since the planning guide was originally released in 2010. In 2015, several targets and indicators were https://www.mwcog.org/documents/2010/01/28/region-forward-vision/ measured and reported in a State of the Region: Economic Competitiveness Report.
The region’s local governments and several have endorsed the vision and incorporated it into their own planning efforts. These goals encourage leaders to think civic and nonprofit organizations about the regional impact of local decisions. A , a diverse group of public
Region Forward Coalition officials and business and civic leaders, is overseeing the implementation and performance of implementation activities. The Coalition provides cross-cutting regional policy capacity and long- the Region Forward and advise the COG Board on future comprehensive regional planning and range regional planning recommendations to the COG Board. 24
Goals in the Metropolitan Washington’s Region Forward Planning Guide
Land Use • We seek the enhancement of established neighborhoods of differing densities with compact,
and preservation of open space, farmland and environmental resource land in rural areas. (Sustainability)walkable infill development, rehabilitation and retention of historic sites and districts, • will capture new employment and household growth. (Accessibility) We seek transit-oriented and mixed-use communities emerging in Regional Activity Centers that Transportation • maximizes accessibility and affordability to everyone and minimizes reliance upon single occupancyWe seek a broad use of range the automobile. of public and (Accessibility) private transportation choices for our Region which • We seek a transportation system that maximizes community connectivity and walkability and
Climate Change minimizes ecological harm to the Region and world beyond. (Accessibility) • energy and alternative fuels for buildings, vehicles, and public transportation. • We seek efficient public and private use of energy Region-wide, with reliance upon renewable the built environment and transportation sector. (both goals for Sustainability) We seek a significant decrease in greenhouse gas emissions, with substantial reductions from Environment • meeting and exceeding standards for our air, water, and land. (Sustainability) • We seek to maximize protection and enhancement of the Region’s environmental resources by preserves. (Sustainability) We seek preservation and enhancement of our Region’s open space, green space, and wildlife Public Security • We seek safe communities for residents and visitors. (Livability) • We seek partnerships that manage emergencies, protect the public health, safety, welfare, and preserve the lives, property and economic well-being of the region and its residents. (Livability) Education • We seek to provide greater access to the best education at all levels, from pre-kindergarten to graduate school. (Prosperity) • workforce development, and institutional collaboration. (Prosperity) We seek to make our Region a pre-eminent knowledge hub, through educational venues, Housing • We seek a variety of housing types and choices in diverse, vibrant, safe, healthy, and sustainable neighborhoods, affordable to persons at all income levels. (Accessibility) • We seek to make the production, preservation, and distribution of affordable housing a priority
Health and Human Services throughout the Region. (Livability) • We seek communities in which every person enjoys health and well-being. (Livability) Economy • opportunities and a focus on sustainable economic development. (Prosperity) • We seek toa diversified, minimize economic stable, and disparities competitive and economy, enhance withthe prosperity a wide range of each of employment jurisdiction and
• nationalthe Region government. through balanced (Prosperity) growth and access to high-quality jobs for everyone. We seek to fully recognize and enhance the benefits that accrue to the region as the seat of the 25
Annex D: Case of the San Francisco Bay Area, USA
The San Francisco Bay Area is composed of three metropolitan areas, as defined by the U.S. Federal south. It is an area of 6,410 km2 covering nine counties and 101 cities and s. It is home to about 8 Government: The San Francisco in the north, Oakland in the east, and San Jose (‘Silicon Valley’) in the 12 in the area. The Bay Area million people. There are also more than 3,000 Special Purpose Districts the Bay Area economy experienced record employment levels due to the technology industry has grown to be the fourth largest metropolitan region in the United States. During the last decade, expansion.
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) was created in 1961 by the 110 local governments in the area to meet their planning and research needs related to land use, waste management.13 environmental and water resource protection, disaster resilience, energy efficiency, and hazardous ABAG’s mission is to strengthen cooperation and coordination among the local governments in the It is a regional planning agency and Council of Governments (COG) for the area. region, to build healthier and stronger communities. The local governments are voluntary members. advisory organization, ABAG has
Non-profit organizations (NGOs) can also be members. As an 14 limited statutory authority. It is governed by a General Assembly with an elected official from each Today, ABAG works on land use planning, housing, transportation, environmental climate change, of the member local governments and has an Executive Board. Majority vote is required for action. earthquake and disaster resilience, and economic equity. www.abag.ca.gov
In 1990, the ABAG adopted a policy framework to guide future land-use decisions in the Bay
12
common in the United A Special Purpose District is an organization established with a specific mandate, for a geographical area. They are very 13 The term “metropolitan council” had been discussed, but the nine counties insisted on the name of “Association”. States. Examples are utility companies, educational boards, and environmental authorities. 14 At the national level, the following associations deal with metropolitan and regional questions in the United States: http://narc.org/
National Association of Regional Councils , Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations http://www.ampo.org/ and National Association of Development Organizations https://www.nado.org/ 26
Area. It respects the need for strong local control while recognizing the importance of regional typically been through coalitions, task forces, and partnerships within the region and beyond. comprehensive planning for items of regional significance. ABAG’s problem-solving approach has ABAG is also conducting research, organizing education and information campaigns, and providing selective services to its member local governments. ABAG is funded by membership fees, grants, and service revenues. It works closely with other metropolitan agencies, including a Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC), Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and San Francisco area. Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), to promote sustainable development in the
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the agency responsible for transportation State of California. MTC serves the same area as ABAG. There are 28 transport operators in the region. MTC has a 21-member board of planning and financing in the area. It was created in 1970 by the
Three non-voting members are appointed to represent the US federal housing department and commissioners, 16 of which are local elected officials. Two members represent ABAG and the BCDC. federal and state transportation agencies. www.mtc.ca.gov
Bay Area Metro. In 2017, ABAG and MTC merged and consolidated their staff as the Bay Area Metro to promote better integration for their common goals of making the region more livable and land use plan. However, they still operate under separate Boards (some members are the same). The sustainable, achieve operating efficiencies, and develop an integrated long-range transportation and ABAG/MTC administration has at present about 280 staff, of which about 200 are former staff of MTC and 80 of ABAG. https://www.bayareametro.gov/
Water and wastewater services are provided through various local utility companies, e.g. San Francisco Water (Public Utilities Commission) and East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). area of about 900 km2 EBMUD is a publicly-owned utility corporation which provides water and sewerage services for an covering 16 local governments, including the city of Oakland. The Authority has a seven-member Board of Directors, publicly elected by the residents in the service area, and an appointed General Manager. Although the EBMUD was established by the local governments in the area, they exercise no oversight responsibility and has no accountability for EBMUD’s fiscal matters. for the services rendered. www.ebmud.com EBMUD finances its projects by issuing bonds; and independently prescribes rates, fees, and charges
The Bay Area Council, founded in 1945, is an organization for the region’s business community and like-minded individuals to concentrate and coordinate their work with public and community leaders to keep the Bay Area an innovative, globally competitive, and sustainable region. It is widely respected by policy makers as the regional voice of business. Today, more than 300 of the largest employers in the region support the Bay Area Council. https://www.bayareacouncil.org/
San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR)
is a nonprofit urban policy think tank with over 4,000 members and offices in San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose. It has about in the Bay Area. It is a member and grant supported organization with some own revenues. A report 50 staff. Through research, education and advocacy, SPUR promotes good planning and governance 27
Agenda for Change represents its vision of channeling the area’s growth into existing cities to prevent further sprawl. Sprawl not only destroys the environment; it also forces people to drive to with horizon 2070, broadening the planning by addressing how to make the region more equitable virtually everything they want to do. SPUR has recently initiated a strategic study for the Bay Area (including through education, childcare, etc.). https://www.spur.org/
In the 1970s, ABAG adjusted its role from mainly being a regional planning organization to be more of a service agency for the local governments. While the planning programs are still at the core of ABAG’s work, successful service programs have kept ABAG afloat financially and as a voluntary member organization. Examples of service-oriented activities are: capital funding for its members (for a group of members to borrow collectively). • In 1983, ABAG launched credit pooling, its first financial services program to facilitate
collectively providing liability, property insurance, claims and risk management. • In 1986, ABAG established the Pooled Liability Assurance Network (PLAN) Corp.
established to conduct pooled purchasing of natural gas and electricity. • In1995, the ABAG Publicly Owned Energy Resources company (ABAG POWER) was • In 1996, a Bay Area Green Business Program was launched that provides environmental
practices. certification of small medium-size businesses for applying best environmental • Since the 1970s, ABAG has offered environmental training programs, including on hazardous materials and waste treatment, to staff of member governments.
• Bay Area Regional Energy Network (BayREN) helps single families, property owners costs. and businesses get technical assistance and access financial resources to reduce energy • San Francisco Bay Trail is an 800-km walking and cycling path that surrounds the entire Bay and runs through all nine Bay Area counties.
• ABAG allocates state and national funding based on a regional housing needs assessment.
• ABAG is biannually producing 25-year forecasts of population, households, and employment, which are used by both public agencies and private groups for their planning.
In terms of joint projects in the Bay Area, it is noteworthy that, in conjunction with the 2016 election in the United States, all nine counties in the Bay Area asked the voters to approve a small increase of the property tax to protect and restore the shoreline, wetlands, and wildlife habitat around the bay. The proposal passed in all counties. The joint task was assigned to an already existing San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority. http://sfbayrestore.org/ 28
The Plan Bay Area Report. state-mandated, integrated long-range transportation, land-use, and housing plan to: (a) support In 2013, a comprehensive Plan Bay Area report was adopted; a transportation-related pollution. It provides a roadmap for accommodating projected household and a growing economy; (b) provide more housing and transportation choices; and (c) reduce employment growth in the nine-counties by 2040, and a transportation investment strategy for the comprehensive regional transportation plan. It promoted more compact, mixed-use residential and region. The towns, cities and counties retain all local land use authority. This was the Bay Area’s first commercial neighborhoods near transit, and provided funding and technical assistance to Priority every four years. The ABAG Board established 7 goals and 13 performance targets to measure the Development Areas (PDAs) selected by the city and county governments. The Plan is updated effectiveness of Plan Bay Area 2040 in addressing the major regional challenges. They cover three broad areas: environment, equity and economy. http://www.planbayarea.org/ http://2040.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/2017-07/Performance%20Assessment%20 Report_PBA2040_7-2017_0.pdf Current challenges. The following issues are considered by many in the Bay Area to threaten the long-term competitiveness and regional performance of the area: (i) job sprawl; (ii) limited housing production (particularly affordable housing); (iii) competition for tax revenues and resulting fiscal and (v) lack of preparation to respond to climate change, particularly sea level rise. These issues inequities among jurisdictions; (iv) fragmented regional transit service with limited coordination; cannot be effectively addressed by the 100-plus local governments, each acting alone. Solving them requires coordinated efforts, developing coherent policies, and making investments at the regional scale. However, the current system of Bay Area governance consists of regional agencies that are largely single purpose (air, transport, land use, water, bay protection) and still not well structured to deal with the increasing complexity of regional issues. ABAG, MTC and the Bay Area Air Quality MTC is a step in the right direction. It has brought regional land use and transportation planning Management District have moved into the same building in San Francisco and merging ABAG and under one agency. 29
Annex E. Case of the Greater Paris Metropolis, France
The Métropole du Grand Paris (the Greater Paris Metropolis) is an administrative structure for cooperation among the City of Paris and its nearest suburbs. Grand Paris covers 814 km2 and local governments (communes) - the City of Paris, all 123 local governments (communes) in the has a population of 7.2 million. It was established in January 2016 by law and comprises 131 surrounding inner-suburban areas, and seven communes in two outer-suburban areas. All are located in the Ile-de-France (Greater Paris) region.
Paris has expanded over time in a series of concentric circles. The compact center is within a radius million. However, this radial-layout of development is not necessarily compatible with modern urban of less than five kilometers; an extremely compact area of 100 km2 with a population of about 2.2 living and economic growth. The Grand Paris project was born out of the city’s ambition to become a of life in the suburbs, mainly by improving housing and transportation solutions. The Métropole has global metropolis and a leading financial and economic center. Another goal is to improve the quality been a major player in the preparations for the Paris Olympics and Paralympics of 2024. The Grand Paris project in area than the current city of Paris, with a resident population of 7.5 million, more than half the is designed to create a unified conurbation that is seven times larger population of the Île-de-France (Paris) region. It will be divided into administrative territories of of housing, transport, the environment and the distribution of economic activity. The city of Paris at least 300,000 inhabitants. These dense and connected urban areas have specificities in terms will form one such territory. The challenge will be to transform this area with rail lines and roads
Climate Plan is proof of ambitious strategic planning. https://www.metropolegrandparis.fr/en radiating out from the center into a homogenous territory. The launch of an Air Metropolitan Energy
Governance. The Greater Paris authority is jointly administered by the national government and a Metropolitan Council of 210 members, including a minimum of one representative from each of the 131 local governments in the region. Its responsibilities include urban planning, housing, and protection of the environment. Challenges early on included resolving differences of opinion between local governments themselves. In response, 14 international teams of urban planners were asked national government officials and local elected officials and smoothing out conflicts between the to submit development proposals for various project sites, and the public was encouraged to participate via two initiatives, “Draw Tomorrow’s Greater Paris” and “Reinvent the Seine”. Advisory Bodies. The Métropole du Grand Paris has two consultative bodies responsible for debating, informing and giving opinions on projects. One is made up of the 131 mayors of personalities from economic, social, environmental and cultural circles. the Metropolis, while the second has 104 members, residents of the Metropolis and qualified
The Development Master Plan for the Ile-de-France region (SDRIF). The Ile-de-France (Greater Paris) region is an area of 12,000 km2 with a population of about 12 million (and includes the Métropole du Grand Paris of 814 km2 and 7.2 million people described above). The master plan for this area was approved in December 2013 by the French government following a favorable opinion put forward by the State Council and approval by the Regional Authorities of the Greater 30
Paris Metropolis. The plan aimed to plan and organize the development in the region to 2030. It was drawn up by the regional government together with the national government to ensure its legitimacy and take account of national issues. It involved numerous planning entities in the region. The plan sets out the conditions for creating a pleasant, attractive, socially integrated and robust region.
The SDRIF 2030 presents a regional vision, outlining the changes in the region and in its residents’ lifestyles, as well as the variety of landscapes and urban diversity. The regional spatial planning objectives express the region’s aims for sustainable planning and development between now and 2030 in response to social, economic and environmental issues. The master plan sets out four founding principles that underpin the structure of the region: (i) polycentrism; (ii) the link between urban planning and public transport to limit the use of private vehicles; (iii) more intense use agricultural, natural and forest areas. It also sets out objectives to support residents and enhance the of urban space, social integration and mixed use; and (iv) controlling the use of space to protect region’s attractiveness.
with standards and, in particular, how it is translated into local urban planning documents. These A Regulatory Guidelines section examines how the development plan is to be implemented in line were in the form of written requirements and shown on maps illustrating the main use of different parts of the region on a 1/150,000 scale. The regulatory guidelines were designed to take account of the urban planning powers of municipalities and inter-municipal authorities.
In order to improve how the region functions as a metropolitan area, the master plan includes plans to: (i) boost the economic dynamism of the region; (ii) support a transport system that increases its appeal; (iii) develop attractive amenities; and (iv) ensure sustainable management of the natural ecosystem; and (v) increase the robustness of the region. 31
Annex F: Examples of Regional-level Public Transport Authorities
Transport for London (TfL) is a local government body responsible for the transport system in Greater London. TfL has responsibility for London’s network of principal road routes, various rail networks, the London Underground, trams, buses, taxis, cycling provision, and river services. The services are provided by wholly owned subsidiary companies (e.g. London Underground), by private sector franchisees (rail services, trams and most buses), and by licensees (some buses, taxis and borrowing, a congestion charge and other income. TfL was created in 2000 as part of the Greater river services). About 40% of the TfL budget come from fares; the rest is from government funding,
London Authority (see Annex H). The predecessor to TfL was a London Regional Transport entity. TfL has a Board with members appointed by the Mayor of London, the chairman of the Board. The Commissioner of Transport for London reports to the Board and leads a management team. TfL is organized in three main service directorates with responsibility for different aspects and modes of transport. These are: (i) London Underground; (ii) London Rail; and (iii) Surface Transport Planner”, which enables users to plan journeys by all forms of public transport and bicycle in and (buses, river service, the road network and traffic control). TfL has developed an electronic “Journey around London. Most of the transport modes under the control of TfL have their own charging and ticketing regimes for single fare. Buses and trams share a common fare and ticketing regime, and regimes is a Travelcard system, which provides zonal tickets from one day to one year, with off- the light rail, underground, and national rail services another. Superimposed on these mode-specific peak variants. These are accepted on the light rail, buses, railways, trams, and the Underground, and provides a discount on many river services. https://tfl.gov.uk Stuttgart Regional Association. This is a directly elected regional authority created by the state government of Baden-Württemberg, Germany in 1993 as a directly elected, regional entity for an areas composed of 179 local governments, including the City of Stuttgart. About 3 million people live in this area of 3,654 km², one of the most densely populated areas in Germany. The population
The association functions mainly as a public transport authority responsible for transportation of the region elects delegates to the Regional Assembly, which acts as a “regional parliament”. planning and management of the public transport network in the region. It is also engaged in tourism and regional planning. Its funding is derived about equally from local government contributions and from state government grants. It has no authority to tax or levy user charges on its own. The area has an extensive transport network with effective connection schedules. Tickets can be used on all subways, commuter trains, streetcars, buses, cable cars, and a cog railway. Uniform tariffs are valid throughout most of the region. By law, the association is responsible for management of the commuter rail service, which is the backbone of the integrated public transport system in the area. regarding further expansion of the rail network. It stipulates the frequency of the commuter services, and the Regional Assembly takes decisions www.region-stuttgart.org www.region-stuttgart.de/en 32
Annex G: Case of Metro Vancouver, Canada
A Multi-sector Metropolitan Authority. and two other areas, that collaboratively plans for and delivers regional-scale services. It is a Metro Vancouver is a partnership of 21 municipalities comprehensive multi-sector Metropolitan Authority, a public corporation, officially named Metro Vancouver Regional Service District (MVRD), that: (i) is owned and governed by the member local governments, all represented on its Board; (ii) provides a number of services for its members (on demand); and (iii) has access to a variety of funding sources, including user charges; share of property taxes; and annual contributions from the member local governments.
MVRD is a flexible, demand-driven metropolitan organization established in 1965. It operates responsible for regional planning and took over the functions of previous separate metropolitan with a set of twelve committees on various subjects. Metro Vancouver started as an organization agencies for sewerage service, water supply, health and hospitals, and business development.
Functions of managing affordable housing, regional parks, air quality, environmental monitoring, fire protection and emergency response were added later. Some local governments use MVRD for only to some municipalities on a contract basis. It does not have particularly strong land use planning some of its services. The organization also provides human resource (HR) management services powers though. Through the Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation affordable housing is provided Public transportation services are provided by a separate regional organization, TransLink, which is across the region. The regional functions are guided by a Strategic Plan issued by the MVRD Board. also owned by the municipalities. http://www.metrovancouver.org
Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future (Metro 2040). Metro 2040 is a regional growth strategy. It sets out goals, strategies and policies to guide the future growth of the region, representing the collective vision for how the region is going to accommodate additional population implementing the strategy. and jobs in the future. The Regional Planning Department of MVRD is responsible for developing and
Metro 2040 is guided by four themes:
1. Bringing People Together, delivering regional scale services and plans through collaboration and cooperation in a growing region.
2. Building Regional Systems, taking a regional approach to the core services of water, sewerage, solid waste management, regional parks and affordable housing.
3. Planning for the Future, for a high quality of life for all the citizens, while fostering a healthy and sustainable environment.
4. Protecting the Environment and restoring an inter-connected network of habitat and green space and enhancing the connection between people and nature.
The strategy strives to prevent urban sprawl; focus growth in transit-oriented locations for development of complete communities (with a range of housing, jobs and amenities); and support 33
mobility for all. Metro 2040 provides the land use framework for transportation, economic, housing, utilities (water, liquid waste and solid waste), and environmental and climate change planning. It emphasizes:
centers. • Containing growth within a defined area and channeling it into vibrant, livable urban • Supporting the region’s economy, by protecting industrial and agricultural lands and
• Protectingensuring their the region’sefficient naturaluse. environment, promoting ecological health, and supporting land use and transport patterns that improve the region’s ability to adapt to climate change.
• Building complete communities with affordable and diverse housing, close to employment and amenities, and with good transportation choices
• Integrating land use and transport planning to help get people out of their cars; emissions. support safe and efficient movement of goods and people; and reduce greenhouse gas aspirations support and align with the Metro 2040’s goals and policies. These statements must be The municipalities prepare and adopt Regional Context Statements, which describe how their local http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/Pages/default.aspx accepted by the MVRD Board. The regional cooperation is described in a short video on
The initial Metro 2040 TransLink, and the adjacent regional districts. It contains strategies to advance goals related to: was supported and adopted in 2011 by all the Metro Vancouver members,
(i) urban development; (ii) the regional economy; (iii) the environment and climate change; (iv) housing and community amenities; and (v) integration of land use and transportation. Although land regional land use planning to contain and structure the urban growth, protect important lands, and use planning is a local government responsibility, the Metro Vancouver members work together on ensure the efficient infrastructure provision. Metro 2040 Update. a Transport 2050 Metro Vancouver is currently updating its Metro 2040, integrating it with anticipated to be complete in 2022. It will be called Metro 2050. report (Translink’s Regional Transportation Strategy). The updated strategy is 34
Annex H: Case of London, United Kingdom (UK)
The following three metropolitan-type areas are distinguished in London:
Approx. resident Area population 1,572 km2 9 million 2. Greater London Built-up Area 1,738 km2 10 million 1. Greater London Region (also known as Greater London Urban Area) 3. London Metropolitan Area 19,096 km2 15 million (also known as London commuter belt or the Southeast metropolitan area)
The Greater London Region is an area with 32 local authorities (boroughs) with independent mayors and councils. The map below shows the Greater London Built-up Area, the continuous urban area of London, which includes adjacent urban towns around the administrative boundary of Greater London. It is a group of relatively low- to mid-density (some high-density) areas. It excludes very low density areas in Greater London (white areas in the map). Its outer boundary is constrained by a Metropolitan Green Belt. The density of this Built-Up Area is about 8% higher than that of Greater London.
Greater London Built-up Area with outer administrative borders
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=37222129 Source: By Rob984 – Derived from: File:Greater London UK location map.svg, CC BY-SA 4.0, 35
The wider London Metropolitan Area shown in the map below includes Greater London and its surrounding commuter zone (the area within which it is practicable to commute to work in London). The map shows the main road and rail links into the city. The urban (built up) areas in and around London are shown in grey.
The London Commuter Belt
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=25384462 Source: By Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right, CC BY-SA 3.0,
Proposals have existed in the past for an elected government for this area, but these were never the region. The assembly was dissolved in 2009,15 with its functions being assumed by a South approved. However, for some years, a South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) existed for
East England Partnership Board (SEEPB), which was created at the same time. The SEEPB is an organization made up of representatives from the South East England Development Agency (SEEDA) and South East England Leaders’ Board, the executive body of the local government councils in the region. SEEDA is responsible for commissioning and delivering the Regional Strategy for the South East England region. Governance of Greater London. Greater London Authority (GLA), created by law in 1999 as a second-tier local government, consists of the Mayor of London and a 25-member strategic London Assembly to hold the Mayor accountable. Both are elected on a four year cycle. The Mayor has powers to reject applications of ‘potential strategic importance’ submitted to a borough government for consideration but may not direct it to approve such development initiative. The Mayor appoints ten political advisors, often referred to as ‘deputy mayors’, or the Mayor’s cabinet. Formally only one of them is a statutory deputy mayor, who must be a member of the Assembly. The Mayor holds all of
15
Although it was publicly funded, SEERA was not a public authority. It was a voluntary regional body with its business carried out as SEERA Ltd, a not-for-profit company. 36
the executive power in the GLA, but certain key actions can be prevented by the London Assembly. The Assembly may, for example, with a two-thirds majority amend the Mayor’s proposed annual budget, or a proposed strategy. The Assembly has the power to hold the Mayor and his/her key advisers to account on a regular basis. While the GLA powers are currently very limited further devolution of powers have occurred in recent years, particularly devolution of some taxing powers.
The Mayor must produce seven statutory strategy documents: on transport, housing, economic development, spatial development (known as the London Plan), environment, culture, and health area). The Mayor has executive responsibilities over transport, housing, and economic development. inequalities. Each strategy is expected to set a direction for London as a whole (not just for the GLA In the policy areas covered by the other strategies, the Mayor has no power to direct public bodies outside the GLA area to follow the strategy. Each strategy has a number of consultation requirements. Evolution of the governance arrangements in Greater London. The London metropolitan level system to a one-level system, and back to a two-level system. governance is an example of strong national government influence with an evolution from a two-
The GLA is a unique authority in the UK. Its powers are quite limited. It is a higher-level strategic authority to promote sustainable development and define strategy. Its main responsibilities are transport, police, economic development planning, fire and emergency planning, land use planning, education, social care, arts and culture and environmental protection are all delivered by the culture, and environment and health; it also coordinates London-wide events. Services in health, local authorities or other public bodies. The boroughs have also responsibility as local planning authorities.
London arrived at the current structure through the following stages. Stage 1: Second Level Metropolitan Local Government. From 1964 to 1986, London was governed by a two-level structure comprising the Greater London Council and 32 local governments, each with its own mayor and council.
Stage 2: Governance by the National Government. In 1986, the Greater London Council was abolished, and London’s governance became a direct responsibility of central government ministers, coordinated by a subcommittee headed by a junior minister for London. In 1994, the Government entities related to London. Office for London (GOL) was created to act as a strategic authority, coordinating all government Stage 3. Metropolitan Local Government. In 1999 the GLA was created (described above). The GLA has little fiscal autonomy; more than 80% of both GLA’s and the local government revenues are Three functions are separate from the GLA Assembly but accountable to it through the mayor of from central government transfers (grants). Other revenues include property tax and user charges. London: (i) Transport for London (TfL), an authority responsible for the transport system across
Greater London; (ii) the Metropolitan Police Authority; and (iii) The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. The London Development Agency (LDA), an agency for coordinating economic www.london.gov.uk www.lda.gov.uk development, was abolished in 2012 by the UK government; its functions are now part of the GLA. 37
Annex I: Case of Seoul Metropolitan Government
Seoul Capital Area (SCA). forms the heart of the SCA, which also includes the surrounding Incheon metropolis and the Seoul, officially the Seoul Special City and the capital of South Korea, Gyeonggi province. SCA is the metropolitan area of Seoul. The area is about 11,700 km2 with a population of about 26 million (2016); 50% of South Korea’s total population. It forms the cultural, population of about 10 million (2018) in an area of 605 km2, divided into 25 autonomous districts commercial, financial, industrial, and residential center of the country. The city of Seoul has a (wards), each divided into administrative neighborhoods. The district governments are headed by directly elected mayors, and are responsible for functions such as welfare, housing and other traditional local government functions.
Seoul Metropolitan Government (SMG) is a second-tier local government established in 1995 and led by a directly elected mayor for a four year term. The Seoul Metropolitan Council has 110 members. SMG is responsible for metropolitan-wide infrastructure and services such as water supply and solid waste management. It has several public works corporations and other organizations to carry out its functions. SMG seeks advice from an advisory body of the SCA.
SMG depends on national funding, and plans and projects developed by SMG are expected to comply with national government objectives and priorities. It can therefore be called a modestly autonomous metropolitan-level government. The Seoul Institute (SI) is the think tank for the city, established in 1992 by the SMG. It supports the policy-making processes of the administration. http://english.seoul.go.kr/
The 2030 Seoul Plan. The Seoul Plan is another name for the Seoul Urban Master Plan. It was developed in 2015 and updated in 2017. The plan contains a vision for the city with related goals, strategies, and spatial plans. By its nature, it is a comprehensive plan that presents a long-term framework for the city to adhere to in order to achieve its long-term development goals. The Seoul Urban Master Plan provides direction for lower-level plans that relate to the use, development, and preservation of land. As the highest-level plan, it also provides guidelines for lower-level urban management plans and similar plans established by law, for consistency and uniformity. By regulation, the mayor of Seoul is to review the feasibility of the urban master plan and make improvements every 5 years. https://seoulsolution.kr/ 38
Annex J: Case of the Tokyo Metropolitan Area
Tokyo has a special role as the capital of Japan.
Under Japanese law, Tokyo is designated as a and many more commuting from neighboring prefectures.16 Tokyo has a metropolitan-level local metropolis, and is one of 47 prefectures in Japan. Tokyo has a resident population of about 15 million government and lower level governments comprised of 23 autonomous wards and 39 autonomous municipalities (cities, towns and villages), all with their directly elected leaders and councils.
Tokyo Metropolitan Government (TMG) is a second-tier local government established in 1941.17 It is led by a directly elected Governor with a four-year term, with the responsibility for managing the metropolitan administration. A Metropolitan Assembly is the decision-making and legislative body. It has 127 members, directly elected by the Tokyo citizens, also to serve a term of four years. A president of the Assembly - elected from among its members - presides over its sessions, supervises its affairs and its secretariat, and expresses the Assembly’s opinions externally. The Governor and the Assembly are independent organizations and have equal positions in the urban administration.18 The Assembly establishes standing and special committees to address various subjects. It has the authority to, among other things, enact, amend, and repeal metropolitan ordinances, approve the budget and certify its settlement, and elect members of the election commission and other such bodies. The consent of the Assembly must be sought for important appointments by the Governor, e.g. those of a Vice Governor and administrative commission member. of the metropolitan government. TMG has advanced the economic development across the area and Representing the people of Tokyo, the Assembly has the powers to investigate and inspect all aspects spearheaded Tokyo’s bid for the 2020 Olympic Games. TMG assumes the responsibility for some services in the 23 wards to ensure uniformity and efficiency, for example for water supply and and welfare administration. sewage services, and fire-fighting. The wards are responsible for services such as housing, education
The Governor of Tokyo is the main executive organ. There is no limit to the number of terms a person may serve. The Governor has the authority to make policy decisions and enforce policy. The Tokyo metropolitan government has relative freedom in how to allocate its budget (it is not subject to national government subsidies which other prefectures receive). The metropolitan budget must the governor, and the governor may order the assembly to be dissolved. be approved by both the governor and the assembly. The assembly may vote for a no confidence in http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/ENGLISH/index.htm “Creating the Future: The Long-Term Vision for Tokyo”. In 2014, the TMG formulated its long-term vision which envisions Tokyo in 2020 and beyond. It clarifies the basic objectives and policy targets to realize the vision for the city, and outlines specific policies, a 3-year execution plan, and other 16
in charge of affairs more closely related to the local residents. 17 In Japan, prefectures are in charge of broader regional administration, and municipalities of cities, towns and villages are
18 The administrative and financial framework for TMG is the same as for other prefectures in the country. independent of each other. Fair administration is ensured by restrained, coordinated relationship between them. Roles and authorities of the Metropolitan Assembly and the Governor are clearly differentiated. They are on equal footing, 39
means to achieve the goals. For details, see: http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/english/about/vision/index.html
“New Tokyo. New Tomorrow. The Action Plan for 2020”. In 2016, the TMG formulated this new comprehensive 4-year plan. The themes are: “Safe City,” “Diverse City,” and “Smart City”. The New Tokyo aims to be a city where all can live with peace of mind, hold hopes and lead active lives; and a sustainable Tokyo that continues to be the engine driving Japan’s economic growth. Four basic 2020 targets (and many more detailed targets) were specified regarding: (i) GDP; (ii) number of tourists; (iii) citizens’ satisfaction with life; and (iv) Tokyo’s global city ranking. “New Tokyo” is applying a indicators. strategy of five sub-strategies for growth summarized below for achieving the goals related to these http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/english/about/plan/documents/pocket_english.pdf Finance - Becoming a global financial center
• Define measures through an Advisory Panel for Global Financial City Tokyo Innovation• - AttractGenerating foreign innovations financial firms with at new a faster technologies pace and new ideas
(IoT) • Implement measures to attract foreign companies in fields such as Internet of Things • Generate opportunities for business match-ups between foreign companies and small
• Advance international business projects through a special zone system and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Tokyo • Improve the business and living environment for foreign nationals • Provide support for companies entering growth industries and nurture global ventures
Rise - Improving strengths for greater dynamism • Make tourism a leading industry
• Advance urban renewal to help strengthen Tokyo’s international competitiveness • Enhance the land, sea, and air transportation infrastructure • Capture demand from overseas and promote the appeal of Tokyo’s industries
Success - A city where everyone can play an active role • Promote reform of work styles • Promote participation of women in society • Promote active participation of the elderly and impaired in society • Cultivate globally competent talent • Promote education that nurtures the ability to create new value
Technology - Accelerating growth with cutting‐edge technologies • Take steps to address the 4th industrial revolution • Become a leading eco-friendly city • Make the Tokyo 2020 Games a showcase for cutting-edge technology
Implementation is guided by the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle, a system to formulate plans improve programs (A (Plan), implement policies and programs (Do), manage progress and evaluate programs (Check), and 40
Annex K: Case of Toronto, Canada
On metropolitan matters, it is quite common that a higher tier government plays a significant role, coordination of public services and area-wide development. The metropolitan arrangements in not only from a fiscal transfer perspective but to ensure that arrangements exist for reasonable through an evolution from a one-level to a two-level system, and back to a one-level system. Toronto is a result of strong provincial (Ontario) government influence. The arrangements have gone
The City of Toronto has a current population of close to 3 million. With its surrounding urban municipalities, the metropolitan area has more than 5 million people. The transformations in Toronto were driven by the desire to increase the effectiveness of urban development and service delivery, including harmonization of service levels across the area. Each time a regional authority important role in this evolution. was disbanded, something else soon took its place. The Ontario provincial government played an
Metropolitan Toronto arrived at its current governance structure as follows:
Stage 1: Fragmented Governance. Until 1953, Toronto had 13 independent municipalities. With growing service demands on suburban local governments, who had limited resources, and with a core City of Toronto that had a stronger financial base (a strong property, commercial, and industrial municipality acted independently with respect to transportation, land use, and housing. tax base), the political boundaries no longer reflected the socioeconomic realities. At the time, each
Stage 2: Second Level Metropolitan Local Government. In 1954, a Metropolitan (Metro) Toronto was formed by provincial legislation, as a metropolitan-level government for the City of Toronto and 12 suburban local governments. The purpose was to: (a) redistribute the wealth of the city to the maintain local governments’ responsiveness to local needs. The Metro’s initial responsibilities were suburbs, so that they could provide infrastructure; (b) coordinate land use and transportation; and (c) planning, borrowing, property assessment, public transit, roads, and administration of justice. The and inspection, local power distribution, policing, public health, general welfare, recreation and local governments were responsible for fire protection, garbage collection and disposal, licensing community services, and the collection of taxes. Responsibilities were shared for parks, planning, property tax base. roads and traffic control, water supply, and sewage disposal. Costs were shared based on the control, licensing, conservation, waste disposal, and ambulance services. In 1967, the number of Over time, responsibilities changed. Metro Toronto took over police, social assistance, traffic municipalities was reduced from 13 to six (6). Property assessment and administration of justice became provincial responsibilities in 1970.
Stage 3: Metropolitan Authority (Office for the Greater Toronto Area). The above structure was successful in meeting its objectives of providing infrastructure in the suburbs, maintaining a vibrant core city, and pooling revenues over the whole metropolitan area. However, in the 1970s needs changed because of growth outside the Metro area. Between 1971 and 1975, the provincial 41
government created four regional governments around the Metro area, and in 1988 it established the to encourage Metro and the four regions around it to coordinate their waste disposal, regional transport, land use, and infrastructure planning. A Forum Office of the Greater Toronto Area (OGTA) composed of the greater Toronto area mayors and the chairs of the regional governments focused on economic development and the marketing of the area.
Stage 4: Consolidated Local Government. After operating under a two-level system for more than 40 years, during a period of exploding population and economic growth, the 1+6 local governments were merged in 1998 into one, single-level local government, the City of Toronto, after extensive involvement of the provincial government and by provincial legislation. This City of Toronto was formed by amalgamating the Metro government and the other six local governments. A Greater Toronto Services Board (GTSB) was created shortly thereafter to oversee regional transit as a separate level of governance for this function. The GTSB was governed by elected representatives from each local government, but with limited decision making powers for the member local governments. It was abolished in 2001, and in 2006, the provincial government instead created the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority (GTTA) to coordinate transportation, considered the most critical function in need of coordination. https://www.toronto.ca/ 42
Annex L: Case of the New York Metropolitan Region, USA19 largest urban region in the United States, comprising 31 counties. The region is fundamentally New York City is part of the New York City – New Jersey – Connecticut Metropolitan Region, the 20 It has a population of more defined by the areas from which people commute into New York City. transport, housing, the main port, etc. The metropolitan research and planning for this area are done than 20 million in an area of 11,640 km2. Various Metropolitan Authorities exist in the area, for by the Regional Plan Association (RPA)
, a non-governmental organization (NGO) founded in 1922. funded by the municipalities in the area. It conducts research on issues of land use, transportation, The RPA is an independent metropolitan policy, research, and advocacy group, supported and partly the environment, economic development, and other development opportunities. It has also led advocacy campaigns to foster a thriving, diverse, and environmentally sustainable region, helping local communities address their most pressing challenges.
Some of the region’s most significant public works, economic development, and open space projects have their roots in RPA initiatives. The RPA staff includes policy experts, urban planners, analysts, writers, and advocates. RPA collaborates with partners across sectors. Its work is informed by these and Connecticut. These committees are composed of business leaders, experts, and opinion makers partnerships as well as by its Board of Directors and RPA committees in New York City, New Jersey, who provide strategic advice to the association’s three regional offices. Guided by the committees, these offices ensure on-the-ground presence for the RPA. Projects include, for example, environmental protection (watershed and green area development); public transport concepts including reviews of the functionality and development of light rail and other systems; and a comprehensive plan for conference (the Assembly), with leaders and professionals from government, business, civic groups coordinated airport development. The challenges facing the region are debated at an annual RPA the region’s growth. and the media. A cornerstone of RPA’s work is development of long-range plans and policies to guide www.rpa.org
RPA’s Fourth Regional Plan (2017) 2017. It is anchored in a vision of inclusive growth and a rethink of the institutions that govern the is the most recent regional plan by RPA, released in November and sustainability (see Box L1 below). It also informs short-term advocacy. The plan provides a region. It provides 61 specific recommendations for greater equity, shared prosperity, better health, growth model that aims to create a larger tax base to finance new infrastructure, an expanded transit network, and sufficient affordable housing. It aims to create a virtuous cycle. The plan suggests redirecting funding from low-impact programs to more cost-effective ones. New funding streams 19
The United States Census Bureau first designated metropolitan areas in 1950 as Standard Metropolitan Areas (SMAs). In of standards resulted in further changes. In 1983, the concept of a Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA) was 1960, the area standards were modified and renamed Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs). In 1973, a new set introduced. This consisted of several metropolitan areas, individual employment centers within a wider labor market area. In 2003, still a new set of standards was established, adopting a Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) model, which remains
people plus adjacent counties that are socio-economically tied to the urban center by commuting. 20 in use today. A CBSA is defined as one or more counties (or equivalents) anchored by an urban center of at least 10,000
the national railway passenger corporation (Amtrak) provides inter-city rail service. New York City is served by three main commuter rail systems, each operated by a different transit authority. In addition, 43
are proposed that would more fairly distribute the burden of taxes, fees, and tolls, promoting four strategic policy goals: (i) sustainable patterns of development; (ii) more equitable distribution of wealth and income; (iii) energy efficiency; and (iv) climate resilience.
New or underutilized• Pricing greenhouse funding streams gas emissions identified to in fund the planclimate include: adaptation and mitigation measures, transit, and investments in environmentally burdened neighborhoods.
• Highway tolling and congestion pricing to fund highways, bridges, and transit.
line extensions, as well as more affordable housing near transit routes. • Value capture of real estate (e.g. development charges) to fund new transit stations or
Box L1. Recommendations• Reforming housing of the subsidies Fourth to Regional fund more Plan low-income (New York housing. Metro Region)
Transform the way we govern and pay for transportation
1. Reduce the cost of building rail transit 2. Restructure the Port Authority to function as a regional infrastructure bank 3. Create a Subway Reconstruction Public Benefit Corporation 5. Charge drivers to enter city center, price highways, and transition to vehicle-miles tolling 4. Modernize transit systems outside New York City Create new institutions and funding to tackle climate change
6. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions with a cap-and-trade market 8. Institute Climate Adaptation Trust Funds in all three states 7. Establish a Regional Coastal Commission Change fundamental inequities in how we govern land use
10. Create regional school district administrations and services 9. Reduce reliance on local property taxes
11. Make the New York City property taxes fair 12. Make the planningMake and technology development policy process a core more part inclusive,of government’s predictable, business and efficient 13. Increase participation in local government
14. Expand affordable internet access across the region 15.Create Create a a customer-oriented Regional Census to transportsupport better network use of (a data fully for integrated public purposes regional transit system) 16. Build a second bus terminal under a Convention Center 17. Build new rail tunnels under two rivers
19. Combine three commuter rail systems into one network 18. Expand, overhaul, and unify the main railway station complex 44
Rebuild the subway system 20. Adopt new technology for fast, reliable subway service
22. Build new subway lines to underserved areas of the city 21. Modernize and refurbish New York City’s subway stations Adapt streets and highways for a technology-driven future
24. Improve bus service, and introduce new light rail and streetcar lines 23. On city streets, prioritize people over cars
25. Expand suburban transit options with affordable, on-demand service 26. Reduce highway congestion without adding new lanes 27. Remove, bury, or deck overCreate highways world-class that blight airports communities and seaports
28. Expand and redesign existing airports 30. Modernize the region’s seaports and expand rail freight access 29. Build fast and affordable rail service in the Northeast Megaregion Rise to the challenge of climate change. Adapt to the changing coastline.
32. Transition away from places that can’t be protected 31. Protect densely populated communities along the coast from storms and flooding
33. Establish a national park in the Meadowlands (northern New York City) 34. Determine the costs and benefitsBring of nature a regional into waterour communities surge barrier 21
35. End the discharge of raw sewage and pollutants into waterways 37. Cool our communities 36. Restore the region’s harbor and estuaries Improve the natural and built systems that are critical for sustainability 38. Prioritize the protection of land to help adapt to a changing climate 39. Create a trail network across the region 40. Upgrade infrastructure to high standards of resilience 41. Connect the region’s water supply systems where feasible
Create a greener energy system, with more capacity 42. Modernize the electric grid 43. Scale up renewables
44. Manage demand with energy-efficient buildings and variable pricing 45. Electrify buildings and vehiclesMake the region affordable for everyone. (Provide affordable housing for all)
21 watershed far north of the city. Farmers in the area are compensated for conducting environmentally friendly farming. New York City is supplied with drinking water from a protected 45
46. Protect low-income residents from displacement 47. Strengthen and enforce fair housing laws
49. Increase housing supply without constructing new buildings 48. Remove barriers to transit-oriented and mixed-use development 50. Build affordable housing in all communities across the region 51. Make all housing healthy housing
52. Reform housing subsidiesExpand access to more well-paying jobs 53. Maintain a globally competitive regional business area
55. Make room for the next generation of industry 54. Restore regional job centers 56. Promote partnerships between anchor institutions (e.g. universities) and local communities
Support healthy and livable communities
58. Turn environmentally burdened neighborhoods into healthy communities 57. Remake underutilized auto-dependent landscapes 59. Support and expand community-centered arts and culture
60. Expand access to healthy, affordable food 61. Expand and improve public space in the urban core 46
Annex M: Case of Shanghai
Shanghai Municipality. The population of Shanghai Municipality is about 25 million in an area of 6,400 km2. The subordinated level of local governments is composed of district governments (in the core city) and suburban, partly rural county governments (which tend to be less densely populated and somewhat more independently governed than districts). All large cities in China operate under a similar governance model, a two-tier local government structure. While the urban districts of the core city tend to have well-coordinated services (transport, water and sewerage networks, etc.), coordination with and across suburban county governments is often challenging due to them being somewhat more independently governed.22 However, at present Shanghai has only districts (16 of them). The counties were converted to districts in recent years after becoming increasingly semi- urban. Shanghai is one of four municipalities in China with provincial status, i.e. reporting directly to the national government. Other municipal governments are reporting to a provincial government. The Concept of a Metropolitan Circle (MC) in China. paper: a functional economic area based on a certain level of daily commuting) have in China until Metropolitan areas (as defined in this recently been similar to the municipal areas due to their large geographical coverage. However, in recent years, some of the larger municipalities have become increasingly inter-connected with their neighboring municipalities (metro areas), forming what in China is called a metropolitan circle (MC). The MC concept is anchored in a government document “Guiding Opinions of the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) on Development of Modern Metropolitan Circles (2019
No. 328). With a view to accelerating the development of such metropolitan areas, these guiding document states that: “As a main pattern of new urbanization, urban agglomeration is an important opinions are proposed by the NDRC upon approval of the State Council of China. As introduction, the platform for driving national economic growth, promoting regional coordinated development and participating in international competition and cooperation. The metropolitan circle is a spatial pattern of urbanization and it takes megacities, super-cities or metropolis with strong radiating and driving functions as the center and one-hour commuting circle as the basic scope. In recent years, despite the rapid development trend of metropolitan circle construction, the problems including the low integrated level of urban transportation, insufficient coordination and division of labor, serious homogeneous competition at a low level and unsound coordinated development systems and mechanisms, etc. remain prominent.”
The Shanghai MC – also called the Shanghai Metropolitan Region, is at present tentatively defined by the involved authorities as an area of 87,100 km2 (62% as urban areas) covering about and Shanghai municipality. eight large cities with their district and county governments, in two provinces (Zhejiang and Jiangsu)
22 In China a higher level government tend not to interfere in detail with how subordinated county governments run their affairs, thereby creating similar coordination challenges due to fragmentation as in other parts of the world. 47
Annex N: The Northern California Megaregion, USA
California has two megaregions: the north and the south. They are merging in the inland, rural San Joaquin Valley (the source of food, energy, water and raw materials for the urban areas 60,000 km2 and is home to a population of about 15 million (80% urban). It is projected to have a closer to the coast). The Northern California Megaregion is composed of 21 counties in an area of population of 24 million by 2050 (about 20 million in urban areas). Transportation advancements and the use of compressed work weeks has extended feasible commuting distances for work in San Francisco. Four key patterns of regional integration are present that connects the Bay Area and the greater Sacramento area: (i) a contiguous spatial integration through sprawling development; (ii) a corridor integration with increased long-distance commuting and goods movement; (iii) an economic integration through trade, and lower cost production; and (iv) a cultural integration with a economic entity, residents increasingly identify strongly with one or the other megaregion. growing recreational and second home market. While outsiders may perceive California as a unified
The boundaries of the Northern California megaregion.
The Regional Plan Association (RPA), the convener of the America 2050 project, identifies five major relationships that define a megaregion: 23 However, the megaregional (i) environmental systems and topography; (ii) infrastructure systems; (iii) economic linkages; (iii) settlement patterns and land use; and (iv) shared culture and history. important only if some funding is to be allocated to the jurisdictions within the region only. Travel boundaries depend on what one is trying to use the area definition for. Exact definition tends to be more than a day’s drive from one end of the region to the other. Two hours of driving from the core time is often used to define a region. Some demographers argue that a megaregion should not be
24 cities (San Francisco, San Jose, Sacramento and Oakland) yields an end-to-end driving time across the megaregion of about six hours without traffic (a one-day drive).
25 To determine the Northern California megaregion boundary, four features were considered by SPUR: (i) travel times; (ii) population growth and related land consumption; (iii) environmental bioregion (waterways and open space), driving distance, and the areas of population growth aspects; and (iv) existing, government-defined regional groupings. The overlap between the represented a “thick” set of relationships that guided the definition, with (a) a core area; and Sacramento region, and three fast-growing commuting counties in the inland valley. (b) a sphere of influence (see map below). The core area is the nine-county Bay Are, the greater
23
Areas” and the larger “Core Based Statistical Areas”. 24 The US Census Department’s version of a megaregion is based on regions defined by them as “Metropolitan Statistical
25 Similar to the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut metro region; 2-hour radius driving time from New York City. San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) is a nonprofit urban policy 48
Challenges at the megaregion scale. The possibility of more unchecked growth with environmentally destructive sprawl, and public transportation challenges need to be addressed. The megaregion is missing a regional rail network that can compete with cars. This would facilitate commuting and greater economic integration. The daily commuting area increasingly match the planning efforts at the megaregion scale. This Plan was adopted by MTC in 2007. area that supplies the water and the area for weekend trips. A Regional Rail Plan was one of the first 49
Annex O: Case of Randstad Region, The Netherlands
26
The Randstad region in the Netherlands is not an agglomeration around a single city, as in Paris or London, but rather a conglomerate of large and midsize cities; a megalopolis of primarily the surrounding (metropolitan) areas. It comprises four provinces. It has a population of 8.2 million four largest Dutch cities Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht, and their respective (close to 50% of the country’s population) in an area of approximately 8,300 km2. http://www.randstadregion.eu/
The region can also be viewed as consisting of two larger metropolitan areas: one in the north and one in the south. For decades, a major topic
the cities and the towns in between. These towns in the Randstad has been the conflict between and the surrounding countryside, are ‘greener’ than the cities, have many commuters that work in the cities, and strongly depend on the cities for facilities such as hospitals and entertainment. While the cities need more space to expand, the towns fear losing their identity and autonomy.
Governance. There is no overall governance
for the Randstad area. Public governance of four provincial governments, some two hundred Randstad is shared between national ministries, municipalities (including the four major cities), and a few water boards. Public transport is taken care of by a mix of municipal, private and state transport companies and infrastructure providers. https://www.nl-prov.eu/regios/regio-randstad/
periodic conferences among the national and provincial governments about infrastructure and There is joint governance around special subjects, e.g. the Holland Business Promotion Office, and spatial development, leading to formal agreements about investments.
A Randstad 2040 vision project produced a long term vision as basis for new regional investment zones (buffer zones) and by a large central open area (the Green Heart). The new vision starts with projects. The old vision saw the Randstad as a collection of city-regions, kept firmly apart by green the assertion that the collection of the city regions is not equal to a metropolis in its functioning, but rather urban systems that form a polynuclear network, but do not form a strong functional entity. and their environments. While there is an indication of a network, it is not strongly integrated. Most relations between businesses within the Randstad, play out in and around the municipalities
26
The name Randstad (“ring city”) represents cities at the rim of a large green agricultural area (the Green Heart).