1. This document discusses employment self-sufficiency and contains strategies to improve it. It notes the average US commute is 28 minutes while the OECD average is 37 minutes.
2. It advocates bringing jobs to people through more employment infrastructure in new activity centers, though questions remain around the types and amounts of jobs as well as infrastructure responsibilities.
3. The document recommends state and local governments set employment targets and priorities development while developers focus on maximizing retail jobs within their means and centers' maturity levels.
4. Commuting for Work
40
Show of hands 35
Average about 28 mins 30
Average communting times
25
(Minutes)
20
15
10
5
0
5. 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
-
6. 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
7. 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
8. 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
9. Bring the Jobs to the People
D2031 advocates this approach, but some questions
arise:
How many jobs?
What types of jobs?
What infrastructure do these jobs require?
Who is responsible for providing the infrastructure?
10. In NW corridor between 2006 and
2011:
New population 43,868
New workforce 24,127
Joondalup AC – 2,590
New Jobs 14,100
Wangara AC – 4,236
Jobs gap 10,000
ESS went from 42% to 43% (target 60%)
13. Employment Self Containment
Goodness of fit between local jobs and local labour
force
What we are actually trying to achieve is increased
ESC
14. 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
17. State government should
Set employment targets for different centre types
Balance targets to achieve sub-regional ESS
Coordinate job-creating BIG infrastructure, involving
Commonwealth
18. Local government should
Address employment directly in commercial
strategies
Prioritise development of high-potential employment
centres
Address local access issues
20. 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
21. Say no to
Inappropriate use of regional terms and metrics to
individual centres
Excessive, unachievable employment expectations
on shopping centres
22. 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
Notas del editor
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.