In today’s class, we discussed the trend of spatial mismatch between inner-city residents and employment opportunities. Historically, cities have had strong, bustling centers. These monocentric cities had high employment and residential densities. Workers lived close to their jobs, and they had relatively short commutes. As transportation technology progressed, skilled workers with higher income were able to afford housing and commuting expenses that moved them further from their employment regions. Recently, the developments in information and communication technology have reduced the necessity of office clusters in city centers. The primary incentive for central city location of office firms is to reduce the travel time associated with face-to-face meeting with clients and other firms. With technologies such as email and skype, this face time is no longer worth the high cost of central-city office space. The progression of these developments have contributed to the gradual decline of the monocentric city.
Where do these jobs go? Office firms have been moving from expensive central-city locations to cheaper locations on the edges of urban areas. This relocation, as well as the growth of transportation technology, has allowed significant urban sprawl in many cities. However, while this relocation is appealing for skilled workers with the purchasing power to afford suburban life and high commuting costs, it has been devastating for lower-income individuals. As more jobs depart city centers, unemployment levels in urban areas have risen. Low income individuals are put in a difficult position by this trend: in order to reach the job opportunities that are locating outside of cities, they must use expensive commuting methods such as personal vehicles. However, for many of these individuals, personal vehicles simply aren’t affordable. While public transportation provides access to some job opportunities, it does not provide the full accessibility to opportunities that cars do due to the limitations of route choices. As a result, low income individuals can become stuck in a “poverty trap” in which they do not have adequate access to career opportunities.
The issues of poverty traps and spatial mismatches are troubling. The idea that motivated individuals cannot gain access to career opportunities provides a major issue of social equity. However, the decline of monocentric cities is an economically natural event, and inhibiting it would reduce the efficiency of the economy. What do you think of this issue? Do you believe there are any realistic solutions?
Reference:
O’Sullivan, Arthur. Urban Economics.
Transportation & Tomorrow 
Unfortunately, poverty trap cannot be elimated. It is just a way of life. Urban sprawl began with the means of improving our transportation systems, so that the people traveling into the cities can avoid the obnoxious traffic going into work everyday. But it’s a payoff, because if we want to eliminate poverty traps, we are increasing the delays of people traveling into cities.