life-cycle factors on current housing decisions, these studies inadequately explain both overall .... Uncertain Job Location, Urban Form, and the Journey to Work.
The Influence of Expected Suburbanization on Urban Form and the Journey to Work
Randall Crane
Working Paper UCTCNo. 240
].’he University of Caldfomia TransportationCenter Universityof California Berkeley, CA94720
Tile University Transportation
Df California Center
"/’he University of California Transportation Center (UCTC) is one of ten regional units mandated by Congress and established in Fall 1988 to support research, education, and training in surface transportation, The UCCenter serves federal Region IX and is supported by matching grants from the U.S. Departmeat of Transportation, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and the University. Based on the Berkeley Campus, UCTCdraws upon existing capabilities and resources of the Institutes of Transportation Studies at Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, and Los Angeles; the Institute of Urban and Regional Development at Berkeley; and several academic departments at the Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, and Los Angeles campuses. Faculty and students on other University of California campusesmay participate in
Center activities. Researchers at other universities within the region also have opportunities to collaborate with UCfaculty on selected studies. UCTC’seducational and research programs are focused on strategic planning for improving metropolitan accessibility, with emphasis on the special conditions in RegionIX. Particular attention is directed to strategies for using transportation as an instrument of economic development, while also accommodatingto the region’s persistent expansion and while maintaining and enhancing the quality of life there. The Center distributes reports on its research in working papers, monographs, and in reprints of published articles. It also publishes Access, a magazine presenting summaries of selected studies. For a list of publications in print, write to the address below.
Universityof California Trampor~fion Center 108 NavalArchitectureBuilding Berkeley,California 94720 TeI: 510/643-7378 FAX:510/643-5456
Thecontentsof this repor~reflect the viewsof the authorwhois responsible for the facts andaccuracyof the data presentedherein. Thecontentsdo not necessarilyreflect the officio3viewsor policies of the State of Californiaor the U.S. Department of Transportation.This report doesnot constitute a standard, specification,or regulation.
The Influence
of Expected Suburbanization and the Journey to Work
on Urban Form
Randall Crane Departmentof Urban& Regional Planning Universityof California at Irvine lrvine, CA92717-5150 and Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies Universityof California at San Diego La JolIa, CA92093-0510
Working Paper November 1994
UCTCNo. 240 TheUniversity of California Transportation Center Universityof California at Berkeley
Abstract Standard urban models assume residents never think about their next job. More likely, the individual value of a given home and the choice of commute length are based not only on the current job site, but also on the expectation of where future jobs will be and the likelihood of both job separations and residential moves. The first factor lessens the value of access to the present job, while the second determines the opportunity cost of moving. Both sets of factors lead to flatter rent gradients and more sprawl than predicted by standard theories. The analysis further suggests that relatively stable jobs are likely associated with relatively shorter commutes. Past studies of the regional balance of jobs and housing, of ’wasteful ~ commuting, of differences in the length of commute by gender, and of spatial tests for discrimination in housing and local labor markets have neglected these considerations, and may yield biased results as a consequence.
*I am gratefulfor the thoughtfulcommentsof M. Boarnet,G. Crampton,G. Fielding,C. Lave, Ko Small, two referees, and especiallyJ0 Brueckneron earlierversions,and fundingfrom the Universityof CaliforniaTransportationCenter and a UC Irvine FacultyFellowship.
I. Introduction The conventional :~espects, pivotal
theory of urban
as any theory
than
others,
must be. Of course
depending
rsay have direct bearing validity
of subsequent
urban
areas.
life-cycle
both overall
commuting
live.
a.ccount
approach
generalized
for a fuller
site for most
the static
future
these
in commuting
are more
from a model
as well as the that such may be the the structure
job locations
studies
with
patterns
of
and
inadequately
explain
among
various
To
most analysts
for many such rent and density
and the population.
of the resulting
relidential
location
may change
sites.
(Examples
include
reasons°
choice
the household
the value
of access
the opportunity
in this simple
We consider
to move.
of a place
job, but also on the expectation
other
determines
pattern.
but allows
on the characteristics
The ultimate
the next job will be, and (2) how often lessens
centerse
and where it is costly
to depend
where
the usual framework
to
generates
locations,
employment
factor
where
of the commute.
of multiple
based not only on the current
E~:ending
when choosing
a setting
and the job and home
off the value
[381.
the cost of a move is per~dtted
while the second
will trade
this story
the length
to allow
of employment
where job location
The first
employment,
major employment
model
[37] and Yinger
explanation
an environment
location,
argues
the cost of housing
with multiple
This paper also considers
therefore
results
that each household
rents and densities
for labor markets
White [351, Wieland )
individual
of potential
and differences
job against
-- i.e., suburbanization
Moreover,
absence
and by extension
decisions,
is to argue
with a single
equilibrium
have simply nodes
behavior
to their current
In an area
declining
housing
of the real world
Their
This paper
in many
groups.
The standard of access
on current
at hand.
to work,
the influence
to be limited
of theoretical
strategies.
of the journey
By neglecting
factors
population
on the usefulness
is known
some elements
on the problem
empirical
case with past studies
structure
will choose
of the
to live
is
of (1) to move for
to the current
job
cost of moving.
but important
manner
sheds
light
2 on questions policy
raised
issues,
’wasteful
evidence
population
Cervero
that the average
exclusively Gordon,
expect
(The
is pretty
on minimizing
commuting
their
hypothesis,
trip.
Other papers
have
local amenities
and multiple
employment
controlled
for possible
influential
in both
et al. [13],
Madden
this paper suggests small job change mile,
and less
workers
to have
importance
minorities
the amount
[36].)
of
is discussed
in
Los Angeles
the area supports rather
is
home or who
from
the
than focusing
and Small
centers,
[i0,Ii];
the equilibrium
to account
include
for the role of
assume
Giuliano
that
is that
that households and Small
studies
looking
[II],
at
of men and women have not effectively
location
characteristics choice.
and White
a shorter
commute
(See,
potentially for example,
[24].)
The model
for persons
high home move costs, higher
Compared
with
characteristics of gender
one view of the "spatial
face more discrimination
[161,
to minimize
all of which
(These
and career-cycle
costs, relatively
by Hamilton
It is also clear
behavior
we would predict
all these
locations
the segments
question
(Giuliano
the analysis
and Lic [23] and Madden
job turnover.
among
Evidence
open,
necessary
extended
job and residence
of these dimensions
Finally,
introduced
job changes.
and White
for the life-cycle
length
mismatch
[15]).
far exceeds
in the con~nuting
balance
options
commute
work-home
differences
particularly
to soon move into a larger
future
commuting
Small and Song [31],
here,
and the spatial job and housing
et al. [12,151.)
aggregate
do not plan ahead
current
of transportation
of ~obs and housing,
much the same throughout
the current
Kumar and Richardson
balance
jobs/housing
[9] and Gordon,
a number
lengths,
between
introduced
are keeping
The wasteful
gap in commute
who either
commute
that people
on the regional
to change.
[3], Giuliano
work regarding
the connection
by the considerations
job locations
notion
empirical
the gender
In general,
the working expect
including
commuting’,
hypothesis. weakened
by recent
men as a group, except
possibly
differences mismatch’
in housing
Gordon,
presented
in
with relatively
cormm/ting
we would
costs
expect
the latter.
per
women
However,
the
have yet to be measured.
hypothesis
markets
than
is that racial in labor
markets,
such
3 that
they are spatially
commutes
for blacks
length
of longer
than it does
in this paper calls
the first.
Short
relatively
stable
consistent
with a housing
provides
there
is reason
little
market
to believe
the current
The main idea location
a worker
evaluating
alternative
and work
well account
home sites,
By extending demonstrates ~mpirical
commute
the local
Rather
research
commute
more
by
costs.
This
of minorities services.
have either
is
yet
The
is diminished,
however,
if
relatively that future
jobs
market
are unknown
over their
entire
time horizon
than
a standard
urban
importance
questions.
location
number model
think
only about
work later. reasons.
of working
where
somewhere
the expected
in straightforward
begins
factors
live
they
a model
else
by all the factors: costs
of
changes.
fashion,
for a variety
by specifying
when
may
Any one household~s
plus three additional
locations,
with
they
Moreover,
of both job and residence
of these
The paper
that if the
and as such is explained
employment
and the expected
We show
labor
they might
job location,
of future
model°
to move for other
has used to explain
the potential
commute
set of results
or the expectation
urban
costs
where
they plan
as it is to the present
distribution
to social
commutes
is thus as tied to the probability
tlhe literature
and high
and
of a lack
in part be explained
individuals
in a basic
think about
locally
changing
to longer
to live.
location
The expected
or access
sites within
current
things
discrimination,
home location.
places
for how often
of longer
to understanding
the choices
job site is secure
will consider
now, they also
costs,
that the observed
employment
certainty,
may at least
sources
is demonstrated
of future
market
the second
that constrains
discrimination
faith that the distant
will be nearer
into question
high moving
employment
of housing
of housing
Evidence
has in turn been used as evidence
commutes
job location,
centralized
contribution
commutes
for jobs.
in those markets. 1 The approach
discrimination
outlined
when competing
has been used as evidence
the lack of evidence of housing
constrained
this paper
of topical of urban
IseeZllwood [61, Gabriel and Rosenthal [8J, Gordon, et al., [14], Hughes and Madden [17~, lhlanfel~: and Sjoquist [18,19,203, Ihlanfeldt and Young [21], Kain [22], Price and Mills [28], Taylor and Ong [32], Zax [39,40], and Zax and Kain [41].
4 structure.
It then presents
employment
location.
approach
The market
to valuing
employment
lead to cities
which
the discussion
to include
moving
costs
2.
pattern
analysis
associated
access,
to life
Urban starts
one-way
to their
commute
numeraire
length
composite
in miles°
land and capital
production
function
Household location,
h = f(L,K),
behaviors
3 where
factors
Section
to work,
Suggestions
to
4 extends
arguing
that
for empirical
to Work
benchmark
of a single
side,
of the residential
employment
inelastically
also
consumes
to the concave
site
supplies
cost of r(z),
housing
where
housing
is produced
a unit of z is the
h, and a
by competitive
constant-returns-to-scale
L is land and K is capital.
and thus the willingness
may be summarized r(z,U)
model
Each household
according
future
section.
at a commuting
good x. On the supply
for these
assumed.
circumstances.
each household
site,
uncertain
with the conventional
of the journey
and the Journey
urban
that
employment
firms from
usually
with the familiar
with a standard
"Downtown’. 2 The model assumes labor supply
Form,
with
the tendency
that
choice
cycle
example
is compared
suggesting
in the concluding
Job Location,
The formal
rent gradient
the individual
are offered
Uncertain
two period
are more decentralized
vary according
implementation
a two center,
of to pay for housing
at each
by the bid rent function
-maxh, x {[y - x - r(z)]/h:
U(h,x) (i)
This represents
the maximum
maintain
utility
applying
the envelope
price
the household
level U. Differentiating theorem,
can pay per unit of housing
(I) with respect
to distance,
and
and
gives:
2This paper does not explain job location, i.e., labor demand and the suburbanizationof em91oyment. It is entirely concerned with the suburbanizationof labor given the suburbanizationof employment. For related approacheswith somewhat different purposes, see simpson [ 30] and Nijkamp, van Wissen and Rima [27]. 3This is the so-called Mills-Muthmodel of urban residentiallocation; see Mills [25 } and Muth [261 for foundations, and Brueckner [2} and Fujita [7] for recent discussions and extensions. Note that while the story below extends the basic model to include some dynamic elem~_nts, we maintain the classic assumption that capital is perfectly malleableL, distinguishingthis approach from the dynamic urban models of Brueckner [I} and yon Rabenau [33], among others
dr(z,U °) ar( dz
-
dz
This is the standard value
of access
the central
result their
employment
are multiple
employment
different
to reflect
[371
discounted
value
consequences extent
density
m~tlticentric most models occupational
the equilibrium
to the nearest
area
around
as a whole
of either
static
mobility
story,
story
which
are important,
that conventional
Second,
urban
reflect
rents
theory flatter
a choice
regarding
future
process
this
will
and be
(e.g., White
rents
Thus,
will tend
the
on a smaller by
this approach
fails
to
how bids are affected
of residence
employment
First,
areas
would
site.
There
the
are two
we expect
that
to the
will tend to be more
suggest.
than typically journey
if
is chosen.
will then tend to reflect
of each commute
characteristics
center
decentralized,
are important.
the individual
where the length
and life-cycle
expectations
for,
workers
gradient
though
to consider
metropolitan
will be everywhere
models.
demand
the
per se.
when the place
likely
site.
site,
however,
or change,
to the most
perspective
employment
will be more
the multicentric
of access
suggest,
rent
equilibrium
each employment
we show that equilibrium
These results reflect
[38]).
is repeated
of this
gradients
of residents,
In that instances
these factors
decentralized
and the mobility
analysts,
job site is uncertain
speaking,
reflects
that question
and ¥inger
This paper extends
Roughly
areas
is more than one employment
As a fundamentally
an individual’s
of housing
in the city has inelastic
of metropolitan
centers,
by several
The metropolitan
the effects
everyone
in the price
than (2) if there
pattern
construction.
variation
features
the value of access
monocentric
capture
Spatial
site. common
Wieland
scale.
result:
T~ increasingly
s~omewhat
(2)
h{)
to the only location
jobs. As shown
[35],
~ ’(z)
In particular, predicted
to work will depends
rent
and
by
be longer
critically
than
on the
of the commuter. where
residence
suburbanization
bids for any site
of employment,
and the spatial
6 variation below,
in moving
and commute
each household
to move. If home
costs
considers
location
where
bids will simply
con~nuting
costs to every expected
a job at that
each feasible stream
of commuting Before
largely
depend
professor
worker
A young couple within their
planning
city
decisions.
locations
span two time periods,
in the next period,
is subjectively
are introduced
expect
to lose that they
where
of their
That is, the likelihood as the share
of being
house
to stay analysis
distribution
of the
in is
in the literature. site valuation,
section.
Downtown
Though
a
for this
and tomorrow.
job tcmorrc~.
they
at a time.
into a larger
into two parts:
at 2 sites:
note that
while
a few months
unexamined
in the next
are unsure
on the proportion
calculated
largely
costs.
a university
may be planning
the aggregate
today
elements,
the area,
The motivation
this process
employment
employed
at each site.
years.
can affect
to decompose
but they
based
twenty
moving
idiosyncrasies,
to move-up
at
both the expected
these
within
of
of access
On the one hand,
site
and
of future
and with total
with children
area in a manner
working,
expectations
a family
differences
The latter
with (potential)
(Zs) o Expectations
status.
employment
value
minimizing
individual
may be expecting
while
in a metropolitan
It is simplest moving
a family
house for another
that these observable population
from
they plan
the initial
of the value
may not work at the same site more than
the next few years, current
Aside
then
described
by the probability
conceptualizing
age and family
may have only one feasible
construction
weighted
with each location
observable°
and how often
of the present
in time involves
scheme
In the model
variable,
That is, the calculation
a bid-rent
on occupation,
choice
job location,
costs associated
are generally
work later
a comparison
at any point
introducing
such factors
involve
location.
location
they might
is a nonstochastic
subsequent
having
over the time horizon°
Consider
and
a linear
(D) and the Suburbs Today
they
everyone
expect
to be
that job will be. They form
employment employed
of employment
base expected downtown
in that
to be located
in the next period
occupation
expected
to
be found there. Everyone
in the city forms
rational
expectations
in this regard,
based
perhaps
on the !published the city’s
reports
employment
the suburbs
tomorrow
Our story begins relaxed
later°
the present either
of the local
in a particular is denoted
by assuming
Expected
value
occupation
forecasting
commuting
costs
second
depending
share
on whether
to be located
left downtown
costs.
Current
the worker
in
this will be
are current
commuting
now works
of
then ! - ~ 4
the same ~, though
over the two periods
period
model. The share
that is expected
by ~ , with the share
all residents
of expected
"~(z) or T,(z),
university’s
costs
costs
downtown
plus
are
or in the
suburbs. The location downtown.
As one considers
increases, depending %~ile
of the suburban
residential
note that commuting on the location.
T~(z)
next
expenses
center
locations
for suburban
T~(z)
is at distance
further
from
workers
can either
~ from
downtown,
< 0 for z < z S, and T~(z)
i.e.,
as z
rise or fall
> 0 for z > z s,
> ev erywhere. Fu rthermore, th e re levant me asure of com muting cos ts,
are either period
costs
Thus
and hence the value of access costs
employment
to employment,
TD(Z ) or Ts(z),
as mentioned.
are (i -~)TD(Z ) + ~(Z).
is therefore
is in part Expected
The present
value
forward
looking.
commuting
costs
of all expected
Today’s in the commuting
either
or
for current
downtown
workers
and current
suburban
workers,
respectively,
where
6 - 1 / (i + i) and is the inte rest rate . If we focus the analysis
by requiring
that x, h and r be constant
over the two
4~.~his model is describedin terms of a single-workerhousehold,but the general approach can incorporate multiple worker households as well by expanding the interpretationof ~ to capture other elements of the importance of each job site. For example, if Gj measured the stability of the job of w~rker j and yj captured other aspects of the importance of worker j’s job to the household, then we would define the household ~ . I (~J + )’J )~ sun~uing over all household workers° 2
5 periods,
the present
value bid rent function
may be written
+ 6Xy (I + 6)r(z,U~
The rent gradient
for a downtown
(i + 6) #rD
The gradient
=
has the same
commute
world with
cost
Compared rapidly
those workers
The second
happens
commute
¯ ~ = t. Commute
of commuting
6~(r~-r~)
stable
jobs,
in equilibrium,
costs
less rapidly
bid rents
there
with distance
to the standard
in a
model
of job location
sign for z > z will thus decline
at least
less
up to ~ whenever
is also the suggestion
than in standard
for a worker
The first
is the effect
workers
-
currently
that
models. employed
in the suburbs
with distance
with T~, though
The effect
costs are a constant costs for current
for z < z s if ~ < I; i.e., beyond
both are positive
and explore
these
the suburban
expressions
workers
if the
center
depends
there.
$t per unit distance,
suburban
is
(5)
h
is not secure.
To get at that question
+ 6~(T~-r~)]o
it is the analog
downtown
rent gradient
job location
on how T~ compares
to assume
value
term
model with
(I + 6)
suburban
+ 6)T~
will be more decentralized
This also increases
(3)
(4)
for z < z s and s . of indeterminate
for current
on what
The comparable
~ °}
U(h,x)
is then
aa -[(1
in the present
to a two period
~ 0. Depending
worker
: s.t.
11+ 6(i
sign
and is negative
from downtown
h
fixed job locations;
gradient.
uncertainty,
_
E[~]
h
(i + 6)T~ is the change two period
x)
i) " , maxh,x-
as,
are then
further,
it is convenient
such that T~(z) T,(z)
. tz and
= t(~ - and
5A more general treatment would extend the time horizon and allow for more than two possible job sites. For an infinite number of possible job sites along a linear city in a two-period setting, for example~ E[ T ] = ~o(Z) ÷ 6f, f( z)T(Z) dz, where ~o( z ) is the initial commute expense f(z) is the probability density function of Job locations. This could be extended to a multi-period setting by summing expected cc~mute costs in each period over the time horizon.
!
f
ihence T, = -t for z < zs, and rs(z) = t(z - zs) so that T s s= t for z > z In
that
case,
the
sign
of
the
downtown
workers’
bid
rent
gradient
(4)
is
the
same aN
-[I+6(I-2~)1 for z < z,, and
Note the gradient negative
between
is negative
downtown
outside
zs, but it can be either
and the suburbs°
It is definitely
(} = 0 or ~ s 1 / 2. That is, if the prospect sJufficiently
likely,
downtown
for workers
even
externality current
argument
downtown
suburban
center
the current
the rent profile
to derive
job is only temporary, the remainder
slope upward
(Richardson
result.)
and the worker
of their
only where
working
life,
expects
is
with distance
[291 used
In the extreme
or
a spatial
case where
the
to be employed
the present
value
from
in the
of access
to
job can be quite minimal.
In this example, same
downtown.
a similar
negative
of a job move to the suburbs
will actually
who now work
positive
the sign of the suburban
workers’
rent gradient
(5) is the
as
-[6(I
- 2~) - i] for z < z,,
and
Again,
the gradient
definitely
between
positive
only
for both types of workers This example different period.
values
Figure
one downtown
downtown
and the suburb
if 6 = 0 or ~ ~ 1 / 2. Note outside
is illustrated
of z s are the same, in Figure
of ~, the likelihood
la gives the market
and a second
Ib and ic illustrate
may be positive
suburban
that the slopes
employed
rent in an economy
bid rent gradients
over
in the suburbs
in the next job sites,
z s from downtown.
a stochastic
of ~.
rate and three
with two secure
job site at distance
and is
of bid gradients
and are independent
1 for a zero discount
of being
or negative,
Figures
job site economy.
In
i0
Figure
ib, the bids reflect
percent Figure
probability
of being employed
ic increases
that probability
increasing
rent gradient
In a stable adjust
In the special
rent depends
turn will source
be indifferent
households
depend
will locate
in expected
Figure
la shows both how workers
long as the expectation
of having
half; that current
is, so long
suburban
In particular, with the lowest
as z increases),
and will thus locate largest
there.
~’s (the most stable nearest
6 prediction
the suburban
that workers
values
within jobs)
They
downtown
either
center.
with the most stable
Thus,
their
is greater
in
one be
employment to do so so than one-
and ~> 1/2 for
By (4),
are possible,
suburban
sites.
downtown
workers
bid rent gradients
bids closest
to downtowns
workers
bid rents
the model
across
which
might
will continue
will have the steepest
from (5), those
the and thus
one or both employment
will have the steepest
employment
Another
alternatives
each group.
of the
if bids differ
around
workers
will have the winning
Similarly, jobs)
to cluster
of ~, other
around
~ differs
~’s (the most stable
(they slope upward
here by ~.
and stable.
respect,
In this model,
a job in the same location
clustering
assume
profile.
will
population.
in equilibrium,
represented
certain
With other
some with and some without
However,
of employment.
will tend
and rents
in the city,
location
as ~< 1/2 for current
workers.
important
an
site.
of the market
locations
cost
ic gives
The relationship
bid rent everywhere
commute
job stability,
are both
in every
at different
is the initial
site when job locations
to moving
another.
home locations°
on their individual
of bid variation
differences
among
Figure
up to the suburban
on the characteristics are equal
in the next period.
Note that
from downtown
of one site over
that they have a 20
center
can be no advantage
case where households
would
individuals,
locate
to 80 percent.
rent will equal each individual:s
commuters
workers
in the suburban
there
the benefits
bid rent to the market
by downtown
with distance
equilibrium,
to eliminate
market
the belief
with
the
and will thus
supports
jobs will have the shortest
the con~nuteso
61 am grateful to the editor for suggesting this resulto Note also that in the suburban case, there is no sorting of workers by job stability outside of zsbecause the slopes there are independent of ~.
Ii
Figure all workers medium
and unstable.
job location.
and current groups
suburban
of workers,
iFigure
with respect Figure location
3 initially
commutes.
specific
for 6 worker
to job stability:
of stability workers
downtown
Moreover,
Again,
market types.
centers
these parameter
workers
jobs.
zones III and IV), and thus
rent,
values
site,
a pattern
also demonstrate
jobs
might will
Those
jobs --
bids near that site. bids generating
a
of residential jobs;
workers
value
there.
2b
i.e.,
shorter that
workers
with very
access
to the
This does not mean they
in the next period,
only that they have
of doing so.
A naive analysis degree of ’wasteful
of the locational
co~7~6~ting,’
irrational conclude
may also
suburbs
(zone IV) is evidence
it, if these patterns
patterns
that
in Figure
2c would
as that term is traditionally
about the behavior
~alysts
conclusions
us 6
workers
than some suburban
as well.
employed
work in the other location
a high expectation
is nothing
currently
gives
the possibility
jobs look so far ahead in this case as to actually workers
jobs,
with the most stable
with the more stable
vice-versa
to their
and so on. Figure
the winning
from downtown
stable,
stable
the most stable
with
Say that
in the suburbs.
for downtown
those
It reveals
by those
may live farther
job site more than
This
job site -- will have the highest
for the 6 worker
near employment
with
employment
workers.
highly
with ~ = 0 have
stable
types.
is with respect
and 3 working
of ~. Those
the current
2c shows the resulting
will necessarily
those
downtown
values
to their current
s:ome downtown
there
measure
working
bids nearest
pattern
clustering
other
respect
with ~ = 1 also have
the bid rents for suburban
unstable
result
2a shows what the bid rents of the three groups
have the highest
(i.e.,
of this
with
Each
Thus current workers
like, for three
draws
an illustration
are split into 3 groups
stability,
current
look
2 provides
the presence
of housing
are correlated
with
constructed
either
market race
might in fact be true the example
defined.
a high
However,
in this example.
of s~e downtown
or labor
suggest
workers
living
discrimination,
or gender,
suggests
in the
or lack
or both.
While
that job stability,
!2
which itself explaining
may well have racial
or gender
components,
could
also play a role in
these patterns.
3. Life Cycle Factors The analysis This could relocate
thus far has abstracted
be relaxed
in several
to the sites of their
employment
ways.
winning
base for each employment
can be derived
by redefining
in the previous
section.
For example, bids,
site,
individual
To explain
the choice
of site
movement
explicitly
is another
strategy.
approach
might attempt
costs associated
For example, generate
the same site
residence
individuals
is relatively living
of employment
might be expected
located
elsewhere,
they may rationally different
commutes
by the number location,
small.
choose from
of workers
rents
a longer
her home,
Modeling
costs
costs
as
also
the costs
of
for example, is, based
that
on the
even where
current
in the location expect
for the stability to move°
of later
them by relocated
site. 7 These
of
to see such
it is more costly
to the likelihood
commute
one’s
decisions
home°
are naturally
of their
That
jobs being
to in part anticipate
the stability
they
the cost of changing
and we might
her home,
to follow
in each household,
and their propensity
commutes
each household
to a change
sensitive
the same home
gradients,
of expected
they work -- controlling
owns
since it is costly
the
density
in Zax [40],
the same relocation
near where
to be more
of individual
As pursued
Adjusting
If a person
in terms
the hedonico
easy in that instance,
relatively
location.
faces
can costlessly
characteristics.
bids. If a person
may be relatively
employment
person
not everyone
along
costs
how ’footloose’
with their individual
of home location.
if households
and the corresponding
the pattern
explaining
choice
then the size of the city,
commute
requires
to identify
from the actual
later
Thus, and
affected
employment
to move for any and all reasons.
7These assertions are supported by the Wachs, et al. [34] study of commute behavior over time in Southern California. Workers who moved into rental housing tended to move closer to their job site, while workers who moved into a home they owned tended to increase their commute length.
13 Life cycle factors
are particularly
the last of these factors, reasons
than following
household apart
from the location
of their
the observed
between
with
or smaller, planned
commute location
change.
ten years,
section,
associated
modeling
increases,
has expectations as their family
will be changing markets).
to future,
attractiveness
Most models
sense
process
life is
of commute
complex
costs
that the twoof job
if the job location
is complicated
and that any choice
commute
lengths.
by the of home
Put another
they will want to move (as their
spatial
section,
of urban form assume
is valid is an empirical location
working
labor
these
etc.)
and how often
market,
and between
expectations
affect
way, income they labor
the
value of each location.
research
orL both urban form and the choice
residential
may
move due to each expected
when they buy a home, a given
in the previous
for empirical
finds itself
a month.
this decision
and hence the household
Implications
quite
the opportunity
can look at the stream
move may make
about how often
jobs (both within
As argued
for reasons
stream
are more
as the worker
as yet unknown
expands,
over one’s
in the discounted
expectations
but not if it only lasts
is relevant
each worker
approach
tradeoff
that this may not be the last job change,
location
or a
to move in any event.
the household
with each possible
That is, a particular
The task of actually knowledge
spatial
the move. Multiperiod
cost savings
homeowners,
reduce
was going
in
to move for other
residence
moves
the variation
length.
and the savings
story in the previous
make plans
if the household
ways the critical
the cost of moving
associated period
commute
in explaining
may plan to become
job. Such
in job location,
Put another
4.,
Renters
the point in the life cycle or life course
influence
lasts
employment.
occasionally
may hope to move into a larger,
cost of a change Thus,
as people
important
that the influence
of commute question
may well be based
length
of uncertain
is minimal.
to be sure,
Whether
but this paper
not only on where
job mobility
the current
that
argues
that
job is located,
14 but also on the expectation area,
and how often
of where
the household
plans
this view suggests
that controlling
relatively
commutes
or jobs
shorter
within
have rarely, length
life-cycle empirical
They depend
factors, studies
market,
and dynamic
A lower
has implied distribution
and higher
therefore
that workers of future
of expectations°
subjectively
the risks of committing
the site
may prove
their practical certainly
less
be more important
metropolitan
areas.
moving,
than ideal
significance
in workers,
of changing costs°
These
specifications
argues
should
those
either
with
homes
variables
of commute
characteristics,
must
in addition
be given
have rational
employment
not the rationality
when they consider
In particular,
to
more weight
in
to work.
is made for convenience
apartment
moving
profile
but that assumption
assess
probability
the metropolitan
reasons°
differences
in past empirical
which this paper
be within
to move for other
on occupational
of the journey
The analysis spatial
also have:
the local labor
jobs will
for all other
if ever, been included
models.
future
only.
It is whether
for these
The empirical we believe
themselves
in the sense for later
as employment
job or other
continues
results
that
at hand is
people home or
the possibility
opportunities.
these
over the
to matter,
question
to a particular
they consider
has yet to be demonstrated,
expectations
Though
considerations
to decentralize
that
in major
will
15 References
J. K. Brueckner, A dynamic model Economics, I0, 173-182 (1981).
of housing
production,
2.
J. K. Brueckner, The structure of urban equilibria, of Regional and Urban Economics, Vol. 2," Elsevier,
3.
R. Cervero, "America’s Suburban Unwin Hyman, Boston (1989).
Centers:
Journal
of Urban
(E. Mills, ed.) "Handbook Amsterdam, 821-845 (1987).
The Land Use-Transportation
Link."
G. R. Crampton, The trade-off model, ’wasteful commuting’ and the labour market search process, Discussion Paper No. 40, Department of Economics, Reading University (1988). 5.
G. R. Crampton, Labour market search and urban residential structure, Discussion Paper, Working Paper, Reading University (1992). D. Ellwood, The spatial mismatch hypothesis: Are there teenage jobs missing in the ghetto? in "The Black Youth Employment Crisis," (R. Freeman and H. Holzer, ads.) university of Chicago Press, Chicago (1986). M. Fujita, (1989).
7.
"Urban
Economic
Theory."
Cambridge
University
Press,
New York
S. Gabriel and S. Rosenthal, Conunute times, compensating differentials, and racial discrimination: An analysis of black and white workers, unpublished, University of Southern California and University of British Columbia (1992). .
G. Giuliano, Is jobs-housing balance a transportation Research Record, 1305, 305-312 (1991).
issue?,
Transportation
10.
G. Giuliano and K. A. Smalls Subcenters in the Los Angeles Science and Urban Economics, 21, 163-182 (1991).
11.
G. Giuliano and K. A. Small, Is the journey to work explained structure? Urban Studies, 30, 1485-1500 (1993).
12.
Po Gordont st:cucture
13o
P. Gordon, A. Kumar and Ho Richardson, Gender differences travel behavior, Regional Studies, 23, 499-510 (1989b).
].4 ¯
P. Gordon, Ao Kumar and S. Richardson, The spatial new evidence, Urban Studies, 26, 315-326 (1989c).
1!5¯
P. Gordon, A. Kumar and H. Richardson, The commuting paradox -- Evidence from the top 20, Journal of the American Planning Association, 57, 416-420 (1991).
1 (5.
B. Hamilton, (1982).
1’7 ®
M. A. Hughes and Jo Madden, Residential segregation and the economic status black workers -- New evidence for an old debate, Journal of Urban Economics, 29, 28-49 (1991).
18.
K. lhlanfeldt and D. Sjoquist, Job accessibility and racial differences youth employment rates, American Economic Review, 80, 267-276 (1990).
region,
Regional
by urban
A. Kumar and H. Richardson, The influence of metropolitan on conlnuting time, Journal of Urban Economics, 26, 138-151
Wasteful
commuting,
Journal
mismatch
of Political
spatial (1989a).
in metropolitan
hypothesis
Economy,
-- Some
90, 1035-1053
in
of
16 19.
K. Ihlanfeldt and D. Sjo~dist, occupations of black and white 21, 295-315 (199!a)
The role of space in determining the workers, Regional Science and Urban Economics,
20.
K. lhlanfeldt and D. Sjoquist, employment -- A cross-sectional
The effect of job access on black and white analysis, Urban Studies, 28, 255-265 (1991b).
21.
Ko lhlanfeldt and M Young, The spatial distribution of black employment between the central city and the suburbs, Working Paper, Georgia State University and Converse College (1993).
22°
J. F. Kain, Housing segregation, Negro employmentt and metropolitan decentralization, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 82, 175-198 (1968).
23.
J. Madden and C. Lic, The wage effects constraints on employed married women,
24.
J. Madden and M. White, Spatial implications force, Land Economics, 56, 432-446 (1980).
25.
Eo Mills, An aggregative model of resource allocation American Economic Review, 57, 197-210 (1967).
26.
R. F. Muth, "Cities
27.
P. Nijkamp, residential (1993).
28.
R. Price and E. Mills, Race and residence of Urban Economics, 17, 1-18 (1985).
29.
H. Richardson, On the possibility Economics, 4, 60-68 (1977).
30°
W. Simpson, ~Urban Structure and the Labour Market: Worker Mobility, Commuting, and Underemployment in Cities, ~ Clarendon Press, Oxford (1992).
31.
K. A. Small and S. Song, ’Wasteful’ commuting: Political Economy, 100, 888-898 (1992).
32.
B. D. Taylor and P. M. Ong, Racial and ethnic variations in employment access: An examination of residential location and c~,-~uting in metropolitan areas, University of California Transportation Center working Paper No. 175 (1993)o
33.
B. von Rabenau, (1976).
34°
M. Wachs, B. Taylor, N. Levine and Po Ong, The changing cor~nute: A case-study the jobs-housing balance over time, Urban Studies, 30, 1711-1729 (1993).
35°
M. J. White, Firm suburbanization Economics, 3, 323-343 (1976)o
36.
M. J. White, Urban commuting journeys Economy, 96, 1097-1110 (1988).
37.
K. F. Wieland, An extension of the monocentric urban to a multicenter setting: The case of the two-center Economics, 21, 259-271 (1987)o
38.
J. Yinger, City and suburb: urban models with more than one employment center, Journal of Urban Economics, 31, 181-205 (1992).
and Housing,"
of residential Urban Studies,
location and commuting 27, 353-369 (1990).
of increases
University
in the female
labor
in a metropolitan
of Chicago
Press,
Chicago
area,
(1969).
P., L. van Wissen and A. Rima, A household life cycle model for relocation behavior, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 27, 35-53
Optimal
growth
in earnings
of positive
of a factory
and urban
determination,
rent gradients,
A resolution,
town,
Journal
subcenters,
are not ’wasteful’,
Journal
Journal
Journal
of Urban
Journal
of Urban
of
Economics,
of Urban
Journal
of Political
spatial equilibrium model city, Journal of Urban
3
oi
17
39.
J. S. Zax, Race and commutes,
Journal
40.
J. S. Zax, When is a move a migration? 24, 341-360 (1994).
41.
J. S. Zax and J. F. Kain, Commutes, Economics, 29, 153-165 (1991).
of Urban Regional
quits,
Economics, Science
and moves~
28, 336-348
and Urban
Journal
(1990).
Economics,
of Urban
18
Figure I: Transportation Cost and Bid Rent Gradients for Downtown Workers in a Linear City with Employment Centers at Downtown (D) and the Suburbs (za)
Market r(z) with nonstochastic employment sites Downtown (D) and
~
D uburbs~/~~~ ~s
D
zs Figure la
Bid rent gradient for current Downtown workers with a 20 percent expectation of Suburban employment in the next period. (~ = 0.2)
D Figure ib
zs
Bid rent gradient for current Downtown workers with an 80 percent expectation of Suburban employment in the next period. (~ = 0.8)
D s
z Figure Ic
19 Figure 2: An Example of when Stable Jobs Result in Shorter Commutes Bid rent of Downtown worker with high job stability (6 = 0)
~/
Bid rent of Downtown worker with medium job stability (6 = 0.2)
Bid rent of Downtown
~/
k~.P ~~
/ worker with i~ job ~ stability (6 ~ 0 8)
D
zs
Figure 2a: Bid Rents of 3 types of Current
Downtown
Workers
Bid rent of Suburban worker with high job stability (~ = I)
$
stability(~-0S)
~ ~/Bia rent of Suburban
z z s
Figure 2b: Bid Rents of 3 types of Current Suburban Workers
$
Market |
Rent
KEY to Location Codes
,
I: Downtown workers Downtown workers with
~ If:
I/I
~
with stable jobs. medium job stability.
: Downtown v~x: Suburban workers workers with with unstable unstable jobs. jobs. Suburban workers with medium job stability. VII: Unsorted Suburban workers
vlwrw \ Z
z
s
Figure 2c" Resulting Market Rents and Locations Corresponding to Parameters in Figures 2a and 2b.
