Australian Cities | Charting Transport

What other modes did train commuters use in their journey to work?

Sun 23 June, 2013

Following on from my last post about public transport multi-modality in the journey to work, this post takes a more detailed look at what modes were used in conjunction with trains in journeys to work.

Trains provide a backbone for public transport systems in Australia’s five largest cities, but only a minority of the population within each city is within walking distance of a train station. So what other modes were used in combination with trains for journeys to work in 2011? (according to the ABS census)

This chart shows that ‘walking only’ (ie no modes other than ‘train’ specified) was the most common response for people who used trains in four of the five cities, with Perth the notable exception. Perth’s rail network includes two heavily patronised lines that are largely within freeway corridors, with longer than traditional station spacing and much smaller walking catchments for each station. Perth train commuters were therefore much more likely to involve other modes of transport in their journey to work.

Private (motorised) vehicle transport was more common than other modes of public transport in Brisbane, but the other cities were fairly evenly balanced between private vehicle transport and other public transport modes.

Perth had the highest share of train commuters reporting also using buses (almost a third), suggesting the train feeder bus networks are working quite well.

Sydney had a similar rate of other public transport mode use to other cities, despite limited multi-modal fare integration, although Sydney did have the highest reported rate of ‘walking only’ for train commuters.

Melbourne had the second highest rate of other public transport modes being involved, with roughly equal amounts of bus and tram.

What modes are used to access train stations?

The census doesn’t tell us the order of modes used in the journey to work, but I can get a picture of this from Melbourne’s household travel survey, VISTA:

(note that train does not appear as this analysis looks at the mode preceding the first use of train).

Some recently published PTV data on use of train stations also allows analysis of estimated access mode splits for 7am-7pm weekday train station entries based on origin-destination surveys of journeys of any purpose.

The following chart shows access modes to non-CBD stations (i.e. excluding Flinders Street, Southern Cross, Flagstaff, Melbourne Central, and Parliament):

The data sets aren’t in strong agreement about ‘walking only’ and private vehicle use, although they all have different measurement frames.

The disparity may support the suggestion that there is under-reporting of rail-feeder modes other than walking in the census – particularly vehicle driver/passenger (see also an earlier post that found people living beyond reasonable walking distance of train stations reporting train and walking only to get to work). On the other hand, it may also be that train-based journeys to work have lower rates of private vehicle use than for other journey purposes.

All the figures also suggest that trams are much more likely to be used after trains in the journey to work in Melbourne, which makes sense, as there are only a few tram lines in suburban Melbourne that feed the rail network, and trams provide comprehensive street-based transport within the inner city area helping to distribute people who arrive by train.

In fact, here is a chart showing the reported access modes for Melbourne’s CBD train stations, showing a much higher tram share of access modes:

The data shows walking as the dominant access mode, but also a quite large number of train-train transfers at CBD stations.

Changes over time

So how have these trends changed over time? (at least, as far as people fill out their census forms)

Unfortunately sufficiently detailed data isn’t available for 2001, but here is a comparison of 2006 and 2011 census journey to work data for the five cities:

You can see for Perth that the ‘walking only’ share dropped in favour of most other modes (following opening of the Mandurah rail line).

Brisbane also had a notable shift away from ‘walking only’, particularly to the use of other public transport modes, which might reflect continued changes in travel habits following full multi-modal fare integration in 2004-05. However Brisbane retained the rate of use of other public transport modes in journeys involving train of all cities.

Adelaide had a decline in buses being part of train-based journeys to work, but an increase in trams and private vehicle drivers.

Melbourne saw an increase in bus use with train journeys, with a decline in all other modes and ‘walking only’.

Sydney saw small increases in ‘walking only’ and bus use for people making journeys to work involving trains.

In terms of bicycles being part of train-based journeys, Melbourne had the biggest increase (from 1.0% to 1.2% of journeys involving trains), while Adelaide went backwards (1.6% to 1.0%, although I have no idea if this might have been weather related).

You might be wondering about trucks, taxis and motorbikes. Okay, well even if you aren’t, I should point out that I have made some assumptions in aggregating the census data:

Anyone reporting truck or motorcycle/scooter has been counted as private vehicle driver (although they may have been passengers on such vehicles, although I’m guessing this is less likely than them being drivers)
Anyone reporting taxi I have counted as private vehicle passenger.

For more information on other modes used with trains in Melbourne see pages 26-27 of the PTV Network Development Plan for Metropolitan Rail, and recently published PTV data for use of train stations, including access modes.

1 Comment | Australian Cities, Melbourne, Multi-modal | Tagged: Census Journey to Work | Permalink
Posted by chrisloader

How multi-modal are public transport journeys to work in Australian cities?

Mon 17 June, 2013

It seems public transport intermodal integration is a frequent topic of conversation in Australia’s larger cities. So how multi-modal is public transport travel in our cities?

In this post I’ll look at journeys to work from the 2011 census for the five larger Australian cities with multi-modal public transport networks. The results might not be quite what you expect.

Before looking at the data, I think it is important to think about the factors that might influence the degree of multi-modal public transport commuter trip-making, particularly with regard to radial trips towards city centres:

Commuters from the middle and outer suburbs are more likely to require a rapid transit component to their commute to ensure an attractive travel time.
- Cities with CBD-orientated busways (primarily Brisbane, Adelaide and to a lesser extent Perth) are perhaps less likely to see multi-modal journeys as buses provide both the local pick up and the rapid transit component of the journey.
- Cities with more extensive train networks are also perhaps less likely to see multi-modal journeys because a greater share of the population will be within walking distance of a train station and not require a feeder mode (eg bus).
In cities where transfers are a fundamental part of the network design, there might be higher transfer rates. For example, very few middle and outer suburban bus routes in the larger cities service the CBD, rather they run to train stations where passengers generally transfer to trains to access inner city areas. This is particularly the case in Melbourne and Perth.
The same issue applies for people arriving in city centres. For example, Sydney ferry commuters travelling to areas of the CBD not within easy walking distance of a ferry terminal would need to transfers to buses or trains. Adelaide only has one train station which is on the edge of the CBD, effectively forcing transfers onto buses or the tram for most CBD destinations. Perth has two main CBD train stations, although the core employment areas are within reasonable walking distance of these stations. That said, one might argue that an ideal integrated public transport network would encourage people to use local modes (bus or tram) to travel between destinations and major transport nodes within city centres (in all cities except Sydney, such transfers are almost always free). All cities do offer street-based public transport to help circulate commuters within city centres. I also wonder whether these short trips within city centres might be under-reported in census data (perhaps something to explore another time).

Journeys to work in city centres

So, what percentage of all journeys to work in city centres involve multiple public transport modes? (see note at the end of this post about estimation for 2001 figures)

Note the definitions of city centres aren’t perfectly comparable (see earlier post for maps):

Melbourne is primarily the CBD (excluding Southbank and Docklands)
Perth includes all of the City of Perth
Adelaide includes North Adelaide (entire of City of Adelaide)
Brisbane is the “Brisbane City” SA2

The first thing to note is that the share of commuters who use multiple public transport modes is very low (considering public transport mode share to city centres is generally very high).

The following chart shows the proportion of public transport journeys to work in city centres that involved multiple modes of public transport:

The vast majority of people who use public transport to access jobs in city centres only use one mode. Given that most city centre workers don’t actually live all that far from the CBD, it’s not too surprising as an overall pattern.

Perth is the stand-out for highest multi-modal public transport travel, and largest increase in this type of journey between 2006 and 2011. A few things might explain this:

Perth’s rapid transit network is relatively sparse (five train lines and one busway), meaning fewer people can walk to a rapid transit station.
Indeed, most train stations on the northern and southern lines have very limited walking catchments, but relatively strong bus feeder services and excellent interchange layouts that make transferring easy.
The increase between 2006 and 2011 is no doubt related to the Mandurah line where many previously bus-only journeys have been replaced by bus-train journeys, but it might also relate to improved feeder bus services on other lines.
Perth’s high multi-modal share may also reflect a strong focus on timetable coordination. My understanding is that Transperth don’t try to “optimise” train-bus connection times, they force bus timetables to have ideal bus-train connection times, with high vehicle utilisation a secondary priority.

Melbourne comes in second (if Southbank and Docklands were included, the 2011 figure would be 10.3%). Interestingly, there were more train+bus journeys to the city centre, than train+tram journeys.

Sydney is third, despite having four modes of public transport. This perhaps reflects the lack of a fully integrated fare system (ie multi-modal tickets are usually more expensive that single-mode tickets) and the fact many bus routes run parallel to train lines (and it is usually cheaper to stay on the bus rather than transfer onto the train). It’s not clear to me why Sydney would have had a reduction in multi-modality between 2001 and 2006.

Brisbane had a much lower multi-modal share, probably related to a high bus mode share, the presence of busways providing efficient single-mode (often single-seat) travel for a large number of commuters to the central city, many bus routes running parallel to train lines, and the only relatively recent introduction of full multi-modal fare integration in 2004-05.

Adelaide also rates lowly and has been in decline, perhaps relating to the low-frequency train system (that is now receiving an upgrade including electrification). The extension of the Adelaide tram route from Victoria Square to the Entertainment Centre may have reduced the need for existing tram passengers to transfer, but on the other hand may be helping to circulate people arriving in the city on buses and trains.

Outside city centres

The following chart shows how multi-modality compares for public transport journeys to work in city centres and elsewhere:

Public transport journeys to work in locations outside city centres were much more likely to involve multiple modes, which makes sense as direct rapid services are probably less likely to be available to reach such workplaces. Keep in mind also that public transport mode share of journeys to workplaces outside the city centre are much lower.

Here are the trends over time for multi-modality of public transport journeys to workplaces outside city centres. It shows increases in Perth and Brisbane, declines in Adelaide and Sydney, and little recent change in Melbourne:

Perhaps the increase in Brisbane might be attributed to full multi-modal fare integration introduced in 2004/05, providing free transfers between modes. The increase in Perth is no doubt related to the Mandurah rail line opening.

So is the city centre the main destination for multi-modal public transport journeys to work?

In the larger cities the answer is no. In Adelaide and Perth – where over 60% of PT journeys to work are to the CBD – only around half of the multi-modal PT trips are to the city centre.

While a large proportion of multi-modal public transport journeys to work are not to the city centre, I would expect most would still be radial in nature (as jobs are on average closer to the city centre than homes). This is perhaps something to explore in a future post (my guess would be concentrations of multi-modal public transport travel to workplaces surrounding the city centre).

Finally, I’ve had a look at the home origins for multi-modal public transport journeys to work for Melbourne and Perth in 2011. Click to enlarge maps, and note the colour scale is for mode shares 1 to 10%.

In Melbourne the highest concentrations are north of Footscray, where several frequent tram and bus routes feed Footscray station. There are also concentrations in the middle-eastern and middle-northern suburbs, particularly around SmartBus routes.

In Perth the highest concentrations are in the northern and southern suburbs, where frequent bus routes connect people’s homes to high-speed train services in peak periods.

My next post will continue the multi-modal theme and look at what modes were used in conjunction with trains in the journey to work.

Footnote regarding 2001 estimates

Available data for 2001 only shows mode share in an aggregated summary, including figures for “train and two other modes” and “bus and two other modes”. Not all of these journeys involved multiple public transport modes, and I don’t know exactly how many did.

To estimate 2001 figures of total multi-modal PT journeys, for each city I have calculated the proportion of 2006 journeys that would come under these headings that actually involved multiple PT modes (as detailed data is available for 2006), and then applied these percentages to the 2001 figures for “train and two other modes” and “bus and two other modes” figures.

The result is that around 20% of the total 2001 multi-modal PT journeys are estimated.

I also checked these percentages in the 2011 data, and they were very similar to 2006. For example, 89% of journeys that could be described as “train and two other modes” in 2006 for Melbourne involved multiple PT modes, and in 2011 that figure was 88%. The similarities were weaker for “bus and two other modes”, but the numbers for this category were very small (less than 65 journeys in all cities except Sydney at 145).

4 Comments | Australian Cities, Mode share, Multi-modal | Tagged: Census Journey to Work | Permalink
Posted by chrisloader

The journey to work and the city centre (Australian cities 2001-2011)

Sat 16 February, 2013

The city centre is a traditional market for public transport, and certainly where public transport mode shares are the highest. Recent strong growth in city centre employment is likely to be the cause of public transport patronage growth in some cities. So I thought it would be interesting to look at public transport mode shares and mode shifts to workplaces within and outside Australian city centres.

Definition of city centres

First up, its important to understand what data I’m analysing. In 2011 the ABS restructured their geography for census and other data. While this change brings many benefits, it creates some challenges when comparing data from previous years. In the analysis I generally compare Statistical Local Areas (SLAs) with Statistical Area Level 2 (SA2) geography, but sometimes I’m just comparing Local Government Areas (LGAs).

Here are the areas I have used as the “central city” for each of the five large Australian cities:

Sydney

The “Sydney – Haymarket – The Rocks” SA2 which is very similar (but not entirely identical) to the “Sydney (C) – inner” SLA. There are only minor variations on the fringe of this area. On the following maps, the dark green area is included in all years, the red areas are only included in 2011, and the blue areas are only included in 2001 and 2006.

Melbourne

The “Melbourne” SA2 and the “Melbourne (C) – Inner” SLA, the former being larger as it includes a triangle of land between Peel/William Street, Victoria Street and Latrobe Street. City of Melbourne CLUE data from 2010 suggests 7.6% of jobs in the SA2 are in this triangle (and not included in the SLA). A previous post found that 2006 journey to work public transport mode shares in this triangle were around 56-61% whereas most of the CBD was around 60-70%. So this study is likely to understate increases in public transport mode share for central Melbourne.

Melbourne+

As Southbank and Docklands include significant employment density, I have created a second definition of central Melbourne that includes these areas, and labelled it “Melbourne+”. Note this area also gains the triangle north of the CBD for 2011 due to boundary changes. While arguably I should also include East Melbourne, data is not available at that resolution for 2001 and 2006, which would mean I would need to expand to include all of the City of Melbourne which is starting to be a lot more than the central city core.

The following map shows the Melbourne and Melbourne+ areas: the green area is included for all years, the red area is only included in 2011, and the yellow area is Southbank/Docklands, that is included in all years for Melbourne+ only.

Brisbane

The “Brisbane City” SA2, which precisely covers the “City – inner” and “City – remainder” SLAs combined. In 2006, “City – inner” accounted for 62% of the entire SA2 employment population, but the public transport mode share of the overall combined area was only about 1% lower than “City – inner”.

This Brisbane SA2 area is shown in green on the following map (the area in yellow represents Fortitude Valley and South Brisbane, referred to later in this post).

Adelaide

The City of Adelaide LGA (which includes North Adelaide). The new SA2 geography splits central Adelaide and North Adelaide, but historical data is not available at smaller resolution than the entire LGA. This area is shown in green in the following map:

Perth

The City of Perth LGA. While there are smaller SLAs and SA2s, there is weak correspondence between the old and new geographies so I had to use local government boundaries instead. This area is shown in green on the following map:

As these central city areas are not consistently defined, comparisons between cities need to be made with caution. That said, the high employment density core of the city is likely to dominate any geography that includes the CBD. For example, of the 94,764 people who travelled to the City of Adelaide, only 7501 travelled to North Adelaide, with the remainder travelling to central Adelaide. Thus, central Adelaide is likely to dominate the results for the City of Adelaide area.

Mode shares for journeys to work in city centres

Previous posts have looked at public transport mode share overall for cities, and journey to work by work location for some cities (Brisbane 2006 and 2011, Sydney 2006, Melbourne 2006 with more to come). Here’s a look at the mode split for city centre areas (as defined above).

Note:

as discussed above the central areas for Melbourne and Melbourne+ in 2011 are larger that for in 2001 and 2006
Adelaide “2011i” refers to central Adelaide excluding North Adelaide.

The chart shows public and active transport mode share increasing in all cities, with the exception of Sydney where there was an increase in private transport use between 2001 and 2006. Public transport dominates in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, with Perth now roughly evenly split between private and public transport, and private transport still being in the majority in central Adelaide. Active transport (walk/cycle) has posted significant gains in all city centres, with Melbourne having the highest share (9.0% in 2011) followed by Sydney (7.9%) and Brisbane (7.8%), with Perth the lowest (6.4%).

The above chart shows central Perth has having the strongest mode shift to public transport (in no small part due to the opening of the Mandurah rail line in late 2007), followed by Brisbane, and (perhaps surprisingly) then Melbourne (although Melbourne’s poorer performance may be related to the change in geographic boundaries as discussed above). Adelaide and Sydney were the laggards of public transport mode shift between 2006 and 2011.

Again, Perth is the stand-out in mode shift away from private transport in 2011.

Here is another look on the above mode split data with a little more detail, assigning each journey a “main mode” (precedence given to train, bus, any other public transport, vehicle driver, vehicle passengers, bicycle, in that order).

This chart shows trains accounting for around half of all journeys to work in central Sydney and Melbourne and buses being a significant mode in all cities except Melbourne where trams have a significant share. Notably Melbourne’s tram mode share is smaller than all the other cities’ bus mode shares. I note that Sydney is now moving to light rail to try to alleviate CBD bus congestion. Trains delivered less than 10% of central Adelaide commuters to work.

Vehicle passenger journeys are much more common in Adelaide (8.2%) and least common in Sydney, but are in decline in all cities, suggesting a move away from car pooling.

Central Melbourne is the leader in cycling with 3.3% of journeys primarily by bicycle, with Sydney the lowest bicycle share (1.4%).

Number of car journeys to city centres

The following chart shows the absolute change in the number of people whose primary method of journey to work was vehicle driver.

*Caution should be applied for Melbourne, as the 2011 geographic area included additional area that in 2006 (and that areas had a lower public transport mode share in 2006).

The stand-out result is Melbourne+, which indicates a lot more vehicle driver commuter trips generated as Docklands and Southbank employment centres expand. Public transport’s mode share for Southbank and Docklands combined increased from 39.4% in 2006 to 46.8% in 2011, but this was not enough to stop an increase in the overall number of vehicle driver trips. My understanding is that parking costs are generally cheaper in Southbank and Docklands compared to the CBD core.

There was a decline in city centre commuter car parking requirements in Sydney, Brisbane and Perth between 2006 and 2011, while central Adelaide had a substantial increase in vehicle driver commuters (despite some mode shift to public transport), no doubt putting pressure on traffic congestion.

Share of jobs in city centres

Are jobs within metropolitan areas concentrating within city centres? The following chart shows the percentage of metropolitan jobs located within the city centre areas defined above, as well as a wider city centre definition for Brisbane.

Comparing cities is dangerous as there is not a consistent definition of city centre. What the data does show is that central Perth is reducing its share of metropolitan jobs, central Adelaide’s share seems relatively static, central Sydney’s share is growing, and for Melbourne and Brisbane, the central city share is growing but only if you also include nearby employment-focussed areas (Southbank and Docklands for Melbourne, South Brisbane and Fortitude Valley for Brisbane).

In the above analysis I have used my own definitions for metropolitan areas, as ABS have changed from using Statistical Divisions to sometimes larger Greater Capital City Statistical Areas for metropolitan areas. See the appendix at the end of this post for how I have defined metropolitan regions.

Comparing journeys to work inside and outside city centres

Here is a chart comparing 2011 public transport mode shares for journeys to work inside city centres, outside city centres, and for each city overall:

The differences are very stark, but as you might expect as it is generally easier to drive and cheaper to park at workplaces outside the city centre (plus public transport service quality is often lower). Note that many city fringe areas are included in the “outside city centre” figures, and public transport mode shares are generally higher in these areas, and lower further out. You can see the mode share for trips to workplaces outside “Melbourne+” (Melbourne + Southbank + Docklands) is only 9%.

Here’s the trend for public transport mode share to destinations outside city centres, showing increases between 2006 and 2011 for all cities except Adelaide.

The following chart shows that mode shifts to public transport have been much higher in central city areas for Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide, but not Sydney (low mode shift to both city centre and elsewhere) and Melbourne. Mode shift to public transport outside the “Melbourne+” city centre was just over 1%.

Growth in public transport for journeys to work versus all purposes

The following chart compares the growth in the absolute number of people choosing public transport to get to work (between census 2006 and 2011), versus overall growth in public transport patronage (comparing financial years 2010-11 to 2005-06).

Note: For Brisbane, the overall patronage growth figure refers to all of South East Queensland (SEQ).

In all cities except Melbourne, the number of public transport journeys to work increased faster than overall patronage, suggesting growth in public transport use for other trip purposes was weaker.

Do city centres dominate journeys to work by public transport?

We think of city centres as the main workplace location where people would use public transport to get to work. But is this accurate?

The answer is yes in the smaller cities, no in Sydney, and in Melbourne it depends on whether you include Southbank and Docklands.

Conclusions

We have seen that:

Public transport is the dominant mode of journeys to work in city centres in the larger cities, but a minority mode in central Adelaide
Perth has shown the greatest shift to public transport for travel to the central city
Melbourne has shown the greatest shift to public transport for journeys to work overall
Melbourne has the highest active transport (and bicycle-only) mode share for journeys to city centres
In Brisbane, Perth and probably the Melbourne CBD, there was a net decline in private vehicles being driven to city centres for work between 2001 and 2011
Public transport’s share of journeys to workplaces outside city centres is much lower in all cities
Mode shift to public transport for journeys to work was higher for city centres except Sydney and Melbourne
Growth in public transport use for journeys to work was higher than overall public transport patronage growth in all cities except Melbourne
The central city share of all metropolitan jobs is increasing in Sydney, Melbourne (when Southbank and Docklands are included), and to a lessor extent Adelaide. Central Perth and Brisbane are declining in their share of metropolitan jobs.
Most public transport journeys to work in the smaller cities are to the city centre, but this is not the case for Sydney and Melbourne (without Southbank and Docklands)

Appendix: Common definitions of city metropolitan regions 2001-2011

The change in ABS geography makes it difficult to have a fair time series estimate of the total number of jobs in each metropolitan area. To try for maximum consistency across the change, I have calculated the number of jobs in each city as follows:

Melbourne: Melbourne Statistical Division, plus Shire of Yarra Ranges – Part B (ie includes all of the Shire of Yarra Ranges)

Perth: Perth Statistical Division plus the City of Mandurah (which was incorporated into the Greater Perth definition in 2011)

Brisbane: The Greater Brisbane Capital City Geographic Area, which for 2006 was approximated by the Brisbane Statistical Division plus the SLAs of Beaudesert Part C, Beenleigh, Bethania-Waterford, Boonah, Eagleby, Edens Landing-Holmview, Esk, Kilcoy, Laidley, Mt Warren Park and Wolfdene-Bahrs Scrub.

Sydney: there are very few differences between the Sydney Statistical Division and Greater Sydney, so I assumed equivalence.

Adelaide: All LGAs in the Adelaide Statistical Division, including all parts of the Adelaide Hills Council.

4 Comments | Australian Cities, Mode share, Mode shift | Tagged: Census Journey to Work | Permalink
Posted by chrisloader

Trends in journey to work mode shares in Australian cities to 2011

Tue 30 October, 2012

[updated December 2012 with more Canberra and Hobart data, and removing ‘method of travel not stated’ from all mode share calculations]

The ABS has just released census data for the 2011 journey to work (amongst other things). This post takes a city-level view of mode share trends.

Public transport

The following chart shows the public transport share for journeys to work for people within Statistical Divisions (up to 2006) and Greater Capital City Statistical Areas (for 2011) for each of the Australian major capital cities.

You can see 2011 increases in public transport more share in all cities except Adelaide, Hobart and Canberra. Melbourne grew by 2.2%, Perth by 2.1%, Sydney by 2.0%, Brisbane by 1.1% while Adelaide, Canberra and Hobart dropped by 0.1%.

But there are limitations of this data:

Census data is usually available by place of enumeration (where you actually were on census night) and/or place of usual residence. In the above chart the following years are by place of enumeration: 1991, 2001, 2006, 2011. I am just not sure whether the other years are place of enumeration or place of usual residence (ABS were unfortunately not as rigorous with their labelling of data tables in the past). There may be small differences in the results for place of usual residence.
The data available to me has been summarised in a “lossy” fashion when it comes to public transport mode share. It means that a journey involving tram or ferry and one or more non-PT modes is not counted as public transport in any of the results (it falls under “other two modes” or “other three modes” which includes PT and non PT journeys). For example, car + ferry or bicycle + tram. That means the true share of trips involving public transport will be slightly higher than the charts above, particularly for Melbourne and Sydney.
The 2011 figures relate to Greater Capital City Statistical Areas. For Perth, Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane and Hobart these are larger than the statistical divisions used for 2006 and early data. This means people on the fringe are now included, and they are likely to have lower rates of public transport use. So the underlying trends are likely to be higher growth in public transport mode share.

The limitations in counting of tram and ferry trips can be overcome by measuring mode share by workplace location, although I can only get such data for 2001, 2006 and 2011:

These figures are all higher because they include people travelling to work in the metropolitan areas from outside (where PT might have a higher mode share via rail networks for example) and they count all journeys involving ferry and tram. Between 2006 and 2011, Melbourne grew the fastest – by 2.4%, Sydney and Perth were up 2.0%, Brisbane up 1.2% and very little change in Adelaide, Canberra and Hobart.

Cycling

The following chart shows cycling only journey to work mode share:

(Adelaide and Perth are both on 1.3% in 2011)

Canberra is the stand-out city, owing to a good network of off-road bicycle paths through the city. But Melbourne has shown the fastest increase, going from 1.o% in 2001 to 1.6% in 2011.

Adelaide, Perth, Brisbane and Melbourne had a significant drop between 1991 and 1996, but this did not occur in Hobart, Canberra or Sydney.

Canberra, Melbourne and Sydney have shown the most growth in recent times. Adelaide and Hobart unfortunately went backwards in 2011. I’m not sure why Adelaide dropped so much, maybe it was a product of weather on the two census days?

Here’s another view that includes journeys with bicycle and other modes (by work location, not home location):

Perth and Canberra had the largest growth in journeys involving cycling and other modes.

Walking only

Walking only rose in all cities 2001 to 2006, but then fell in most cities between 2006 and 2011 (Perth and Brisbane the exceptions). Perhaps surprisingly, Hobart had a higher rates of walking to work than all other cities.

Car

The following chart shows the proportion of journeys to work made by car only (either as driver or passenger):

(both Adelaide and Hobart were on 82.7% in 2011)

You can see car mode share peaked in 1996 in all cities except Canberra where it peaked in 2001, and Hobart where the 2011 result was just under the 1996 result.

Hobart, Adelaide and Canberra had small rises in 2011 (1.0%, 0.4% and 0.1% respectively) while Perth had the biggest drop in car mode share (down 2.6%), followed by Melbourne (down 2.0%), Sydney (down 1.8%) and Brisbane (down 0.9%).

Vehicle passenger

Travel as a vehicle passenger has declined in all cities, suggesting we are doing a lot less car pooling and commuter vehicle occupancy is continuing to decline in line with increasing car ownership. Curiously Hobart and Canberra topped the cities for vehicle passenger mode share.

Overall mode split

Because of the issue of under-counting of tram and ferry data for place of enumeration, I’ve constructed the following chart using place of work and a “main mode” summary:

I assigned a ‘main mode’ based on a hierarchy as follows:

Any journey involving train is counted with the main mode as train
Any other journey involving bus is counted with the main mode as bus
Any other journey involving tram and/or ferry is counted as “PT Other”
Any other journey involving car as driver, truck or motorbike/scooter is counted as “vehicle driver”
Any other journey involving car as passenger or taxi is counted as “vehicle passenger

In future posts I plan to look at the change in spatial distribution of journey to work mode share (by home and work location).

I’d like to acknowledge Dr John Stone for assistance with historical journey to work data.

9 Comments | Australian Cities, Brisbane, Cycling, Melbourne, Mode share, Mode shift, Sydney | Tagged: Census Journey to Work | Permalink
Posted by chrisloader

Charting Transport

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Twitter Updates

RSS feeds for this blog

Recent Posts

Blog Stats

Tags