Skip to content U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway AdministrationU.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration

Office of Planning, Environment, & Realty (HEP)
Planning · Environment · Real Estate

HEP Events Guidance Publications Glossary Awards Contacts

Chapter 6. PLACE OF WORK AND COMMUTING FLOWS (part 2)

Chicago

Chicago illustrates a medium-growth northern/mid-western city with a traditional development pattern of a strong central core and historic development along rail/transit lines. The population growth in the central county (Cook County) outpaces job growth, much of it coming from new migration.

Nearly a million people were added to the Chicago MSA between 1990 and 2000 (917,720) and, unlike many central counties, Cook County continued to grow in population. Chicago is unique among the five MSAs selected because of its development as a truly central city surrounded by lower density suburbs. Cook County is one of the most highly populated counties in the nation, and is the place of residence for 59 percent of the Chicago MSA population. However, between 1990 and 2000 Cook County accounted for only about one-third of the added population, and only kept its number of workers and actually lost jobs (see Exhibit 6.17).

Exhibit 6.17 Chicago - Added Population, Workers, and Jobs: 1990-2000

Exhibit 6-17: Between 1990 and 2000 Cook County accounted for only about one-third of the added population, and only kept its number of workers and actually lost jobs

Cook County, the central county in Chicago MSA, has the sixth highest population density (5,572 people/square mile) of all the 49 largest MSAs. The surrounding suburban counties are much less dense, less than one-seventh of the density of Cook County.

Exhibit 6.18 Chicago - Population Density: 1970-2000

Exhibit 6-18: Cook County, the central county in Chicago MSA, has the sixth highest population density (5,572 people/square mile) of all the 49 largest MSAs. The surrounding suburban counties are much less dense, less than one-seventh of the density of Cook County.

Travel time to work in Chicago MSA increased by 3.1 minutes from 1990 to 2000.Similar to all large MSAs the percent of workers with short commutes declined while long commutes increased from 1980-2000, with the suburban and ex-urban areas showing the highest change (see Exhibit 6.19).

Exhibit 6.19 Chicago - Short and Long Commutes: 1980-2000

  Commutes less than 15 minutes
1980 1990 2000
Central 20.8 19.8 17.6
Suburban 31 28.1 24.8
Ex-urban 45.7 42.3 36.3
Commutes longer than 45 minutes
1980 1990 2000
24.2 23.9 27.2
16.9 18.8 22.5
7.7 12.3 17.7

Exhibit 6.20 shows the percent of workers by mode to work from 1980-2000. From 1980 to 2000, percent of workers driving alone to work increased irrespective of location of residence. More than one-fifth of the central county workers still use transit. From 1980 to 2000, carpooling from suburban and ex-urban areas declined substgntially.

Exhibit 6.20 Chicago-Means of Transportation to work: 1980-2000

Exhibit 6-20: From 1980 to 2000, percent of workers driving alone to work increased irrespective of location of residence. More than one-fifth of the central county workers in the Chicago MSA use transit.

Relative to population growth, there was little worker or job growth in the Chicago MSA during the last decade. Most of the job growth took place in the suburban and ex-urban areas. The suburban counties accounted for 99 percent of the added jobs area-wide.

The Chicago MSA overall is adding slightly more jobs than workers, which means some commuters are flowing in from out of the MSA. Chicago gained over 270,000 people but only added 1,500 workers (see Exhibit 6.21). If the population in Cook County is aging and leaving the labor force, and immigrants to the city are younger and have children,then this can be a reasonable result.

Exhibit 6.21 Chicago: Added Jobs and Workers: 1990-2000

Chicago Added Jobs Added Workers Added Jobs/Worker
Area-wide 313,931 295,813 1.06
Central -18,235 1,537 -11.86
Suburban 310,533 258,817 1.2
Ex-Urban 21,633 35,459 0.61

The central county lost nearly 70,000 commuters but added nearly the same amount in reverse commutes to the suburban counties. Altogether, commutes to suburban jobs increased by 275,000 workers. The traditional movement from suburban counties to central gained just 43,000 commuters--39,432 from suburban counties and 3,897 from ex-urban counties. Ex-urban counties also sent 17,318 workers to jobs in the suburban areas and received 5,732 commuters from the central and suburban counties (see Exhibit 6.22).

Exhibit 6.22 Chicago-Changes in Journey-to-Work Flows Between Central-Suburban-Ex-urban areas:1990-2000

Exhibit 6-22: The central county lost nearly 70,000 commuters but added nearly the same amount in reverse commutes to the suburban counties. Altogether, commutes to suburban jobs increased by 275,000 workers.

Note: Font sizes and thickness of arrows are approximately sized to represent the magnitude in change of commuter flows.

In 1970, Chicago had a traditional pattern of people who lived in the central county and worked in the central county. However, the later decades saw a shift to more suburban-tosuburban and reverse commutes. In 2000, both DuPage and Lake County are no longer just bedroom communities for Cook County. Both now import more commuters than they export. Because DuPage County is geographically centered in the region, it has generally lower average travel time, and a small increase in the travel time from 1990 to 2000, compared to other parts of the region1.

Exhibit 6.23 Chicago-Worker Flow by Area Type: 1970-2000

Exhibit 6-23: In 1970, Chicago had a traditional pattern of people who lived in the central county and worked in the central county. However, the later decades saw a shift to more suburban-to-suburban and reverse commutes.

1 Siim Soot, Joseph DiJohn, Ed Christopher "Chicago-Area Commuting Patterns:Emerging Trends," March 2003

Portland

Portland illustrates a new type of city pattern in the Pacific Northwest, with a strong emphasis on urban growth boundary and encourage ment of higher-density development.Unlike the traditional cities of the North and East, the central county of Portland was never a high-density core, similar to Atlanta but only about one-quarter of the density of Cook county in Chicago.

From 1990 to 2000, Portland added close to half a million people to its population base.The suburbs added a major portion of the new population. Unlike any of the other illustrative MSAs, vehicle growth in Portland's central county was modest, just keeping pace with wo rkers. The growth in vehicles outpaced the increase in households and workers in the suburban and ex- urban counties, but not to the degree found in other MSAs. While suburban Portland added 4 vehicles for every three added workers, the central county added one vehicle per added worker.

Exhibit 6.24 Portland - Added People, Workers and Jobs: 1990-2000

Exhibit 6-24: From 1990 to 2000, Portland added close to half a million people to its population base. The suburbs added a major portion of the new population.

Exhibit 6.25 shows the population density in Portland from 1970 to 2000. From 1990 to 2000, the population density in the Multnomah County (Central county) rose by about 176 persons per square mile (ppsm), while the suburban density grew by just 79 ppsm.Although the suburbs added most of the new population in the last decade, the Central County gained in density at more than twice the rate of the suburban county. The density in the Central County for 2000 is five times the density in the suburban counties, and more than 9 times the density in the ex-urban counties.

Exhibit 6.25 Portland-Population Density: 1970-2000

Exhibit 6-25: From 1990 to 2000, the population density in the Multnomah County (Central county) rose by about 176 persons per square mile (ppsm), while the suburban density grew by just 79 ppsm.

The average travel time in Portland MSA increased less than 3 minutes (from 21.5 minutes to 24.4 minutes) in the 90s, the smallest increase of the five selected MSAs.There is a noticeable decrease in the percent of workers with short commutes in the central and ex-urban counties from 1980 to 1990 when compared to 1980 to 1990.Percent of longer commuters increased in all three areas (see Exhibit 6.26).

Exhibit 6.26 Portland - Short and Long Commutes: 1980-2000

  Commutes less than 15 minutes
1980 1990 2000
Central 29.6 29.2 25.5
Suburban 30.9 28.9 26.0
Ex-urban 43.2 40.3 33.8
Commutes longer than 45 minutes
1980 1990 2000
7.5 8.0 10.8
10.5 10.1 13.2
8.2 10.3 13.9

Exhibit 6.27 shows the percent of workers by mode to work from 1980 to 2000.Portland is the one of the few large MSAs that showed an increase in percent of workers using transit from 1990 to 2000. Both central and suburban areas showed an increase in transit while the ex- urban areas showed an increase in drove alones. Portland's light rail system, MAX, was just in its infancy in 1990. The length of fixed guideway directional route was 30.2 miles in 1990, compared to 65 miles in 2000. Rail revenue hours have tripled (300 percent increase) between 1990 and 2000, while bus revenue hours have increased only 30 percent. This investment in transit may be the reason transit commutes increased during the 90s.

Portland is also one of the few MSAs that had significant growth in work at home in all area types, not just the central county. Possibly the type of employment, the size, or the proportion of telecommuters made this area different than other MSAs.

Exhibit 6.27 Portland-Means of Transportation to Work: 1980-2000

Exhibit 6-27: Portland is the one of the few large MSAs that showed an increase in percent of workers using transit from 1990 to 2000. Both central and suburban areas showed an increase in transit while the ex-urban areas showed an increase in drove alones.

The proportion of job growth that went to the suburban counties was the lower in Portland than the other example areas-just over 60 percent of the added jobs and workers for the entire MSA went to suburban areas, whereas 22 percent went to the central county. There is a balance of added jobs per added worker in all three area types not seen in the other MSAs that have been examined (see Exhibit 6.28).

Exhibit 6.28 Portland: Added Jobs and Workers: 1990-2000

Portland Added Jobs Added Workers Added Jobs/Worker
  246,336 243,992 1.01
Central 53,904 48,582 1.11
Suburban 155,813 152,198 1.02
Ex-Urban 36,619 43,212 0.85

From 1970 to 2000, the percent of central-to-central county flows in Portland decreased by more than 5 percent every decade, whereas the suburban-to-suburban flows increased about 5 percent every decade. The change in other commute patterns remained more or less steady in terms of percent of all worker flows into or out of central, suburban, and ex-urban counties. Exhibit 6.29 shows the proportion of workers by their commute flows from 1970-2000.

Exhibit 6.29 Portland-Worker Flows by Area Type: 1970-2000

Exhibit 6-29: From 1970 to 2000, the percent of central-to-central county flows in Portland decreased by more than 5 percent every decade, whereas the suburban-to-suburban flows increased about 5 percent every decade.

Exhibit 6.30 shows the change in worker flows from 1990 to 2000. The biggest increase in commutes was for suburban-to-suburban counties, even though the increase is not as dramatic as Chicago or Atlantg.

Exhibit 6.30 Portland - Changes in Journey-to-Work Flows Between Central-Suburban-Ex-urban areas: 1990-2000

Exhibit 6-30: The biggest change in Portland's commutes was an increase in commutes was for suburban-to-suburban counties, even though the increase is not as dramatic as Chicago or Atlanta.

Note: Font sizes and thickness of arrows are approximately sized to represent the magnitude in change of commuter flows.

Minneapolis

The population of the Minneapolis MSA increased from 2.2 million in 1980 to 3.0 million in 2000 (a 35 percent increase). In 1980, 49 percent of the population in Minneapolis was workers, by 2000, 52 percent of the area population were in the workforce.

The central county in the Minneapolis MSA (Hennepin County was selected to represent the central county, although significant employment is found in the close- in suburban counties.) Because St. Paul portion of the MSA is located in Ramsey county (selected as suburban county), a significant portion of the population in the MSA will appear to be suburban. Exhibit 6.31 shows the added population, households, and workers from 1990 to 2000.

Exhibit 6.31 Minneapolis-Added People, Workers and Jobs: 1990-2000

Exhibit 6-31: The population of the Minneapolis MSA increased from 2.2 million in 1980 to 3.0 million in 2000 (a 35 percent increase). In 1980, 49 percent of the population in Minneapolis was workers, by 2000, 52 percent of the area population were in the workforce.

The central county in Minneapolis has experienced increasing density, especially since 1980, while the suburban and ex-urban count ies have showed a steady increase in population density (see Exhibit 6.32).

Exhibit 6.32 Minneapolis - Changes in Population Density: 1970 - 2000

Exhibit 6-32: The central county in Minneapolis has experienced increasing density, especially since 1980, while the suburban and ex-urban counties have showed a steady increase in population density.

One astounding characteristic of the commute patterns for Minneapolis area is the percent of workers with very long commutes. A high proportion of workers who live in ex-urban areas commuted more than 45 minutes-one out of five in 1980 and one out of four in 2000. This percentgge is greater than for any of our example areas except Atlanta, where 30 percent of the ex-urban workers had long commutes. These datg indicate a very wide commuter shed for the Minneapolis region.

Exhibit 6.33 Minneapolis - Short and Long Commutes: 1980-2000

  Commutes less than 15 minutes Commutes longer than 45 minutes
1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000
Central 31.5 28.9 26.2 5.8 5.8 7.4
Suburban 32.7 28.8 26.1 7.1 7.6 10.5
Ex-urban 40.9 34.1 28.6 20 21.8 25.2

About 75 percent of the workers who live in the central drove alone share, which may have stgbilized, whereas workers in suburban and ex-urban counties continue to increase the share of drove alone (see Exhibit 6.34).

Exhibit 6.34 Minneapolis: Means of Transportation to Work: 1980-2000

Exhibit 6-34: About 75 percent of the workers who live in the central drove alone share, which may have stabilized, whereas workers in suburban and ex-urban counties continue to increase the share of drove alone.

The worker flow datg shows that the ex-urban to ex-urban flows are greater in Minneapolis than in other areas, 18.8 thousand more workers live and work in ex-urban areas, and 14.4 thousand more live in ex-urban areas and commute to suburban counties (see Exhibit 6.35 and 6.36).

Exhibit 6.35 Minneapolis-Worker Flows by Area Type: 1970-2000

Exhibit 6-35: The worker flow data shows that the ex-urban to ex-urban flows are greater in Minneapolis than in other areas.

Exhibit 6.36 Minneapolis - Changes in Journey-to-Work Flows Between Central-Suburban-Ex-urban areas: 1990-2000

Exhibit 6-36: The worker flow data shows that the ex-urban to ex-urban flows are greater in Minneapolis than in other areas.

Note: Font sizes and thickness of arrows are approximately sized to represent the magnitude in change of commuter flows.

Denver

Denver is a fast-growing western city with low-density development and a proportionately burgeoning ex-urban area. The Denver MSA added over 300,000 jobs and workers between 1990 and 2000, half the amount of the added population of 600,000 people. Seventy-eight percent of the added jobs went to suburban counties, and another 17 percent to central (see Exhibit 6.37).

Exhibit 6.37 Denver - Added People, Workers, and Jobs: 1990-2000

Exhibit 6-37: Seventy-eight percent of the added jobs in Denver MSA went to suburban counties, and another 17 percent to central

After decades of decline, the central county in Denver showed an increase in density between 1990 and 2000 (see Exhibit 6.38). The suburban areas show a small increase in density, and the ex-urban areas are sparsely populated.

Exhibit 6.38 Denver - Population Density: 1970 - 2000

Exhibit 6-38: After decades of decline, the central county in Denver showed an increase in density between 1990 and 2000

Exhibit 6.39 shows the percent of workers by mode to work from 1980 to 2000. The percent of workers who drove alone to work increased appreciably across all areas from 1980-1990 at the expense of carpools. From 1990 to 2000, the mode shares remained almost the same across the region.

Exhibit 6.39 Denver-Means of Transportation to Work: 1980-2000

Exhibit 6-39: The percent of workers who drove alone to work increased appreciably across all areas from 1980-1990 at the expense of carpools. From 1990 to 2000, the mode shares remained almost the same across the region.

Compared to the four other example areas, workers in Denver tend to have shorter commutes, with only 14 percent of workers in ex-urban counties commuting more than 45 minutes (compared to 30 percent in Atlanta and 25 percent in Minneapolis). The overall change in workers with short and long commutes has remained rather steady since 1980.

Exhibit 6.40 Denver - Short and Long Commutes: 1980-2000

  Commutes less than 15 minutes Commutes longer than 45 minutes
1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000
Central 29.1 28.7 24.6 6.1 7 11.6
Suburban 26.5 26.2 22.7 10.1 10.2 15.1
Ex-urban 47.4 46 36.4 9.9 10 13.7

The biggest change in Denver since the 1970s has been the huge increase in the suburban-to-suburban commutes by workers (see Exhibit 6.41). Since 1990, over 200,000 more workers who live in the suburban counties commute to jobs in the suburban counties (Exhibit 6.42).

Exhibit 6.41 Denver-Worker Flows by Area Type: 1970-2000

Exhibit 6-41: The biggest change in Denver since the 1970s has been the huge increase in the suburban-to-suburban commutes.

Exhibit 6.42 Denver - Changes in Journey-to-Work Flows Between Central-Suburban-Ex-urban areas: 1990-2000

Exhibit 6-42: Since 1990, over 200,000 more workers who live in the suburban counties commute to jobs in the suburban counties

Note: Font sizes and thickness of arrows are approximately sized to represent the magnitude in change of commuter flows.

Exhibit 6.43 County Classifications for 5 Selected MSAs

MSA Name County Name Flag
Atlanta, GA MSA Barrow County Ex-urban
Bartow County Ex-urban
Carroll County Suburban
Cherokee County Suburban
Clayton County Suburban
Cobb County Suburban
Coweta County Suburban
DeKalb County Suburban
Douglas County Suburban
Fayette County Suburban
Forsyth County Suburban
Fulton County Central
Gwinnett County Suburban
Henry County Suburban
Newton County Ex-urban
Paulding County Ex-urban
Pickens County Ex-urban
Rockdale County Suburban
Spalding County Suburban
Walton County Ex-urban
Chicago--Gary--Kenosha, IL--IN--WI CMSA Cook County Central
DeKalb County Ex-urban
DuPage County Suburban
Grundy County Ex-urban
Kane County Suburban
Kendall County Ex-urban
Lake County Suburban
McHenry County Suburban
Will County Suburban
Lake County Suburban
Porter County Suburban
Kankakee County Ex-urban
Kenosha County Ex-urban
Denver--Boulder--Greeley, CO CMSA Denver County Central
Boulder County Suburban
Adams County Suburban
Arapahoe County Suburban
Douglas County Suburban
Jefferson County Suburban
Weld County Ex-Urban
Minneapolis--St. Paul, MN--WI MSA Anoka County, MN Suburban
Carver County, MN Suburban
Chisago County, MN Ex-urban
Dakota County, MN Suburban
Isanti County, MN Ex-urban
Ramsey County, MN Suburban
Scott County, MN Suburban
Sherburne County, MN Ex-urban
Washington County, MN Suburban
Wright County, MN Ex-urban
Pierce County, WI Ex-urban
St. Croix County, WI Ex-urban
Hennepin County, MN Central
Portland--Salem, OR--WA CMSA Clackamas County, OR Suburban
Columbia County, OR Suburban
Multnomah County, OR Central
Washington County, OR Suburban
Yamhill County, OR Ex-urban
Clark County, WA Suburban
Marion County Ex-urban
Polk County Ex-urban

 

Updated: 04/28/2011
HEP Home Planning Environment Real Estate
Federal Highway Administration | 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE | Washington, DC 20590 | 202-366-4000