Comparing the densities of Australian, European, Canadian, and New Zealand cities

Thu 26 November, 2015

[updated March 2016 to add Canadian and New Zealand cities]

Just how much denser are European cities compared to Australian cities? What about Canadian and New Zealand cities? And does Australian style suburbia exist in European cities?

This post calculates the population-weighted density of 53 Australian, European, and Canadian cities with a population over 1 million, plus the three largest New Zealand cities (only Auckland is over 1 million population). It also shows a breakdown of the densities at which these cities’ residents live, and includes a set of density maps with identical scale and density shading.

Why Population Weighted Density?

As discussed in previous posts, population-weighted density attempts to measure the density at which the average city resident lives. Rather than divide the total population of a city by the entire city area (which usually includes large amounts of sparsely populated land), population weighted density is a weighted average of population density of all the parcels that make up the city. As I’ve shown previously, the size of the parcels used makes a big difference in the calculation of population-weighted density, which makes comparing cities difficult internationally.

To overcome the issue of different parcel sizes, I’ve used kilometre grid population data that is now available for both Europe and Australia. I’ve also generated my own kilometre population grids for Canadian and New Zealand cities by proportionally summing populations of the smallest census parcels available.

Some measures of density exclude all non-residential land, but the square kilometre grid approach means that partially populated grid parcels are counted, and many of these parcels will include non-residential land, and possibly even large amounts of water. It’s not perfect, particularly for cities with small footprints. For example, here is a density map around Sydney harbour (where light green is lower density, dark green is medium density and red is higher density):

Sydney harbour

You can see that many of the grid cells that include significant amounts of water show a lower density, when it fact the population of those cells are contained within the non-water parts of the grid cell. The more watery cells, the lower the calculated density. This is could count against a city like Sydney with a large harbour.

Defining cities

The second challenge with these calculations is a definition of the city limits. For Australia I’ve used Urban Centre boundaries, which attempt to include contiguous urbanised areas (read the full definition). For Europe I’ve used 2011 Morphological Urban Areas, which have fairly similar rules for boundaries. For Canada I’ve used Population Centre, and for New Zealand I’ve used Urban Areas.

These methodologies tend to exclude satellite towns of cities (less so in New Zealand and Canada). While these boundaries are not determined in the exactly the same way, one good thing about population-weighted density is that parcels of land that have very little population don’t have much impact on the overall result (because their low population has little weighting).

For each city, I’ve included every grid cell where the centroid of that cell is within the defined boundaries of the city. Yes that’s slightly arbitrary and not ideal for cities with dense cores on coastlines, but at least I’ve been consistent. It also means some of the cells around the boundary are excluded from the calculation, which to some extent offsets the coastline issues. It also means the values for Australian cities are slightly different to a previous post.

All source data is dated 2011, except for France which is 2010, and New Zealand which is 2013.

Comparing population-weighted density of Australian, European, Canadian and New Zealand cities

AU EU CA NZ Population Weighted Density

You can see the five Australian cities are all at the bottom, most UK cities are in the bottom third, and the four large Spanish cities are within the top seven.

Sydney is not far below Glasgow and Helsinki. Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane are nothing like the European cities when it comes to (average) population-weighted density.

Three Canadian cities (Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal) are mid-range, while the other three are more comparable with Australia. Of the New Zealand cities, Auckland is surprisingly more dense than Melbourne. Wellington is more dense that Vancouver (both topographically constrained cities).

But these figures are only averages, which makes we wonder…

How much diversity is there in urban density?

The following chart shows the proportion of each city’s population that lives at various urban density ranges:

AU EU CA NZ urban density distribution

Because of the massive variations in density, I had to break the scale interval sizes at 100 persons per hectare, and even then, the low density Australian cities are almost entirely composed of the bottom two intervals. You can see a lot of density diversity across European cities, and very little in Australian cities, except perhaps for Sydney.

You can also see that only 10% of Barcelona has an urban density similar to Perth or Adelaide. Which makes me wonder…

Do many people in European cities live at typical Australian suburban densities?

Do many Europeans living in cities live in detached dwellings with backyards, as is so common in Australian cities?

To try to answer this question, I’ve calculated the percentage of the population of each city that lives at between 10 and 30 people per hectare, which is a generous interpretation of typical Australian “suburbia”.

AU EU CA NZ cities percent at 10 to 30 per hectare

It’s a minority of the population in all European cities (and even for Sydney). But it does exist. Here are examples of Australian-style suburbia in outer Hamburg, Berlin, London, Milan, and even Barcelona (though I hate to think what some of the property prices might be!)

How different is population-weighted density from regular density?

Now that I’ve got a large sample of cities, I can compare regular density with population weighted densities (PWD):

PWD v regular density 2

The correlation is relatively high, but there are plenty of outliers, and rankings are very different. Rome has a regular density of 18, but a PWD of 89, while London has a regular density of 41 and PWD of 80. Dublin’s regular density of 31 is relatively close to its PWD of 47.

Wellington’s regular density is 17, but its PWD is 49 (though the New Zealand cities regular density values are impacted by larger inclusions of non-urbanised land within definitions of Urban Areas).

So what does the density of these cities look like on a map?

The following maps are all at the same scale both geographically and for density shading. The blue outlines are urban area boundaries, and the black lines represent rail lines (passenger or otherwise, and including some tramways). The density values are in persons per square kilometre (1000 persons per square kilometre = 10 persons per hectare). (Apologies for not having coastlines and for some of the blue labels being difficult to read).

Here’s Barcelona (and several neighbouring towns), Europe’s densest large city, hemmed in by hills and a coastline:

Barcelona

At the other extreme, here is Perth, a sea of low density and the only city that doesn’t fit on one tile at the same scale as the other cities (Mandurah is cut off in the south):

 

Perth

Here is Paris, where you can see the small high density inner core matches the high density Metro railway area:

Paris

Similarly the dense inner core of London correlates with the inner area covered by a mesh of radial and orbital railways, with relatively lower density outer London more dominated by radial railways:

London

There are many more interesting patterns in other cities.

What does this mean for transport?

Few people would disagree that higher population densities increase the viability of high frequency public transport services, and enable higher non-car mode shares – all other things being equal. But many (notably including the late Paul Mees) would argue that “density is not destiny” – and that careful design of public and active transport systems is critical to transport outcomes.

Zurich is a city often lauded for the high quality of its public transport system, and its population weighted density is 51 persons/ha (calculated on the kilometre grid data for a population of 768,000 people) – which is quite low relative to larger European cities.

In a future post I’ll look at the relationship between population-weighted density and transport mode shares in European cities.

All the density maps

Finally, here is a gallery of grid density maps of all the cities for your perusing pleasure (plus Zurich, plus many smaller neighbouring cities that fit onto the maps). All maps have the same scale and density shading colours.

Please note that the New Zealand and Canada maps do not include all nearby urbanised areas. Apologies that the formats are not all identical.

23 Comments | Australian Cities, Brisbane, Melbourne, Sydney, Urban density | Permalink
Posted by chrisloader

Are Australian cities becoming denser?

Tue 5 November, 2013

Please refer to a fully revised second edition of this post – published in April 2019.

[Updated April 2017 with 2015-16 population estimates. First published November 2013]

While Australian cities have been growing outwards with new suburbia, they have also been getting denser in established areas, and the new areas on the fringe are often more dense than growth areas used to be (see last post). So what’s the net effect – are Australian cities getting more or less dense?

This post also explores measures of population-weighted density for Australian cities large and small over time. It also tries to resolve some of the issues in the calculation methodology by using square kilometre geometry, looks at longer term trends for Australian cities, and then compares multiple density measures for Melbourne over time.

Measuring density

Under the traditional measure of density, you’d simply divide the population of a city by the metropolitan area’s area (in hectares). As the boundary of the metropolitan areas seldom change, the average density would simply increase in line with population with this measure. But that density value would also be way below the density at which the average resident lives because of the inclusion of vast swaths of unpopulated land within “metropolitan areas”, and so be not very meaningful.

Enter population-weighted density (which I’ve looked at previously here and here). Population-weighted density takes a weighted average of the density of all parcels of land that make up a city, with each parcel weighted by its population. One way to think about it is the residential density in which the “average resident” lives.

So the large low-density parcels of rural land outside the urbanised area but inside the “metropolitan area” count very little in the weighted average because of their small population relative to the urbanised areas. This means population-weighted density goes a long way to overcoming having to worry about the boundaries of the “urban area” of a city. Indeed, in a previous post I found that removing low density parcels of land had very little impact on calculations of population-weighted density for Australian cities. However, the size of the parcels of land used in a population-weighted density calculation will have an impact, as we will see shortly.

Calculations of population-weighted density can answer the question about whether the “average density” of a city has been increasing or decreasing. But as we will see below, using geographic regions put together by statisticians based on historical boundaries is not always a fair way to compare different cities.

Population-weighted density of Australian cities over time

Firstly, here is a look at population-weighted density of the five largest Australian cities (as defined by ABS Significant Urban Areas), measured at SA2 level (the smallest geography for which there exists a good consistent set of time-series estimates). SA2s roughly equate to suburbs.

According to this data, most cities bottomed out in density in the mid 1990s. Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane have shown the fastest rates of densification in the last three years.

What about smaller Australian cities? (120,000+ residents in 2014):

Darwin comes out as the third most dense city in Australia on this measure, with Brisbane rising quickly in recent years into fourth place. Most cities have shown densification in recent times, with the main exception being Townsville. On an SA2 level, population weighted density in Perth hardly rose at all in 2015-16 (a year when 92% of population growth was in the outer suburbs)

However, we need to sanity test these values. Old-school suburban areas of Australian cities typically have a density of around 15 persons per hectare, so the values for Geelong, Newcastle, Darwin, Townsville, and Hobart all seem a bit too low for anyone who has visited them. I’d suggest the results may well be an artefact of the arbitrary geographic boundaries used – and this effect would be greater for smaller cities because they would have more SA2s on the interface between urban and rural areas (indeed all of those cities are less than 210,000 in population).

For reference, here are the June 2014 populations of all the above cities:

Australian cities population 2014

The following map shows Hobart, with meshblock boundaries in black (very small blocks indicate urban areas), SA2s in pink, and the Significant Urban Area (SUA) boundary in green.  You can see that many of the SA2s within the Hobart SUA have pockets of dense urban settlement, together with large areas that are non-urban – ie SA2s on the urban/rural interface. The density of these pockets will be washed out because of the size of the SA2s.

Hobart SUA image

Reducing the impact of arbitrary geographic boundaries

As we saw above, the population-weighted density results for smaller cities were very low, and probably not reflective of the actual typical densities, which might be caused by arbitrary geographic boundaries.

Thankfully ABS have followed Europe and released of a square kilometre grid density for Australia which ensures that geographic zones are all the same size. While it is still somewhat arbitrary where exactly this grid falls on any given city, it is arguably less arbitrary than geographic zones that follow traditional notions of area boundaries.

Using that data, I’ve been able to calculate population weighted density for the larger cities of Australia. The following chart shows those values compared to values calculated on SA2 geography:

pop weighted density 2011 grid and SA2 australian cities

You’ll see that the five smaller cities (Newcastle, Hobart, Geelong, Townsville and Cairns) that had very low results at SA2 level get more realistic values on the kilometre grid.

You’ll notice that most cities (except big Melbourne and Sydney) are in the 15 to 18 persons per hectare range, which is around typical Australian suburban density.

While the Hobart figure is higher using the grid geography, it’s still quite low (indeed the lowest of all the cities). You’ll notice on the map above that urban Hobart hugs the quite wide and windy Derwent River, and as such a larger portion of Hobart’s grid squares are likely to contain both urban and water portions – with the water portions washing out the density (pardon the pun!). While most other cities also have some coastline, much more of Hobart’s urban settlement is near to a coastline.

But stepping back, every city has urban/rural and/or urban/water boundaries and the boundary has to be drawn somewhere. So smaller cities are always going to have a higher proportion of their land parcels being on the interface – and this is even more the case if you are using larger parcel sizes. There is also the issue of what “satellite” urban settlements to include within a city which ultimately becomes arbitrary at some point. Perhaps there is some way of adjusting for this interface effect depending on the size of the city, but I’m not going to attempt to resolve it in this post.

International comparisons of population-weighted density

See another post for some international comparisons using square km grids.

Changes in density of larger Australian cities since 1981

We can also calculate population-weighted density back to 1981 using the larger SA3 geography. An SA3 is roughly similar to a local government area (in Melbourne at least), so getting quite large and including more non-urban land. Also, as Significant Urban Areas are defined only at the SA2 level, I need to resort to Greater Capital City Statistical Areas for the next chart:

This shows that most cities were getting less dense in the 1980s (Melbourne quite dramatically), with the notable exception of Perth. I expect these trends could be related to changes in housing/planning policy over time. This calculation has Adelaide ahead of the other smaller cities – which is different ordering to the SA2 calculations above.

On the SA3 level, Perth declined in population-weighted density in 2015-16.

When measured at SA2 level, the four smaller cities had almost the same density in 2011, but at SA3 level, there is more separating them. My guess is that the arbitrary nature of geographic boundaries is having an impact here. Also, the share of SA3s in a city that are on the urban/rural interface is likely to be higher, which again will have more impact for smaller cities. Indeed the trend for the ACT at SA3 level is very different to Canberra at SA2 level.

Melbourne’s population-weighted density over time

I’ve taken a more detailed look at my home city Melbourne, using all available ABS population figures for the geographic units ranging from mesh blocks to SA3s inside “Greater Melbourne” (as defined in 2011) or inside the Melbourne Significant Urban Area (SUA, where marked), to produce the following chart:

Note: I’ve calculated population-weighted density at the SA2 level for both the Greater Capital City Statistical Area (ie “Greater Melbourne”, which includes Bacchus Marsh, Gisborne and Wallan) and the Melbourne Significant Urban Area (slightly smaller), which yield slightly different values.

All of the time series data suggests 1994 was the turning point in Melbourne where the population-weighted density started increasing (not that 1994 was a particularly momentous year – the population-weighted density increased by a whopping 0.0559 persons per hectare in the year to June 1995 (measured at SA2 level for Greater Melbourne)).

You’ll also note that the density values are very different when measured on different geographic units. That’s because larger units include more of a mix of residential and non-residential land. The highest density values are calculated using mesh blocks (MB), which often separate out even small pockets of non-residential land (eg local parks). Indeed 25% of mesh blocks in Australia had zero population, while only 2% of SA1s had zero population (at the 2011 census). At the other end of the scale, SA3s are roughly the size of local councils and include parklands, employment land, rural land, airports, freeways, etc which dilutes their average density.

In the case of SA2 and SA3 units, the same geographic areas have been used in the data for all years. On the other hand, Census Collector Districts (CD) often changed between each five-yearly census, but I am assuming the guidelines for their creation would not have changed significantly.

Now why is a transport blog so interested in density again? There is a suggested relationship between (potential) public transport efficiency and urban density – ie there will be more potential customers per route kilometre in a denser area. In reality longer distance public transport services are going to be mostly serving the larger urban blob that is a city – and these vehicles need to pass large parklands, industrial areas, water bodies, etc to connect urban origins and destinations. The relevant density measure to consider for such services might best be based on larger geographic areas – eg SA3. Buses are more likely to be serving only urbanised areas, and so are perhaps more dependent on residential density – best calculated on a smaller geographic scale, probably km grid (somewhere between SA1 and SA2).

You may also like

3 Comments | Australian Cities, Brisbane, Melbourne, Sydney, Urban density, Urban Planning | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by chrisloader

Spatial changes in Sydney journey to work 2006-2011

Sun 25 November, 2012

How have mode shares of journeys to work from different home locations in Sydney changed between 2006 and 2011? What has the impact been of the new T-Ways and the Epping-Chatswood railway?

In my recent post on city level mode share changes we saw that Sydney had a 2.1% mode shift to public transport between 2006 and 2011. This post will uncover which areas shifted the most. For more analysis of patterns in the 2006 journey to work, see an earlier post.

The following animations show various mode shares for journeys to work from Census Collection Districts for 2006 and Statistical Area Level 1 (SA1) for 2011, with a minimum density of 3 workers travelled per hectare. These are the smallest geographies available for each census. All the data is by place of usual residence. I’ve animated each image to alternate between 2006 and 2011, so you can gaze at them and spot the changes. You’ll need to click on them to enlarge and see the animation.

Public transport

A shift to public transport is particularly evident in the north-western suburbs between Blacktown, Castle Hill and Epping. This is like to be a result of the new T-Ways (busways) between Parramatta, Blacktown and Rouse Hill, and express bus services from the area to the city along bus lanes on the M2 motorway.

There is also some evidence of mode shift along the Cronulla rail line.

Many new patches of green appear in the 2011 map which were blank in the 2006 map. I’m not sure if these are a result of the changed ABS geography (CD to SA1), or new transit orientated developments (I suspect mostly the former).

Sustainable transport (only)

This map excludes those who used private transport to reach public transport.

As well as the above public transport shifts, shifts to sustainable transport are evident around Turramurra and Forestville in the northern suburbs.

Train

Areas with a noticeable shift to train include Hornsby, Quakers Hill and Epping.

There is little change evident around the new Epping-Chatswood rail line, other than for a small residential pocket near Macquarie University station. Most of the stations on the new line are surrounded by non-residential land uses and show up as white. There has been quite a substantial impact on the public transport share of journeys to workplaces along the new line, which you’ll see in an upcoming post.

Bus

A shift to bus is most evident in the region between Parramatta and Castle Hill (as mentioned above).

Ferry

(ferry wharves are shown as blue dots)

Shifts to ferry are most evident around Manly, Balmain, and Watsons Bay (which is a little odd as it does not have peak period services).

Train and bus

43,815 people in Greater Sydney travelled to work by train and bus (and no other modes except walking) in 2011, up from 34,377 in 2006.

Journeys involving train and bus remain most heavily concentrated around Bondi Beach, where special cheap integrated train/bus link tickets are available. Areas with some shift to train and bus travel include Epping, south of Blacktown, Bossley and St Johns Park (served by the Liverpool-Parramatta T-way), and North Parramatta.

Multiple public transport modes

Here is a summary over the Greater Sydney area of journeys using single and multiple public transport modes (using place of enumeration data and thus losing journeys with ferry + non PT modes):

Sydney’s public transport mode share went backwards between 2001 and 2006, particularly for multi-modal public transport trips. There was a strong shift towards public transport between 2006 and 2011, with roughly equal growth in single mode and multi-mode public transport journeys. The data doesn’t tell us whether this represents a shift from single mode to multi-modal journeys (following the change to the fare system in April 2010).

Mode shift to public transport overall

Here’s a map showing the overall mode share to public transport in Statistical Local Areas (SLAs), the smallest geography where data is available for both 2006 and 2011 (you’ll need to click to enlarge).

The biggest mode shifts are in different locations when aggregated at the SLA level. The biggest shifts were in Hornsby south, Concord, Manly, Parramatta north west and Baulkham Hills. I suspect the large mode shift in Hornsby south is a result of the new train line connecting this area to the major employment areas around Macquarie Park.

Campbelltown south was the only SLA to record a mode shift away from public transport.

Walking only

I cannot spot any significant shifts between 2006 and 2011.

Cycling

There were quite noticeable shifts to cycling in the inner south and around Manly. The total number of people cycling as part of their journey to workplaces in Sydney went from 12,128 in 2006 to 17,838 in 2011.

Here is an enlargement of the inner suburban areas:

 

Cycling’s mode share peaked at 21% in a pocket of Redfern between Telopea Street and Phillip Street, closely followed by a pocket of Dulwich Hill around Kintore Street at 20%.

I’m sure other people will find more patterns in these maps – please comment on any interesting finds.

2 Comments | Mode share, Mode shift, Sydney | Tagged: | 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.

PT mode share trend

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:

PT mode share by workplace trend

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:

cycling only mode share trend

(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):

Bicycle any mode share

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

Walking only

walking only mode share trend

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):

car only mode share

(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

Vehicle passenger by work location

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:

 

work dest mode split 2001-2011

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: | Permalink
Posted by chrisloader

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »