Who commutes less that 15 minutes each day to work15 mins to 20 mins25 to 30 minsMore than 30 minsWho work in the city?
Travel times don’t increase indefinitely. Studies have shown that average commute times across cities tends to cluster around 30mins. In Perth, we’re not quite at the point yet.But there comes a point when the average commute time will approach or exceed 30mins and the journey to work for many becomes too onerous. At this point residents will either Look to to trade off the benefits of fringe living, in order to be closer to workLook to access employment closer to there place of residenceLook to change their working arrangements (Work alternative hours or work from home)Therefore residential densification around current employment nodes or creation of new employment nodes are market responses to contain or reduce high commute cost. This doesn’t mean that there is going to be a huge shift to building high rise at existing inner/middle ring employment nodes; or huge employment infrastructure investment in outer ring nodes, because land is just too cheap to develop on the fringe – and difference between affordable housing and affordable living is not that significantBut the situation is changing – see the increase in public transport investment – but its just a drop in the bucket.
These are big metropolitan scale questions requiring big logical planning systems with proper measures and targets built in.D2031 gives us employment self sufficiency targets but not much else.
ESS measures the quantity of jobs available in a given area as a proportion of that area’s labour force.Whether or not “employment self-sufficiency” can be achieved in practice depends on the level of geography.
Employment self-sufficiency (ESS) is a metric that is without doubt a useful planning tool, but nonetheless cannot be turned to every task.While our employment targets are express in term as ESS, the outcome we’re actually trying to achieve is an improvement in employment self containment.Employment Self Containment is the proportion of local labour force who live and work locally.
Further, while Employment Self Containment is strongly correlated with Employment Self Sufficiency, an increase in ESS doesn’t not necessarily translate to an increase in ESC, there are always outliers that reflect specific employment challenges.ESC is sticky. Generally, improving ESC requires better qualitative matching between skills, aspirations and job type, as well as improvement in ESS.Achieving employment self containment at a small geographic area is difficult for a number of reasonsIncreasing complexity of householdsIncreasing employment specialisation (inverse relationship between knowledge intensity and employment self containment)Increasing we travel for many reasons other than workMost LGAs do not represent an economic regionSo why don’t we set employment self containment targets.Forecasting changes to employment self containment is much more difficult because various factors influence the level of employment self containment.
This is a valid measure at the sub-regional level as it provides a good baseline indicator of economic sustainability. It helps answer questions about whether a population can be sustainably supported in the long-term. Where ESS falls down is when it is applied to individual developments.
Udia presentation pracsys march 2013
Employment Self Sufficiency Good Policy or Pipe Dream
Three Parts1. Commuting to work – problem definition2. Using employment terms correctly3. Responsibilities for delivering jobs
Commuting for Work 40 Show of hands 35 Average about 28 mins 30 Average communting times 25 (Minutes) 20 15 10 5 0
International Situation 40.0 Average Commute Time (Minutes) US average about 28 mins 35.0 30.0 OECD average 37 mins 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 -
The Tipping Point Travel times don’t increase indefinitely Most cities are around 30 mins Why don’t they just keep increasing? Like most things, its about economics
Our urban structure Has the residents on the outside and the jobs on the inside Has the ‘high quality’ jobs in a handful of places (greater CBD, airport, universities, Henderson) Is putting job-enabling infrastructure in these places – reinforcing the status quo
Strategies Bring the people to the Jobs Increased infill in the central sub-region Increased public transport infrastructure Bring the jobs to the people More employment infrastructure to new activity centres on the fringe
Bring the Jobs to the PeopleD2031 advocates this approach, but some questionsarise: How many jobs? What types of jobs? What infrastructure do these jobs require? Who is responsible for providing the infrastructure?
In NW corridor between 2006 and2011:New population 43,868New workforce 24,127 Joondalup AC – 2,590New Jobs 14,100 Wangara AC – 4,236Jobs gap 10,000ESS went from 42% to 43% (target 60%)
Employment Self Sufficiency Sub-regional measure Appropriate for allocating employment on large scale
Employment Self Containment Goodness of fit between local jobs and local labour force What we are actually trying to achieve is increased ESC
ESS and ESC – The Relationship Wanneroo ESC is strongly 50% 40% correlated with ESS 30% 20% 2006 10% 2011 An increase in ESS 0% ESS ESC does not imply an Kalamunda increase in ESC, and 50% vice versa 40% 30% 2006 20% Because ESC is sticky 10% 0% 2011 ESS ESC
Say yes to Maximising centre-based retail/consumer service employment Understand the maturity of your centre Endorsed employment number targets for each centre type Local employment infrastructure issues being taken into account
Say no to Inappropriate use of regional terms and metrics to individual centres Excessive, unachievable employment expectations on shopping centres
Final Thought Contrary to popular belief, the economy does not exist to provide jobs The economy exists to create and distribute goods and services The chances of individual activity centre owners being able to provide jobs on the fringe beyond retail and other basic population driven activity are virtually nil