You are on page 1of 17

World Cities Millionaire Cities, Megacities and World Cities

Millionaire city: 1 million+ pop Megacity: 10 million+ pop, 2,000 persons/km, one or two places merged World City: Major area which doesnt just serve area, but world, normally multinational These are all interlinked in a pattern, usually by train. Also they started mainly in MEDCs, but have slowly appeared more in LEDCs.

Contemporary Urbanisation Processes

Urbanisation: the movement and growth of proportion of people living in urban areas. Characteristics: Since the 1950s, urbanisation has started rapidly to increase in LEDCs. the main two reasons for this are population growth and migration. Push factors Pull factors Better Jobs Better Education City life Bright Life Better Social life Higher pay Financial Aid Better Healthcare - Urbanisation in the UK: Started with the Industrial Revolution in the 1800s Economic 1. Unemployment from mechanisation 2. Little pay 1. More and better quality jobs 2. Better pay Social 1. Poorer education 2. Poorer social life 3. Poorer healthcare 1. Better education 2. Better social life 3. Better healthcare 4. Increased social status 5. Better transport Poor infrastructure Unemployment Poverty/Famine Natural Disasters Civil War Desertification

Push Factor Pull Factor

Effects: The results were an increase in pollution, more employment in the secondary industry over primary, new land use in the city, lots of denser terraced housing and economic growth of major cities. The UK is still urbanised, but its population is slowly moving to more rural areas (counter urbanisation).From the 1960s onwards, all walks of life seem to be reducing in urbanisation.

Case Study: Dharavi, Mumbai, India (Urbanisation LEDC) Background: Not capital city, but it is the biggest with a population of 14,500,000 Indias financial centre, a major port and home of Bollywood movie industry Typical fast growing city which it cant cope with from migration and population growth Used to be small place full of fishing villages and encouraged development, but failed British colonial peoples set it all up and when they left, the place had a boom in development Becoming a world city Now heavily overcrowded, drawing in people from all over India who are uneducated and unskilled, this has led to cheap suburbs being created, transport overcrowding and slums being made at the outskirts of the city for the poorest of the poor One partially successful attempt for control was to move the money making centres to Navi Mumbai to the east, but it still left a lot of people in Mumbai and hasnt stopped growing, with the main concern being Dharavi The Problem: Most likely the biggest slum in Asia with 600,000 people Makes around $40 million a year but takes up the area which rich Mumbai should be moving to as the city grows with valuable land Dharavi lies across a narrow part of the peninsula and cant move, causing conflict between the developers and residents. The Solution: Governments of Mumbai etc. want to destroy the housing in stages, giving temporary accommodation, make proper housing and seven storey buildings, then re-enter the population if they have been living there since 1995, therefore they can use more of the expensive land The rest of the land will be sold or made into an open market BUT they need the agreement of the majority of Dharavi population for the go-ahead, which some residents worry that once it does finally go ahead, that some of their land will go even more to business through dirty tactics, reducing the size for a population there.

Suburbanisation: from the centre of the city to the suburbs or rural-urban fringe. This is usually in MEDCs because of technological advances, better transport and to live in a more pleasant environment. Characteristics: Happened around 1920-1960s, race has played an important part of suburbanisation, especially as immigrants like to live closely together for social and economic support. Suburbanisation couldnt have happened without improvements to the transport infrastructure such as railways and roads London underground very important. As the trains improved and reduced in fare price the rich kept moving further out and so did the poorer groups, which is called Succession and Invasion. This increased the business of small businesses buying cheaper land. It also created edge cities. Although many people believe that suburbanisation is a bad thing as it causes urban sprawl and inner-city decay. Some places have incorporated green-belt policies which limit the growth to stop inner-city and city decay. Causes: Push Factor Economic 1. Hard to get jobs Social 1. Congestion and population density 2. Better QOL 3. Succession and Invasion 1. Correct social mix

1. Pollution from industry and traffic

Pull Factor

1. Lower price of land 2. More job opportunities 3. Transport affordable by rich 4. New out-of-town development by government

1. More space and nature

1. Worse education for kids so young families move 1. Better education for kids so young families move

Effects: Inner City Suburbs Suburb land prices rose Increase in office jobs Pressure on green belt Congestion spread Increased retail demand Increased recreational demand Better housing and range Better QOL and SOL Whole City City growth Developed transport More housing and jobs More dispersed pollution More open spaces Outer city traffic Greater segregation

More transport aimed at suburb area More pollution from transport Clearance for more buildings Environmental improvement Less crowding

Mini Case Study: Manchester (MEDC Suburbanisation)

Mid 19th century, of people in the city centre where there were factories producing cotton. Suburbs were only 1km away from city centre leading to the poor surrounding the rich Late 19th century, a new act was passed which made housing much more spacious The transport improved along with trains, reaching 6km out from the city centre In the 20th century, the transport kept thriving and the population kept growing, although the River Mersey proved hard to build around due to flooding

Mini Case Study: Los Angeles (MEDC Suburbanisation) Huge difference between development in inner-city and suburbs Uniform, large, medium density, small store buildings, started around 1945, port, trade, short commute, racial segregation between inner suburbs with the blacks, while whites on outer suburbs, who were richer with higher statuses, larger less dense housing and up to 60km from CBD but have own shopping malls Therefore, they didnt have inner city redeveloped, but kept building out and so, much further from CBD with few transport links (mainly car)

Counter-Urbanisation: population from the city moves out from the rural-urban fringe for a quieter, easier life. Characteristics: Happened around 1980s, people retiring from the urbanisation and suburbanisation to go live in countryside, transport even more developed allowing further distances from work, families moving away from cities, some able to afford 2nd home in countryside. Causes: Push Factor Economic 1. expensive living costs including congestion charge Social 1. overcrowding 2. higher crime rate

Pull Factor

1. lower cost of living 2. Accessibility with transport 3. Ability to work at home 4. retirement migration 5. Out-of-town shopping 6. Greenfield site developments

1. communities 2. more space and parks and separate housing (quieter and better for children) 3. More leisure facilities 4. Perceived better education

1. Pollution, especially childrens health risk 2. Little greenery 3. Higher vandalism 4. Eye-sore 1. Better views/green area 2. Cleaner air 3. Quiter

1. Loud population

1. Quiet population

Case Study: St. Ives, Cambridgeshire (Counter-Urbanisation MEDC) Location: Small town in Cambridgeshire, 100km north of London, just off A14 and East Coast railway making London very accessible Pull Factors: 15th century Georgian and Victorian housing Lots of Greenland Affordable housing Good accessibility including transport to 100km way London Plenty of space Variety of housing Quiet and clean Higher than average income Effects: Demographic Effects: Old people left for retirement Young families escaping to the quiet and cheap Population of out-of-town workers grows Social Effects: Shops and services stay High status estate agents and restaurants Secondary school numbers increase 25% commute to London

Re-urbanisation: movement of people back to city after redevelopment, mainly young people looking for a better life. Characteristics: From the 1980s, many development schemes started to get involved, some private, some governmental and some local authority. They took over the old areas which had out-of-date housing and factories which were no longer fit for purpose, which were mainly abandoned or had few people living/working there. These schemes then made use of the brown field sites by creating better housing, more jobs, bringing in younger talent, training people for new skills in new jobs, encourage private-sector investment, improve social activities and the quality of environment. Causes: Push Factor Pull Factor Economic 1. Little professional jobs for young people 1. More jobs 2. Train new skills 3. Money being pumped into the area Social 1. Little social activities for young in rural areas 1. Modern housing, possibly increased social status 2. More social stuffs

Demographical 1. Area for old people and families 1. Young, exciting people

Effects: A number of initiative schemes were set up. Urban Development Corporations (UDCs, 1980s 1990s) regenerate large areas of derelict land. They did the London Docklands and 10 other schemes in the 1980s-1990s. They cleared the land then got private investment in. It did bring in economic development, but found it ignores locals, but they are now trying harder to take in locals accounts. Enterprise Zones (EZs, 1980s) Reducing tax to businesses to increase employment. Not many new businesses set up, just existing businesses moved for the tax break. Inner-City Task Force (1987) Temporary scheme to provide training opportunities, approx. 500,000 jobs made. Single Generation Budgets (SGB, 1997) At change of government, local authorities had to bid for regeneration budgets for rundown housing areas, more power to the people. English Partnerships => National Regeneration Agency Lots of partnerships working together from government to locals for housing.

Case Study: London Docklands (Re-urbanisation MEDC) Location: East of the Tower Bridge, East London and majority north of the Thames Reasons: All of the docks shut, the last one shutting in 1981 because it was too small Port industry shut, so people were moving out Vicious Circle of Poverty Male unemployment at 24%, twice the national average Schools and hospitals old and it had thin and twisty roads Potential to use River Thames as an attractive environment Huge area with pubs and warehouses which could be removed Close to central London Aims: Private investment to increase economy Physically regenerate the environment Improve living conditions + prospects of the community of the Docklands Positives: Economic: DLR built (1987) Infrastructure improved including roads Attracted new offices (Canary Wharf + London Arena) Airport for light aircraft Jubilee expansion (trains) 600/1000 ha reclaimed Job nos increased 30 spent of training projects For every 1 spent on the project, 10s was given in investment Flagships like Canary Wharf brought in even more investment Physical: City formed Parks and walkways developed 300 spent improving facilities Social: Home owners rose from 5% to 45% in 8 years Cleaned water and cleaned area 8,000 old houses improved and 50,000 new ones built More shops

Negatives: 80% of new house prices are too expensive for locals, by 1995 only 4% of locals own homes there 30,000 new jobs created, but 20,000 of them were just transfers 45,000 local people unemployed due to lacking business skills Most newcomers are only young and rich Transport isnt big enough for the future

Case Study: Singapore (Re-urbanisation LEDC) Background (1960s): Very dense population 1700p/ha Poor basic amenities and infrastructure e.g. lack of good sewage system and electricity within buildings

Buildings densely put together and dilapidated Street congestion

Problems: Limited space for building (small island) Few resources Re-housing everyone is very troublesome Recent Positive Outcomes: Positives Economic Promoted land for transnational companies Grown economically 10% each year Worlds 4th largest foreign exchange centre Worlds 3rd best oil refiner In top economic league table One of the biggest ship repairers in the world Very high income Social More people speak English State of the art transport system within city Huge shopping centres and high quality companies Developed huge container port and airport Centres for every nation/culture

Housing: Skyline area, 9/10 people live in high rise buildings Made and rented by the Housing Development Board (HDB) High-density still, but space for greenery Equal buildings with no separate segregation (quotas of different ethnic groups) Only lease flats to married couples, not single mothers (rent private or stay with family) Paid by pensions - 1/5 salary into state account Local services for each estate Special Design Features: Void Deck empty ground floor for flooding, circulation of air, communal area for social functions, reduced crime, least desirable place to live Aesthetics different rooflines and minimal building design changes Access easy access such as elevator maintenance, 30 min call out time Waste Automatic waste disposal systems + incinerators Cleanliness Public areas are monitored by CCTV fines (minimum 130), shaming culprits in newspapers, wee detecting floors Outcomes: Positives Economic Eradicated slums Attracted investment and other people All income families catered for Social Cleanliness Less ghettos and poverty stricken areas Reduction in ability for spreading diseases Environmental More greenery and space Negatives Singles not allowed flats Little room for private development Strict control of country (Human Rights fail) Lack of original architecture Singles not allowed flats

Urban Decline and Regeneration within Urban Areas

Characteristics: Mainly found in inner-city areas or outer city council estates. They usually feature deindustrialization, depopulation or changing population, abandoned buildings, high local unemployment, single families, political rejection and high crime rates. Causes: Reasons for Inner-City Decline Economic 1. Millions of jobs dismissed due to technology/unemploy ment 2. Service job growth didnt compensate manufacturing job loss 3. More jobs in rural areas rose 4. Deindustrialisation 5. Lack of capital investment Social 1. Left for better employment opportunities 2. Counterurbanisation 3. Poor image of inner-city compared to suburbs/rural 4. Access to jobs with transport and other job growth 5. Rising crime rates/riots Environmental 1. Poor low quality derelict housing and area 2. High vandalism and graffiti 3. Few parks, play areas and space 4. Loud and concrete surrounding 5. Slum-like area 6. Pollution Political/ Demographical 1. People feel rejected by government 2. Government isnt actually working hard on them 3. Political extremism 4. Ageing popultion

Reasons for Outer-City Council Estates Decline Economic 1. Unskilled people for the jobs in the nearby area 2. Lack of transport to inner-city Social 1. Poor quality housing 2. Lack of strong community 3. Hidden places led to criminal activity Environmental 1. Slum-like area 2. High vandalism and graffiti Political 1. People feel rejected by government 2. Government isnt actually working hard on them

Housing: Slums/favelas. These used to be bulldozed down such as that in Rio de Janeiro, but finally allowed to stay; they were also slowly integrated into the city and given living essentials. They slowly start building up by the Favela Bairro Project: Paved roads Water supplies and drainage systems Crches, leisure and sports facilities Relocation of families in dangerous areas Channelled rivers

Second phase after first phase: Encourage employment Increase education standards Construction materials

$600 million loaned, $240 million aid, given a prize for success.

Gentrification: Renewal of a deteriorated neighbourhood by new residents who are wealthier than the locals. This can cause an increase in house prices and lead to displacement of locals.

It is small scale done by individual people. It is accompanied by landscape and street furniture improvements. Started off by locals.

Case Study: Notting Hill, Centre West London (Gentrification MEDC) Location: West of central London within M25 near the end of the River Thames, below the A1, edge of the inner city, east of M4. Followed the northern line in the late 1980s sweeping towards Surrey. Houses in these areas have double in the last two years with many new services causing the multiplier affect businesses moving, house prices go up. Background: Used to be a stopping point for highwaymen in the mid 18th century, unpopular tollgate gave the main road its name which was then followed by workers from industrialisation from the countryside with landlords building small terraced houses for the poor. It used to be a rough working class area and by the 1950s it was known for slum landlords and inner city deprivation. In 1958 it was scene of race riots after tensions arose between the newly arrived Afro Caribbean community and the teddy boys of the fascist British Union. A second riot took place during the infamous Notting Hill Carnival of 1976. Present: In the past 30 years there has been a swarm of gentrification with estate agents coining names like Hillgate Village for previously working class neighbourhoods sending property prices rocketing. Houses can cost more here than in ultra upmarket Mayfair. Notting Hill secluded communal gardens sandwiched between the rows of houses and scarcely visible from the street, make it Londons most desirable area for families. Reason: Notting Hill movie popularised area, many famous actors and rock singers and fashion designers flooded into area, Sainsburys supposed to be best place in London to spot celebrities. Close to centre of London. Leisure activities on the River Thames. In need of renewal. Very nice area with Victoria architecture, large houses and gardens. Many upmarket services then joined the area. Trellick Tower: Britains largest apartment block built in 1973. Epitomised everything that was wrong with modern high rise buildings. Stories of women being raped in lifts, children being attacked by heroin addicts and squatters setting fire to flats. Since the installation of a concierge and extra security the towers reputation has been transformed, it is now something of a style icon becoming a grade II building in 1998. It is considered a trendy address. Portabello Road: One of the worlds most famous street markets dating back from 1837. The market serves up three experiences, antiques to the south, fruit and veg in the middle and second hand clothing and bits and bobs to the north. Notting Hill Carnival: Large Caribbean population leading to a three day carnival over the last Bank Holiday weekend of August. Largest street festival outside Rio de Janeiro attended by over 1m people. Revellers are drawn in by the colour, people, food, huge sound systems, dancing and all day street partying with grand parade floats. Outcome: It has received many good and bad reviews. Economic Social Positives stabilisation of declining areas increased property values reduced vacancy rates increase social mix decrease crime Negatives speculative property price increases displacement of locals through rent/price increases community resentment and conflict loss of affordable housing homelessness changes to local services


reduction of urban sprawl refurbishment of properties

Property Led Regeneration Scheme Case Study: London Docklands Regeneration, LDDC (MEDC) Problems: counter-urbanisation, suburbanisation, segregation, deindustrialisation and cumulative causation. These led to: 1 million people leave the inner city between 1961 1981, 243,000 jobs lost between 1961 - 1971 Leaving because of slum clearance, decentralisation, improved public and private transport, cheaper housing, better quality of life, reduced unemployment. Many ethnic groups such as Africans and Pakistanis came in around that period and took the abandoned area Phase 1 (Mid 1940s Mid 1960s): Tackle bomb damage from WW2, Eastenders show asked to move, tower blocks being set up and being found it be failing Phase 2 (Mid 1960s Mid 1970s): Experimentation of ideas found to be only working for outsiders and well off Phase 3 (Mid 1970s late 1970s): Docklands became partnership area, giving it more money to work with, but only little progress being made Phase 4 (Late 1970s Mid 1990s): London Docklands Development Corporation set up. 21km land, 40,000 residents in Newham, Tower Hamlets and Southwark. They said with 440 million, they made 4,400 million of private investment. Throughout this time, there was a recession, followed by a small boom, and then another period of Dockland retraction. Flagship projects: Canadian developers Olympia and York invest 3,700 million in 24 super scale office buildings for 50,000 people; they also made the 2nd largest skyscraper in Europe at 800ft - @ Canada Square Catalyst Schemes: Docklands Light Railway at a cost of 73 million success doing Dubai metro now London City airport for small planes Tube extension to Jubilee line from Bank to Canary Wharf


Failures Local people suffered a bit and had no input Too expensive housing Local industry squeezed out In architectural opinion, it is a disappointing urban landscape Social segregation of yuppies (young urban professionals) and dinkies (double income couple, no kids)

Docklands 3rd most popular place to visit in London Thousands of new jobs created Environment now accessible and has little derelict land Reversed population decline

Partnership schemes between local and national governments and the private sector Case Study: City Challenge, Hulme, Manchester (MEDC) City challenge: Inner city regeneration scheme It started in 1991 11 places first round, 20 areas second round Differences to UDC are that you had to bid, everyone had to work together, smaller scale, bottom up approach Background: Redeveloped in the 1960s as part of a slum clearance programme and a number of high rise flats were built. Of the 5,500 dwellings, 98% were council owned. Many of these had very poor design features such as being damp, having thin walls, lack of security, broken lifts and poor access. This led to low levels of families and children with a disproportionate number of single person households from university students. There was also a high number of single parents and other people with social difficulties. There was some evidence to suggest the local authorities had used the area to dump some of its more unfortunate residents. Redevelopment: In 1992 under the Hulme City Challenge Partnership, plans were drawn up to build 3,000 new homes, with new shopping centres, roads and community facilities. A more traditional pattern of housing development was designed with streets, squares, two storey houses and low rise flats. By 1955, 50 hectares of land had been reclaimed, with the majority of it being land from the demolished high rise flats. The main shopping area was totally refurbished including the Asda supermarket. A new community centre including creche facilities and other social provision and the Zion Arts Centre was also constructed. Crime in the area had been greatly reduced and there was more of a social mix with the appearance of Hulme being altered radically. Green areas were made with office development housing companies coming strongly into the area. One significant part of the 1970s Hulme that still exists is the Moss Side Sports and Leisure Complex. Upgraded for the 2002 Commonwealth Games. This has become a popular place to live particularly for university students. A symbol of the regeneration is the Hulme Arch which provides a local landmark. Partners: Guinness Trust and Bellway Homes worked closely together with the Manchester City Council. The Manchester Airport also funded money for the project. Hulme is a good example of how the public and private sectors work together to improve a declining area.

Retailing and Other Services

Causes: Increased Mobility: High % of pop. have access to a car. In the CBD there is limited parking which can be pricey, whereas out-of-town shopping centres have lots of parking space and its usually free. Locations of shopping centres near motorway for quick and easy access. Changing Nature of Shopping Habits: Freezers, female employment and read-made meals have changed over the decades. Changing Expectations of Shopping Habits: Shopping has become more family friendly and led to restaurants and entertainment areas. For example, Bluewater has a coffee shop within every 100 metres. Changing Nature of Retailing: Less competition since very large companies dominate and monopoly the market.

Case Study: Merry Hill, West Midlands (Out-of-town Retailing) Background: Located west of Birmingham, 10/15km from central Birmingham, south of Dudley Hill Main section built from 1984-89 and is still ongoing extensions Touchwood shopping centre made from competition 50ha, 10 screen cinema, 2 floors, car park 10,000 spaces 185 shops and kiosks, two supermarkets, 24 catering outlets 2,200 seats e.g. M&S 3rd largest centre after Bluewater and The biggest Metro Centre 21 million customer visits a year in a catchment area of 3 million Bus station en route to many places e.g. Birmingham and Wolverhampton Waterfront building opposite overviews canal with bars and restaurants Previously railway underneath, failed due to safety and problems over ownership Enterprise zone in 1980s made planning easy The area it was built on was over the steelwork industry factory and Merry Hill farm and wildlife area, even though it received many complaints and protests The building was so big that the canal was shut off for a while due to safety concerns Reasons: Close to highly populated cities (conurbation) Easy access from M5 motorway with buses and A roads One of the enterprise zones and people took advantage of planning conditions Need for jobs and business in the area Plenty of space, including both Brownfield and Greenfield No other shopping centres in the West Impact:

Positives Many new easy jobs made Large area for eating shopping and for entertainment Unique and larger shops led to the multiplier effect Friendly and cheap Variety of shops in one place Dry, warm, clean Policed well Over 4,000 new jobs compared to 1,200 at steelworks Compacted area reduced sprawl All types of people can shop there, including elderly and disabled Free parking Trying to turn more eco-friendly now High streets and other businesses trying harder for work

Negatives Destroyed Merry Hill farm, the steelworks, wildlife and green space Temporary access restriction on canal Many people protested Many stores in surrounding area knocked out of business e.g. 70% of Dudley, whole M&S left and moved to Merry Hill Increased pollution and traffic, especially in that area Mainly accessible by car Loss of jobs at certain areas Cycle of Decline around

Recent and Planned Developments: Forced to integrate with outside business due to complaints Merry Hill and Brierley Hill interconnected with walkway and tram system by 2011, which made Dudley Canal rerouted and a few houses and flats built around the area. Replacement cinema with bowling alley, comedy club, outdoor performing area, more bars and a casino made on vacant land Apparently the first shopping centre to receive BREEAM accreditation, meaning its all eco and shiz Local factors thinking of closing and selling their land for housing and other businesses Box Malls (Greenbridge Retail and Leisure Park): They are box-shaped retail outlets, often specialised in furniture, DIY materials, electronic goods and computers. Tend not to specialise in comparison goods, but are close by to shopping malls or leisure attractions.

Case Study: Touchwood, Solihull (Urban Centre Redevelopment) Background: Shopping centre on the south-east of the West Midlands conurbation opposite side from Dudley On redeveloped land in the town centre, close to bus and railway stations, with its own multi-storey car park Prosperous area National Exhibition Centre and Birmingham airport Less derelict land than Dudley and has far more employment in growing sectors of the economy Touchwood was becoming old fashioned in the 90s, and therefore refurbished itself 60,000m space, opened in Sept 2001, modern theme Won UK Retail Destination of the year and Best major new shopping centre, also in the top 50 shopping centre destinations Created 2,000 retail jobs 80 stores, 20 restaurants, 9-screen cinema, 6,000 parking spaces Links to M42 Architecture reflects Solihull very well and looks very pretty

Largest arcade centre and most courtyard gardens and open spaces in the UK for a centre 2 internal courtyards 3 special arcade rooms 4 new gardens

Contemporary Sustainability Issues in Urban Areas

Waste Management: EU and UK government have produced targets for all local authorities to reduce the waste buried in their landfill sites and to increase the amount which is recycled. If they go over, then they have to pay a fine. Also, government suggested that local authorities should consider charging households which throw away more than average without recycling, although this was challenged by press claims so they backed down for the while at least. However, the problem is not seizing to go away. Case Study: Mucking, London (Landfill) + Nairobi Landfill facts: 1956 Clean Air Act meant no more burning of rubbish for health reasons and smog 70% of Londons rubbish goes to landfills in Essex now from 2007 to 2010 4 landfills closing a week on average Plan to half methane output by by 2020. Nairobi people scavenge and re-use e.g. glass bottles for refilling, washing machine doors for bowls and storage, food for pets, tin cans for lamps Short Term Positives 1. Quick 2. Cheap 3. Easiest solution Short Term Negatives 1. Build up of disease and rats 2. Unpleasant smell 3. Releases poisonous methane gas 4. Lots of traffic caused nearby Long Term Negatives 1. Unpleasant to live near 2. Will get full at some point 3. Long decaying time 4. Chemical waste and leeching of chemicals into soil which is unsafe 5. Contributes to global warming 6. Tax on landfill site

Long Term Positives 1. Burn it or plant grass over it once finished with 2. Use the methane gas as energy to heat homes

Case Study: Chelmsford, Essex (Recycling) + Rio Recycling facts: In 2006, 18% of waste was recycled in the UK, 26% in Chelmsford. Chelmsford added more to routine at cost of 750,000 with double amount of workers, but still relies heavily on residents to help. 30% target by 2010, 38% for Chelmsford, but only 18% for tower Hamlets because of difficulty of recycling in city.

Short Term Positives 1. More jobs as collectors 2. Sell or re-use recycled material

Short Term Negatives 1. Expensive and time consuming 2. Difficult to sort materials 3. Rely on people to sort their rubbish out 4. Reliant on market and price 5. Difficult to collect in inner-city e.g. high-rise flats Long Term Negatives 1. Expensive and will continue to be expensive 2. Increased transport cost and harm to environment

Long Term Positives 1. Better for environment 2. Less global warming 3. Meet EU targets

Case Study: Rivenhall, Central Essex (Incineration) + Singapore Incineration facts: 0.5 million tonnes incinerated each year Incinerator to last around 30 years Below A120, Bradwell, old airfield, brownfield near Braintree, good access Short Term Positives 1. Quick and effective 2. Jobs through transport 3. Reduces landfill and actually rids waste Short Term Negatives 1. Pollution from transport and gases given off health risk 2. Residents close-by have view of tall tower 3. Early morning smoke and fog Long Term Negatives 1. Increases transport and busy motorway 2. Incineration plants can become huge and lower quality of area, especially countryside 3. Health worries from dioxins

Long Term Positives 1. Receive power through burning 2. Use of brownfield site 3. Paid by others to take their rubbish

Transport Management: Public Transport Local 1. Boris Bikes for London 2. Park + Pay in Chelmsford 3. Oyster Card in London 4. Bus routes and lanes 5. Cycle lanes National 1. Free buses for elderly 2. Cycle lanes Curitiba (case study) Huge buses transporting same as London underground each day using bus only routes and large motorways 500x cheaper than

Vehicle Transport

1. Red routes for no stopping in London 2. Changing road surface to slow vehicles down 3. Congestion charge 4. Park + Pay in Chelmsford 5. Widening of M25 and other motorways 6. A12 accident patrols 1. Low-emission zone in London 2. Electric and zero carbon cars finally promoted 3. Faster lane for cars with more than one person 1. Congestion charge 2. Tax on carbon emissions 3. Road tolls for town centres (Manchester rejected idea because of rejecting business)

1. Bridge Tolls 2. Speed bumps + cameras 3. Speed warning signs

London Underground, bus driver doesnt take fees; saving 1/3 of the time, cheap for low income earners, low air pollution and lots of people use it

Pollution Control

1. Tax on fuel

Singapore (case study) Pay on public transport per mile and need certificate showing you can use it

Pricing Mechanism

1. Tax on fuel 2. Park + Pay in Chelmsford 3. Congestion charge

Rio (case study) Bus at only $0.5, little pollution, very chap, slum people using illegal vans too but they are congesting and polluting more, trains coming in at $0.66 and expanding, but no other public transport.

Case Study: The Manchester Metro Link (MEDC Transport) Opened in 1992 Some additions to track made, such as to Salford Quays Making it serve 18 stations, 6 above ground Planning on linking it to Rochdale, airport, Trafford centre, Stockport Every 5 minutes in busy periods, 12-15 less busy 32 vehicles, 52,000 journeys a day Saved 3.5 million rips in the car a year