SHRAPNEL URBAN PLANNING

Suite 18
336 Churchill Avenue
Subiaco
Western Australia 6008

ABN 37 139 283 692

The Potential for Telecommuting

Although 'centres' are likely to remain the main focus of employment opportunities, telecommuting has the potential to reduce the direct need for travel to employment centres by several types of knowledge workers. This might reduce the demand on transport systems sufficiently to enhance ecological sustainability. Telecommuting will be able to apply in different ways at the city, regional and national/ international levels.

At present technology and its availability are insufficient for much telecommuting to be viable - but the indications are that this will change very soon; that a home or mobile computer will soon be able to be connected to (be a seamless part of) a corporate network with none of the technical and other practical compromises, frustrations and inefficiencies that currently exist.

More importantly, if a viable model for telecommuting can be devised for the developed western economies, it can be transferred directly to developing countries for them to adopt in a major technological leap. This will contribute to sustainable development in two ways:

1 July 2002; 22 October 2002

Promote Telecommuting

Telecommuting has the potential to significantly reduce travel - particularly peak hour (work) travel. Major reductions in work travel could have profound effects on the form and economy and sustainability of our cities. Often planners greet this potential with scepticism, or even hostility. A friend and colleague of mine loves 'centres' and believes that it is natural for people to want to work in centres, amongst other people, enjoying the activity, etc. The idea of people telecommuting and thus taking the edge off the life of centres is very unattractive to him. All these lonely strivers in home offices - and dreary lifeless centres too.

People may indeed prefer to work in centres rather than telecommute, but then again people who travel to centres probably prefer to drive to work in a comfortable car, rather than ride public transport. But as planners we feel justified in encouraging people to walk, or cycle, or take public transport rather than drive their cars. In these cases we perceive a community benefit to using the alternatives, so we feel no problem with the exhortations to act 'unnaturally' in this regard. Some planners (not me) are even happy to plan for (or at least not resist) traffic jams in order to encourage people to use alternative forms of transport.

Why should it be fundamentally different in relation to telecommuting? Why shouldn't the planning profession promote the idea that when people can work at home, they should - at least some of the time. This would not only reduce the use of the car, but all other forms of commuter transport as well. People might not warm to the idea, but perhaps it is simply necessary - in the interests of urban sustainability. Large firms could be given incentives to make their people work from home, rather than encourage them to come to the city at the same time each day and fill up all that central office floorspace.

Sure there are downsides to telecommuting - the social side of life possibly being the most significant. But this problem can be easily addressed. For a start, telecommuters could still come to the central office some of the time - say twice per week during off-peak periods. Also, with many more telecommuters in the suburbs, local social & economic venues might get a boost, even flourish. Walk down to the corner store for a coffee and a chat with your telecommuting counterparts at 11am. Can't be too bad - and just think what it would do for the ecology of the city. Potentially huge reductions in the need for complex and expensive transport systems, with great environmental payoffs. Planners should consider promoting telecommuting and the decentralised society.

31 July 2002; 22 October 2002

Send any feedback or enquiries to ts@shrapnel.com.au
Last modified: December 27, 2007