How do commuting distances vary across Australian cities?

Mon 9 October, 2023

Having previously analysed commuting distances in Melbourne and Victoria, this post turns attention to other Australian cities. I’ll answer questions such as: Where are there longer commutes? What might explain differences in commute distances? How long are commutes in outer urban growth areas in different cities?

I’m using ABS calculated on-road distances between homes and regular workplaces from the 2021 census, regardless of whether people travelled to work on census day. For more on the data and calculations see the last post.

How do median distances to work vary by city overall?

I’ve measured the median distance to work for both the usual residents and the workers of each greater capital city statistical area (GCCSA) for 2021. These are often a bit different because some people live and work in different GCCSAs, and I’ll come back to that.

The chart shows that the capital city areas all have longer median distances to work than other parts of each state, which is unsurprising. Here’s some comments on the cities in order:

  • Perth tops the chart with the longest median distances to work. Perth has a large and long low density footprint sprawled along the coastline, so long commuter distances are not hugely surprising.
  • Melbourne comes in second place. It is the largest city by area, but is more dense than Perth.
  • Brisbane comes in third place. Brisbane is slightly larger than Perth in area, but not stretched out quite so far, and with a larger population than Perth, but lower density than Melbourne.
  • Canberra is next. It’s a relatively small city so you might expect shorter commute distances, but overall it is quite a low density city with a fragmented urban structure (divided by green areas). It also has an extensive high-speed and rarely-congested highway network that makes driving longer distances relatively easy.
  • Sydney is next, the largest city by population and population density, and a city with multiple significant employment clusters, which probably contributes to a smaller median distance than most other big cities.
  • Darwin is a tiny city, but like Canberra it has a fragmented urban structure, and Darwin’s CBD is at the end of a peninsula (with a median distance for employees of 12 km), which probably contributes to relatively long median commutes.
  • Adelaide is the smallest of the five larger cities, with a mostly contiguous urban structure, which probably explains it’s lower median distances.
  • Hobart is another very small city, which probably explains shorter commutes, although it is split over a wide river mouth which would lengthen many commute distances.

On the chart you can also observe small differences between median distances for usual residents and workers in some cities that I think are worth mentioning:

  • Canberra has a longer median distance for workers, which probably reflects many workers living across the border in NSW.
  • Perth has a longer median distance for usual residents than workers, which might reflect fly-in-fly-out commuters who live in Perth.
  • Sydney and Melbourne have a longer median distance for workers, which might reflect commuters from outside the metropolitan area (particularly Melbourne’s many commuter towns which I explored in the last post).
  • Workers in the “rest of WA” and “rest of NT” have relatively long median distances, which I suspect reflects fly-in-fly-out employment in the resources sector.

How do distances to work vary across cities

I’ve already examined Melbourne in my last post. What follows are maps and some discussion for other cities, followed by some observations across the cities.

Sydney

(you might want to click/tap to expand some of these maps to see the detail more clearly)

Shorter median distances were found around in areas around the Sydney CBD, which is no surprise. Generally longer distances were seen in the growth areas to the south-west (including Oran Park, Leppington, Gledswood Hills, Gregory Hills, Edmondson), north-west (including Schofields, Marsden Park, Box Hill) and eastern Blue Mountains (including Springwood and Hazelbrook, but not Katoomba).

Other relative outliers include:

  • Bundeena in the far south-east (median distances up to 50 km), which is connected to the rest of Sydney by a very long and windy road journey through the Royal National Park, plus a short ferry to Cronulla (not considered by ABS when calculating commute distances).
  • Pockets of Bonnet Bay in the south (median distance of 26 km) which have a rather indirect access road to the rest of Sydney.
  • Palm Beach (median distance of 37 km) at the tip of the northern beaches region.

Does Sydney have commuter towns? Yes, but perhaps not as many as Melbourne. The map above shows long median distances as far as Hazelbrook in the west, and the map below shows several towns to the south that show longer median distances (many commuters from these towns might also work in Wollongong).

Here’s how Sydney looks for the ratio of jobs to workers in SA3s:

The outer south-west has a low ratio and is quite remote from any SA3 with a surplus of jobs, hence relatively long median distances to work. Some pockets of the north-west had low ratios, but were adjacent to higher ratio areas nearby.

Here are median distances to work by workplace destination zones (DZs):

Unlike Melbourne there were not large industrial areas with median distances over 20 km.

There were a few isolated pockets with long distances including Badgerys Creek (Western Sydney International Airport construction site), the Holsworthy Army Barracks, and Waterfall (maybe related to a rail depot).

Here’s the proportion of workers who were employed in central Sydney (including Sydney CBD, Haymarket, Millers Point, The Rocks):

Like most cities, the influence of the central city declines with distance from the CBD. Some relative anomalies for their distance include:

  • Outer north-western suburbs (including Baulkham Hills and Blacktown – North SA3s) have relatively high dependence on the Sydney CBD for jobs, and associated longer median commuter distances.
  • Bankstown is relatively close to the Sydney CBD but with with many SA2s below 10% for central city workers, perhaps reflecting relative socio-economic disadvantage.

South East Queensland

First up, Brisbane medians distances by home SA1:

The longest median distances can be found in some low density suburban areas around Jimboomba, Yarrabilba, New Beith, Lowood, and the Lockyer Valley. Some relatively long median distances were also seen around Ormeau and Pimpama (suburbs between Brisbane and the Gold Coast), Springfield Lakes, parts of Caboolture, and Bribie Island. Looking at the urban fabric, these appear to be mostly relatively modern low density residential estates (rather than old towns). I’m not seeing many commuter towns around Brisbane.

Curiously there are relatively short median distances around the outer suburban area of Ipswich in the west (I’ll come back to this).

Here’s the Gold Coast:

Median distances are mostly relatively short except for the northern fringe and around Tambourine Mountain in the hinterland. Jobs are much more distributed across the Gold Coast (see map below) compared to other cities dominated by one CBD, which might explain relatively short commute distances.

Here’s the Sunshine Coast:

Distances are relatively short except for the Glass House Mountains and Beerwah to the south (probably containing commuters to Brisbane and the Sunshine Coast).

Here’s how South East Queensland looks for jobs to workers ratio:

You can see surpluses of jobs in the central parts of Brisbane, the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast.

The outer suburban Ipswich area comes in surprisingly high at 0.8, which almost certainly explains the relatively shorter distances to work found in the area. I’m not very familiar with Brisbane’s urban history, but the presence of so many jobs in the Ipswich area is probably saving a fair amount commuting distance and taking some pressure of the transport network.

Jimboomba and The Hills District had a ratio as low as 0.3. Jimboomba’s low density, fragmented urban structure, lack of local jobs, and remoteness from the main Brisbane urban area likely explains the very long median distances to work, and likely high levels of car dependency.

Here are median distances to work by workplace DZs for the Brisbane area:

Long distances were seen around Brisbane Airport and the Port of Brisbane (24-25 km, both relatively remote from residential areas), the Yatala industrial areas on Brisbane’s outer south (25-26 km), Wacol (21 km, which is dominated by correctional facilities), Swanbank (22 km, dominated by power stations), and the RAAF Amberley air base in Rosewood (22 km).

Here is map showing the proportion of workers who worked in “central Brisbane” (defined as the Brisbane CBD plus Spring Hill SA2):

There aren’t huge anomalies by distance. But I might perhaps call out New Beith in the south, Elimbah in the north, and North Stradbroke Island in the east as relative outliers with not-so-low (5-10%) percentages working in central Brisbane. You can also see the Ipswich area had a low dependence on central Brisbane for employment, consistent with the relatively high rate of job self-sufficiency.

Perth

Perth has the longest median distance to work of all capital cities, and you can see many suburbs with relatively long distances, most acutely in the far-north around Two Rocks and Yanchep (several SA1s having a median above 40 km) and Yunderup (between Mandurah and Pinjarra in the south). Long median distances are seen north of Joondalup, throughout the satellite Ellenbrook region in the north-east, in Mount Helena and other hills towns to the east, around Byford in the south-east, around Wellard and Baldivis in the south, and in coastal areas between Rockingham and Mandurah.

I should point out that the map only includes Greater Perth SA1s. The SA2 of Chittering to the north east of Perth (including Muchea and Bindoon) has a median distance to work of 46 km, and 54% of its workers worked in Greater Perth (to which is it connected by a freeway). It contains quite a few very low density rural-living residential areas.

Here’s the jobs to worker ratio map:

There were very low ratios in the outer northern, eastern, and south-eastern suburbs, which explains the long median distances to work from these areas.

Here are median distances to work by workplace destination zones:

The longest medians were seen for Perth Airport and around the Kwinana industrial areas. Other destination zones with long distances are rural areas outside of Perth (not unexpected), plus Wadjemup (Rottnest Island) where distances are obviously not on-road but imputed to be 1.3 times the straight line distance. Many workers are likely to commute by ferry from Perth.

Here’s the proportion of workers who work in central Perth (defined as including the CBD, Northbridge and East Perth):

The dependence on central Perth extends a fair way into the jobs-poor northern suburbs. Both the northern suburbs train line and the Mitchell Freeway have been extended several times as the urban area has expanded, perhaps a case of transport-driven sprawl.

The CBD’s influence also extends a fair distance south including Wellard and Baldivis that have relatively long median distances to work (and are closer to the Kwinana Freeway than the Mandurah rail line).

Adelaide

Median distances to work were relatively short for most of the main contiguous urban area of Adelaide. Higher medians were seen in the detached urban areas of Gawler in the north, Aldinga Beach in the south, and many Adelaide Hills towns (particularly outer parts of Mount Barker).

Here is the jobs to workers ratio map:

The outer suburbs on all sides had low ratios and hence longer median distances to work.

Here are median distances to workplaces by destination zone:

Median distances are relatively short for most workplace areas with the relatively urban exceptions of North Haven / Outer Harbour (at the tip of a peninsula), and the RAAF Edinburgh air base in the north.

Canberra

Most areas of Canberra had median distances under 20km, except around Banks in the far south, and Googong to the south-east (over the border in New South Wales, where 73% of workers work in the ACT).

I’ve previously described towns with a very long median distance as commuter towns – and for Canberra this would include Murrumbateman, Gundaroo, Bungendore, and Collector.

Here is the jobs to worker ratio map for SA3s:

Canberra East had a huge ratio – only 532 workers lived in that SA3 dominated by employment land uses. Low ratios were seen in Tuggeranong in the south, Gungahlin in the north, and Queanbeyan to the east (which had a ratio 0.5 and 71% of workers in the Queanbeyan SA2 worked in the ACT).

An extremely low ratio of 0.1 was seen around the Molonglo Valley, but this area is right next door to jobs rich areas of central Canberra.

The Young – Yass SA3 to the north west of Canberra came in at 0.7, unusually low for a regional area suggesting some dependence on Canberra for jobs. In fact 52% of workers in Yass Surrounds and 34% of the Yass township worked in the ACT. The town of Yass had median distances to work mostly under 5 km, however the 75th percentile distances to work in many parts of Yass was over 40 km.

Here are median distances to work for workplace destination zones:

The only urban area with relatively long workplace median distances was Canberra airport.

I’m not going to do as detailed analysis for the smaller cities that follow.

Hobart

The main urban areas of Hobart had relatively short distances, with outlying commuters towns such as New Norfolk, Brighton, Sorell, Dodges Ferry, Snug, and particularly South Arm showing much longer medians.

Newcastle / Central Coast / Hunter region

Longer median distances are seen at several small urban areas between Wyong and Newcastle, around Kurri Kurri – Abermain. Branxton, Clarence Town, Lemon Tree Passage, and Tanilba Bay. Singleton, Cessnock, and Nelson Bay have relatively short median distances and are likely less reliant on Newcastle for employment.

Wollongong

Note data is not shown for urban areas around Robertson and Mittagong.

Median distances were mostly relatively short, with exceptions in the north (Helensburgh) and south (Albion Park, Kiama, and Gerringong) of what is also a skinny coast-hugging urban settlement pattern.

How do the urban growth areas of big cities compare?

For this analysis I’ve filtered for new (in 2021) outer urban growth SA1s, and calculated the population-weighted-average median distance to work of these SA1s aggregated to SA3 level (not a perfect calculation, but hopefully close enough).

Note: The Tullamarine – Broadmeadows SA3 in Melbourne is perhaps poorly named – it actually includes Craigieburn and stretches north to Mickleham.

The outer urban growth SA3s with the longest median distances to work (perhaps call them commuter suburbs) were Sunbury in Melbourne’s north-west, followed by Melton – Bacchus Marsh in Melbourne’s west, Jimboomba south of Brisbane, Rockingham and Kwinana south of Perth, and Bringelly – Green Valley in Sydney’s west.

The outer urban growth SA3s with the shortest median distances to work included those around the smaller city of Canberra, the Ipswich region of western Brisbane, and the Baulkham Hills region of north-western Sydney. New residents in these areas will be generating fewer commuter kilometres to their city’s transport task (relative to other outer growth areas).

You might be wondering why Adelaide is missing from the above chart. It is a city with quite slow population growth and did not have enough growth in each SA3s to qualify with my filters.

Here’s the same data aggregated up to city level, which shows Adelaide actually with the longest commute distances from outer growth areas, followed by Perth.

What can we take away from this city analysis?

Longer commute distances seem to be strongly associated with imbalances in the distribution of jobs and workers within cities, particularly where these imbalances stretch out over long distances (Perth being the classic example). That’s probably no great surprise to many readers.

So if a city wanted to reduce commuting distances (and therefore demand on its transport system) it could consider:

  • slowing urban sprawl – particularly in corridors which already have worker to jobs imbalances and long commute distances,
  • increasing residential densities around existing major employment clusters, and/or
  • attempting to distribute more employment to outside the CBD – probably easier said than done, but Sydney has done it successfully with relatively high public transport mode share, while Canberra has done it with low public transport mode share (~12%) in town centres.

6 Comments | Australian Cities, Brisbane, Perth, Sydney, Urban Planning | Tagged: | Permalink
Posted by chrisloader

How is population density changing in Australian cities? (2023 update)

Sat 10 June, 2023

With the release of more detailed 2021 census data and June 2022 population estimates, it’s now possible to look more closely at how Australia’s larger capital cities have changed, particularly following the onset of the COVID19 pandemic in 2020.

This post examines ABS population grid data for 2006 to 2023 for Greater Capital City Statistical Areas, including:

  • Trends in overall population-weighted density for cities;
  • Changes in the distribution of population living at different densities;
  • Changes in the distribution of population living at different distances from each city’s CBD;
  • Changes in population density by distance from each city’s CBD;
  • Changes in the distribution of population living at different distances from train and busway stations;
  • Changes in population density in areas close to train and busway stations;
  • The population density of “new” urban residential areas in each city (are cities sprawling at low density?); and
  • Changes in the size of the urban residential footprint of cities.

I’ve also got some animated maps showing the density of each city over those years, and I’ve had a bit of a look at how the ABS corrected population estimates for 2007 to 2021 following the release of 2021 census data.

For some other detailed analysis – and a longer history of city population density – see How is density changing in Australian cities? (2nd edition).

I’ve not included the smaller cities of Hobart and Darwin as they have a small footprint, and too many grid cells are on the edge of an urban area.

Population weighted density

My preferred measure of city density is population-weighted density, which takes a weighted average of the density all statistical areas in a city, with each area weighted by its population (this stops lightly populated rural areas pulling down average density – for more discussion see How is density changing in Australian cities? (2nd edition)).

I also prefer to calculate this measure on a consistent statistical area geography and the only consistent statistical area geography available for Australia is the square kilometre population grid published by the ABS.

With the recent release of 2021 census data, ABS issued revised population grid estimates for all years from 2017 onwards, which saw significant corrections in some cities (see appendix for more details). There has also been a slight change in the methodology for the 2021 grid that ABS say may result in a more ‘targeted representation’, but it’s unclear what that means.

Here’s the revised trend in population weighted density calculated on square km grid geography for Greater Capital City Statistical Areas in June of each year:

Sydney has almost double the population density of most other Australian cities (on this measure), with the exception being Melbourne which sits halfway in between.

Population weighted density was rising in all cities until 2019, although the growth was notably slowing in Sydney from about 2016.

The pandemic hit in March 2020 and led to a flatlining of density in Melbourne and a decline in Sydney by June 2020, while other cities continued to densify. Then Sydney and Melbourne’s population weighted density dropped considerably in the year to June 2021 – probably a combination an exodus of temporary international migrants and internal migration away from the big cities (particularly Melbourne that had experienced long lockdowns). Most other cities flatlined between June 2020 and June 2021.

Then by June 2022 density had increased again in all cities, after international borders reopened in early 2022.

I expect some fairly substantial changes between June 2022 and June 2023 in some cities as migration has surged further and rental vacancy rates have plummeted in several cities.

Population living at different densities

The following chart shows the proportion of the population in each city living at different density ranges over time:

All cities show a sustained pre-pandemic trend towards more people living at higher densities. However the pandemic saw significant drops in people living at the higher density categories in 2021 in Melbourne, Sydney, and Canberra.

So where was this loss of density? The next chart shows the change in population for grid squares across Melbourne between June 2020 and June 2021. Larger dots are more change, blue is an increase and orange is a decline:

You can see significant declines in population (and hence population density) in the inner city areas – so much so that the dots overlap. This is likely largely explained by the exodus of many international students and other temporary migrants.

You can also see population decline around Monash University’s Clayton campus in the south-eastern suburbs.

At the same time there were large increases in population in the outer growth areas, as is normally the case. Other pockets of population growth include Footscray, Moonee Ponds, Box Hill, Port Melbourne, Clayton (M-City), and Doncaster, likely related to the completion of new residential towers.

Here’s the same for Sydney:

There was significant population decline in the inner city and around Kensington (which has a major university campus), and the largest growth was seen in urban fringe growth areas to the north-west and south-west. Pockets of population growth were also seen at Wentworth Point, Eastgardens, Mascot, North Ryde, and Mays Hill, amongst others.

Here is the same for Brisbane:

Inner-city Brisbane was much more a mixed bag, which explains the less overall change in the density composition of the city. Some areas showed declines (including St Lucia, New Farm, Kelvin Grove, Coorparoo) while others saw increases (including Fortitude Valley, West End, South Brisbane, Buranda, CBD south).

Proportion of population living at different distances from the city centre

The next chart shows the proportion of people living at approximate distance bands from each city’s CBD over time:

All cities have seen a general trend towards more of their population living further from the CBD, with the notable exception of Canberra which has seen the outer urban fringe expanding by little more than a couple of kilometres at the most, and substantial in-fill housing at major town centres and the inner city (see also animated density map below). I should note that the Greater Capital City Statistical Area boundary for Canberra is simply the ACT boundary, and does not include the neighbouring NSW urban area of Queanbeyan, which is arguably functionally part of “greater Canberra”.

In 2021, Sydney and Melbourne saw a step change towards living further out, in line with the sudden reduction in central city population.

Population density by distance from a city’s CBD

Here’s an animated chart showing how population weighted density has varied by distance from each city’s CBD over time:

In most cities there has been a trend to significantly increasing density closer to the CBD, with central Melbourne overtaking central Sydney in 2017.

Sydney has maintained significantly higher density than all other cities at most distances from CBDs, with Melbourne a fair step behind, then most other cities flatten out to around 20-26 persons/ha from around 6+km out from their CBDs in 2022.

Canberra appears to flatten out to around 20 persons/ha at 3-4 kms from its CBD (Civic) however it is important to note that Canberra has a lot of non-residential land relatively close to Civic which reduces density for many grid cells that are on an urban fringe (refer maps toward the end of this post).

Population living near rapid transit stations

I’ve been maintaining a spatial data set of rapid transit stations (train and busway stations) including years of opening and closing, and from this it’s possible to assess what proportion of each city lives close to stations:

Sydney has the largest proportion of it’s population living quite close to rapid transit stations, with Perth having the lowest.

There are step changes on this chart where new train lines have opened. Sydney, Brisbane, and Adelaide have been successful at increasing population close to stations. The opening of the Mandurah rail line made a big difference in Perth in 2009 but the city has been growing remote from stations since then (MetroNet projects will probably turn this around significantly in the next few years). Melbourne was roughly keeping the same proportion of the population close to stations although that changed in 2021 with the exodus of inner city residents (I anticipate a substantial correction in 2023).

Population density around rapid transit stations

The following animated chart shows the aggregate population-weighted density for areas around rapid transit stations in the five biggest cities over time:

Sydney has lead Australia with higher densities around train stations, followed by Melbourne. Perth has only slightly higher densities around stations (in aggregate) compared to other parts of the city. Population density is generally lower around Adelaide train and busway stations compared to the rest of the city – the antithesis of transit orientated development.

How dense are new urban areas?

I’ve previously looked at the density of outer urban growth areas on my blog, and here is another way of looking at that using square kilometre grid data.

I’ve attempted to identify new urban residential grid squares by filtering for squares that averaged less than 5 persons per hectare in 2006 and more than 5 persons per hectare in 2022 (using 5 persons/ha as an arbitrary threshold for urban residential areas, and I think that’s a pretty low threshold).

The vast bulk of these grid cells (and associated population) are on the urban fringe, but a handful in each city are brownfield sites that were previously non-residential (for Melbourne 99% of the population of these grid cells are in urban fringe areas).

It’s also not perfect because square kilometre grid cells will often contain a mix of residential and non-residential land uses, but it is analysis that can be done easily and quickly, and in aggregate I expect it will be broadly indicate of overall patterns.

The following chart shows the population of new urban residential grid cells (since 2006), and the proportion of this population by 2022 population density:

You can see Melbourne has almost double the population in these new urban residential grid squares compared to Perth, Brisbane, and Sydney. This indicates Melbourne has been sprawling more than any other city since 2006. Slow-growing Adelaide only put on about 56k people in new urban grid squares, slightly less than Canberra.

The bottom half of the chart shows that new urban grid squares in Sydney, Melbourne, and Canberra are generally much more dense than those in other cities. This likely reflects planning policies for higher residential densities in new urban areas in those cities. In fact, all of these grid cells with density 40+ in 2022 are on the urban fringes, except one brownfield cell in Mascot (Sydney).

But of course planning policies can change over time, so here is the equivalent chart looking at new urban residential squares since 2012:

It’s not a lot different. The density of these more recent new urban residential grid cells is generally highest in Sydney, following by Melbourne and Canberra. New urban residential grid cells in Adelaide mostly had fewer than 20 persons/ha, but then also there are not that many such grid cells and they didn’t have much population in 2022.

Perth has managed one new grid cell with over 40 persons/ha in 2022 – it is located in Piara Waters (which has many single storey houses with tiny backyards).

How much has the urban footprint of cities been expanding?

The population grid data only measures residential population so it cannot be used to estimate the size of the total urban footprint of cities over time, but we can use it to estimate the urban residential footprint. I’ve again used 5 persons/ha as a threshold, and here’s how the cities have growth since 2006:

Melbourne and Sydney had much the same footprint in 2006 but Melbourne has since grown significantly larger in size than Sydney, although Sydney still has a larger Capital City Statistical Area population.

The bottom half of the chart shows that Perth has had the largest percentage growth in urban residential area, followed by Brisbane then Melbourne. Sydney and Adelaide have had the least growth in footprint, and are also seeing the least population growth in percentage terms.

Animated density maps of Australian cities

Here are some animated density maps for Australia’s six largest cities from 2006 to 2022 for you to ponder.

Some things to watch for:

  • Limited urban sprawl and significant densification of pockets of established areas in Canberra
  • Much larger areas of higher density in Sydney and Melbourne
  • Relatively high densities in some urban growth areas in Melbourne, Brisbane, and Sydney from the late 2010s
  • Low density sprawl in Perth, but also densification of some inner suburban areas (along the Scarborough Beach Road and Wanneroo Road corridors, and inner suburbs like Subiaco and North Perth)
  • Limited urban sprawl in Adelaide, along with densification of inner suburbs

Appendix: Corrections to ABS population estimates following Census 2021

The 2021 census resulted in quite large revisions to estimated population in many cities as shown in the following chart.

Melbourne’s estimated 2021 population was revised down 2.4%, Sydney down 1.9%, while Canberra and Hobart were revised up more than 5%. To be fair to the ABS, the pandemic and border closures were unprecedented and their impacts on regional population were not easy to predict.

These corrections sum to a linear trend between 2016 and 2021 at the city level, although there was a redistribution of the estimated population within each city.

The following chart shows some detail of estimated population revisions at SA2 level for Melbourne in 2021:

The biggest reduction was in Carlton (-25% right next to University of Melbourne), and there were also reductions near other university campuses, including Kingsbury (-19%), Burwood (-14%) and Clayton (-13%). The biggest upwards revision was Fishermans Bend (+84%), and there were plenty of upwards revisions in outer urban growth areas.

And here is Sydney:

There were big reductions in Kensington (-28%, centred on UNSW), Redfern-Chippendale (-17%), many other areas near university campuses, and around the Sydney CBD.

Like Melbourne, urban growth areas on the fringe were revised upwards, including +35% in Riverstone-Marden Park.

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

Are Australian cities growing around their rapid transit networks?

Sun 31 March, 2019

My last post showed half of Perth’s outer urban population growth between 2011 and 2016 happened in places more than 5 km from a train station (see: Are Australian cities sprawling with low-density car-dependent suburbs?). It’s very car-dependent sprawl, with high levels of motor vehicle ownership (96 per 100 persons aged 18-84) and high private transport mode share of journeys to work (88%).

But what about population growth overall in cities? Is most growth happening close to rapid transit stations? How are cities orientated to rapid transit overall? And how does rapid transit orientation relate to mode shares?

Let’s dive into the data to find out.

Why is proximity to rapid transit important?

Public transport journey to work mode shares are generally much higher close to stations:

And motor vehicle ownership rates are generally lower closer to stations:

However it is worth noting that the proximity impact wears off mostly after only a couple of kms. Being 2-5 kms from a station is only useful if you can readily access that station – for example by bus, bicycle, or if you are early enough to get a car park.

Also, proximity to a station does not guarantee lower car dependence – the rapid transit service has to be a competitive option for popular travel destinations. I’ve discussed the differences between cities in more detail
(see: What explains variations in journey to work mode shares between and within Australian cities?), and I’ll a little have more to say on this below.

But in general, if you want to reduce a city’s car dependence, you’ll probably want more people living closer useful rapid public transport.

Is population growth happening near train/busway stations?

The following chart (and most subsequent charts) are built using ABS square kilometre grid population data for the period 2006 to 2018 (see appendix for more details).

Melbourne has seen the most population growth overall, followed by Sydney and Brisbane. Population growth in Perth has slowed dramatically since 2014, and has been remained slow in Adelaide.

Population growth in areas remote from stations most cities has been relatively steady. By contrast, the amount of population growth nearer to stations fluctuates more between years – there was a noticeable dip in growth near stations around 2010 and 2011 in all cities.

You can also see that in recent years the majority of Perth’s population growth has been more than 5 km from a station.

To show that more clearly, here’s the same data, but as a proportion of total year population growth:

You can see that most of Perth’s population growth has been remote from stations. In the year to June 2016, 85% of Perth’s population growth was more than 5 km from a train station (the chart actually goes outside the 0-100% range in 2016 because there was a net decline in population for areas between 2 and 4 km from stations). That was an extreme year, but in 2018 the proportion of population growth beyond 5 km from a station had only come down to 57.5%. That is not a recipe for reducing car dependence.

At the other end of the spectrum, almost half of Sydney’s population growth has been within 1 km of a train or busway station. No wonder patronage on Sydney’s train network is growing fast.

Melbourne has had the smallest share of population growth being more than 5 km from a station over most years since 2006. The impact of the South Morang to Mernda train line extension, which opened in August 2018, won’t be evident until the year to June 2019 data is released (probably in March 2020). Melbourne’s planned outer growth corridors are now largely aligned with the rail network, so I would expect to see less purple in upcoming years.

Here’s the same data for the next largest cities that have rapid transit:

Gold Coast – Tweed Heads has seen the most population growth, followed by the Sunshine Coast and more recently Geelong population growth has accelerated.

The Sunshine Coast stands out as having the most population growth remote from rapid transit (a Maroochydore line has been proposed), while Wollongong had the highest share of population growth near stations.

What about total city population?

The above analysis showed distances from stations for population growth, here’s how it looks for the total population of the larger cities:

Sydney has the most rapid transit orientated population, with 67% of residents within 2 km of a rapid transit station. Sydney is followed by Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, and then Perth.

The most spectacular step change was in Perth in 2008, following the opening of the Mandurah rail line in the southern suburbs. This brought rail access significantly closer for around 18% of the city’s population. However, Perth has since been sprawling significantly in areas remote from rail while infill growth has all but dried up in recent years. 22% of the June 2018 population was more than 5 km from a train station, up from 19% in 2008. But it’s still much lower than 37% in 2007. Perth remains the least rapid transit orientated large city in Australia.

Brisbane has also seen some big step changes with new rail lines to Springfield (opening December 2013) and Redcliffe Peninsula (opening October 2016).

Several new station openings around Melbourne have kept the overall distance split fairly stable – that is to say the new stations have been just keeping up with population growth. The biggest noticeable step change was the opening of Tarneit and Wyndham Vale stations in 2015.

Adelaide’s noticeable step change followed the Seaford rail extension which opened in February 2014.

Sydney’s step change in 2007 was the opening of the North West T-Way (busway). The opening the Leppington rail extension in 2015 is also responsible for a tiny step (much of the area around Leppington is yet to be developed).

Here are the medium sized cities:

Woolongong is the most rapid transit orientated medium sized city, followed by Geelong and Newcastle.

In the charts you can see the impact of the Gold Coast train line extension to Varsity Lakes in 2009, the truncation of the Newcastle train line in 2014 and subsequent opening of “Newcastle Interchange” in 2017, and the opening of Waurn Ponds station in Geelong in 2015.

Average resident distance from a rapid transit station

Here’s a single metric that can be calculated for each city and year:

average distance to station

Many cities have barely changed on this metric (including Melbourne which has had a reduction of just 26 metres between 2006 and 2018). Brisbane, Perth and the Gold Coast are the only cities to have achieved significant reductions over the period.

It will be interesting to see how this changes with new rail extensions in future (eg MetroNet in Perth), and I’ll try to update this post each year.

How strong is the relationship with public transport mode shares at a city level?

Here is a comparison between average population distance from a train/busway station, and public transport mode share of journeys to work, using 2016 census data:

While there appears to be something of an inverse relationship (as you might expect), there are plenty of other factors at play (see: What explains variations in journey to work mode shares between and within Australian cities?).

In particular, Newcastle, Geelong, and Wollongong have relatively low public transport mode shares even though they have high average proximity to rapid transit stations.

Most journeys to work involving train from these smaller cities are not to local workplaces but to the nearby capital city, and those long distance commutes make up a relatively small proportion of journeys to work.

Here are some headline figures showing trains have minimal mode share for local journeys to work in the smaller cities:

CityTrain mode share
for intra-city
journeys to work 		Train mode share
for all journeys
to work
Gold Coast0.6%2.2%
Sunshine Coast0.1%0.8%
Newcastle0.5%1.0%
Wollongong1.2%4.9%
Central Coast1.2%9.3%
Geelong0.5%4.5%

Appendix: About the data

I’ve used ABS’s relatively new kilometre grid annual population estimates available for each year from June 2006 onwards (to 2018 at the time of writing), which provides the highest resolution annual population data, without the measurement problems caused by sometimes irregularly shaped and inconsistently sized SA2s.

I’ve used train and busway station location data from various sources (mostly GTFS feeds – thanks for the open data) and used Wikipedia to source the opening dates of stations (that were not yet open in June 2006). I’ve mostly ignored the few station closures as they are often replaced by new stations nearby (eg Keswick replaced by Adelaide Showgrounds), with the exception of the stations in central Newcastle.

As with previous analysis, I’ve only included busways that are almost entirely segregated from other traffic.

I haven’t included Gold Coast light rail on account of its average speed being only 27 km/h (most Australian suburban railways average at least 32 km/h). I have to draw the line somewhere!

I also haven’t included Canberra as it lacks an internal rapid transit system (light rail is coming soon, although it will have an average speed of 30 km/h – is that “rapid transit”?).

Distances from stations are measured from the centroid of the grid squares to the station points (as supplied) – which I have segmented into 1 kilometre intervals. Obviously this isn’t perfect but I’m assuming the rounding issues don’t introduce overall bias.

Here’s what the Melbourne grid data looks like over time. If you watch carefully you can see how the colours change as new train stations open over time in the outer suburbs:

Melbourne grid distance from station 2

On this map, I’ve filtered for grid squares that have an estimated population of at least 100 (note: sometimes the imperfections of the ABS estimates mean grid squares get depopulated some years).

Finally, I’ve used Significant Urban Areas on 2016 boundaries to define my cities, except that I’ve bundled Yanchep into Perth, and Melton into Melbourne.

4 Comments | Australian Cities, Brisbane, Car ownership, Melbourne, Mode share, Sydney, Urban Planning | Permalink
Posted by chrisloader

Are Australian cities sprawling with low-density car-dependent suburbs?

Wed 30 January, 2019

Many people talk about urban growth in Australian cities being car-dependent low-density suburban sprawl. But how true is that in more recent times? Are new greenfield density targets making a difference? Are cities growing around their rapid public transport networks? And how do growth areas compare to established areas at a similar distance out from city centres?

This post takes a look at what census data can tell us about outer urban growth areas in terms of population density, motor vehicle ownership, distance from train/busway stations, and journey to work mode shares.

How much of city population growth is in outer areas?

Firstly a recap, here is the percentage of annual population growth in each city that has occurred in “outer” areas (defined by groupings of SA3s around the edges of cities – refer my previous post for maps showing outer areas) for Greater Capital City Statistical Areas.

Sydney has had less than a third of its population growth in outer areas since around 2003, while Perth has mostly had the highest outer growth percentage (since 1996), and more recently pretty much all population growth in Perth has been on the fringe. You can see how the other cities sit in between.

However, not all of this “outer” population growth was in urban growth on the fringe. For that we need to distinguish between urban growth and infill development, even in “outer” areas. So we really need a better definition of outer growth areas.

How to define outer urban growth areas

I have built groupings of SA1s (Statistical Area Level 1) that try to represent outer urban greenfield residential development. SA1s are the smallest census geographic areas (average population 400) for which all census data variables are available.

I’ve selected 2016 SA1s that meet all of the following criteria:

  • Brand new SA1 or significant population growth: The 2016 SA1 is new and cannot be matched to a 2011 SA1 (by location/size and/or ABS correspondences), or if it can be matched, the population at least doubled between 2011 and 2016. Brand new SA1s are very common in urban growth areas as new SA1s are created to avoid oversized SA1s on last census boundaries (except this doesn’t always happen – more on that shortly).
  • In an SA2 with significant population growth: The SA2 (Statistical Area Level 2 – roughly suburb sized with typically 3,000 to 25,000 residents) that contains the SA1 had population growth of at least 1000 people between 2011 and 2016 (based on 2016 boundaries). That is, the general area is seeing population growth, not just one or two SA1s.
  • Are on – or close to – the urban fringe. I’ve filtered out particular SA2s that I’ve judged to be contain all or mostly in-fill development rather than greenfield development, or that are largely surrounded by existing urban areas and are not close to the urban fringe. I’ll be the first to admit that some of the inclusions/exclusions are a little arbitrary.

The criteria aren’t perfect, but it seems to work pretty well when I inspect the data. I’m calling these “Growth SA1s” or outer urban growth in this post.

For urban centres, I’m using Significant Urban Area 2016 boundaries (rather than Greater Capital City boundaries), and I’ve bundled Yanchep with Perth, Melton with Melbourne, and the Sunshine Coast and Gold Coast with Brisbane to form South East Queensland (SEQ).

Where are these outer urban growth areas?

What follows are maps for each city with the density of these growth SA1s shown by colour.

Melbourne’s northern and western growth areas:

Technical note: The maps do not show non-growth SA1s with fewer than 5 people per hectare, or “growth SA1s” with fewer than 1/hectare, although these SA1s are including in later analysis.

And the south of Melbourne:

Note: not shown on these Melbourne maps are isolated tiny growth SA1s in Rosebud and Mooroolbark.

Here are Sydney’s growth SA1s – all in the western suburbs:

Next up South East Queensland, starting in the north with the Sunshine Coast:

Northern Brisbane:

Outer urban growth is scattered in southern Brisbane and northern Gold Coast:

Gold Coast – Tweed Heads:

Perth’s northern and eastern growth areas:

Perth’s southern growth areas:

Note: Canning Vale East is an inclusion you could debate – the previous land use of the growth SA1s appear to have been rural based on satellite imagery.

Northern Adelaide:

Southern Adelaide:

And finally Canberra:

So how much of each cities’ population growth has been in outer growth areas?

Here’s a breakdown of the population growth for my six urban areas:

Over the five-year period, outer urban growth areas accounted for 19% of Sydney’s population growth, 43% of Melbourne’s, 37% of SEQ’s, 60% of Perth’s, 27% of Adelaide’s and 69% of Canberra’s.

Technical note: These “outer urban growth” figures are different to the chart at the top of this post which had a coarser definition of “outer” and used Greater Capital City boundaries. Some of my “outer urban growth” areas actually don’t quality as “outer” in the coarser definition, and I’ve also excluded several “outer” SA2s from “outer urban growth” where I’ve deemed the growth to be mostly infill. Hence the differences.

In case you are wondering, it’s not easy to create a longer-term time-series analysis about the proportion of population growth in “outer urban growth” areas because the classification of SA2s would have to change on a year-by-year basis which would be messy and somewhat arbitrary.

A challenge for density analysis: some SA1s are over-sized

You might have noticed some SA1s in the maps above are very large and show a low average density of 1-5 persons per hectare (I’ve coloured them in a light cyan). Many of these SA1s had thousands of residents in 2016, which is way more than the ABS guideline of 200 to 800 residents. Unfortunately what seems to have happened for 2011 and 2016 in some cities is that the ABS did not create enough SA1s to account for new urban areas. Some Melbourne SA1s had a population over 4000 in 2016. Many of these SA1s contain a combination or urban and rural land use, so their calculated density is rather misleading.

I’m designating any SA1s with more than 1000 residents and larger than 100 hectares as “oversized”, and I’ve exclude these from some density analysis below. Here’s a chart showing the proportion of outer growth area populations that are in oversized SA1s:

You can see it is a substantial problem in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and South East Queensland, but miraculously not a problem at all in Adelaide or Canberra (I’m sure someone in ABS could explain why this is so!).

If you are interested, in 2011 it was a bigger problem in Melbourne, and only Canberra was fully clean.

So how dense are outer urban growth areas?

Firstly, I am excluding over-sized SA1s from this analysis for the reasons just mentioned.

Secondly, all cities will also have growth areas that were partially developed at the time of the census (ie some lots with occupied houses and other lots empty) so the densities measured here may be understated of the likely fully built-out density of these SA1s. That said, those areas perhaps are more likely to be in over-sized SA1s, but it’s hard to be sure. So keep this in mind when looking at growth area densities.

You can see dramatic differences, with Sydney, Canberra, and Melbourne showing higher densities, and South East Queensland with much lower densities. As we saw on the maps above, South East Queensland’s outer growth areas are very dispersed, so perhaps more of them are growing slowly and more of them are partially built-out? It’s hard to be sure.

But perhaps what is most remarkable is that Canberra had the highest densities in outer urban growth areas of any city – nothing like what you might consider suburban sprawl. Here’s what was 144.5 people per hectare in 2016 in Wright on Canberra’s new western growth front looks like:

(pic from Google Streetview, dated December 2016)

The densest SA1 in Sydney’s growth areas was 101 persons/ha. Nothing like this was seen in other cities.

Canberra’s outer growth areas are actually, on average, denser than the rest of Canberra (on a population weighted density measure):

The same was also true by a slim margin in both Perth and Adelaide, but they have relatively “suburban” densities for both growth and established areas. The growth areas of Sydney and Melbourne are more dense than Perth and Adelaide, but not compared to the rest of these cities as a whole. That’s probably got to do a lot with the large cities having dense inner suburbs.

So perhaps it is better to compare the urban growth areas with established areas a similar distance from city centres, which the following chart does (I’ve filtered out 5 km distance intervals without growth areas of at least 2000 population, and apologies for rather squashed Canberra label):

Technical note: for South East Queensland I’ve measured distances from the Brisbane CBD.

Outer growth areas were much more dense than the rest of each city at most distances from the city centre, except in Sydney.

One issue with the above chart is that different distance intervals have different populations – for example only 2,815 people were in growth SA1s at a distance of 45-50 km from the Perth CBD (just above my threshold of 2000), so the low population density of that interval is not hugely significant.

To get around that issue, I’ve calculated the overall population weighted density of non-growth SA1s that are within these 5 km distance intervals from the CBD (including all of SEQ beyond 15 km from the CBD). The following chart compares those calculations with the population weighted density of the growth areas overall:

This shows that urban growth areas are on average more dense than other parts of the city at similar distance from the CBD, except in South East Queensland. And remember, many of the growth SA1s will be partially built out, so their expected density is understated.

Are outer urban growth areas near rapid public transport?

The next chart shows the proportion of growth SA1 population by distance from the nearest train or busway station:

Technical notes: Distances are measured from the centroid of each SA1 to a point location defined for each station (sourced from August 2016 GTFS feeds). For oversized SA1s these distances might be a little longer than reality for the average resident. I haven’t excluded oversized SA1s because I want to see the population alignment of growth areas overall. Canberra excluded due to lack of separated rapid transit.

What sticks out clearly is that just over half the of the population in Perth’s outer growth areas was more than 5 km from a station in 2016. That is to say Perth has had the least alignment of outer urban growth areas and rapid public transport networks of all five cities. I’m not sure many urban planners would recommend such a strategy.

However, Perth’s MetroNet program appears to be trying to rectify this with new lines and stations proposed near urban growth areas such as Yanchep, Canning Vale East, Ellenbrook, Byford, and Karnup (Golden Bay). It will however take some time to get to them all built and open.

South East Queensland was second to Perth in terms of urban growth remote from stations, with a lot of the growth scattered rather than concentrated around rail corridors. I haven’t included the Gold Coast light rail in my proximity calculation – it runs at an average speed of 27 km/h (which is slower than most train networks) and doesn’t serve outer urban growth areas.

Sydney and Adelaide had the highest proximity of growth areas to stations.

Around half of Melbourne’s growth SA1s that were more than 5km from a train station were in Mernda and Doreen, a corridor in which a rail extension opened in 2018. Many of the rest are not in the current designated growth corridors, or are where future train stations are planned. Melbourne’s current designated urban growth corridors are fairly well aligned to its train network. From a transport perspective this is arguably a better kind of sprawl than what Perth has been experiencing.

Adelaide’s outer growth areas more than 5 km from a station were in Mount Barker (satellite town to the east) and Aldinga (on the far south coast of Adelaide).

Are the outer urban growth areas better aligned to rapid public transport stations than non-growth areas at the same distance from city centres? Here’s the chart as above but with an extra column for non-growth areas within the same distance intervals from the CBD (as before).

The populations of urban growth areas are less likely to be within a couple of kilometres of a station (most of that land probably has long-established urban development), but curiously in Adelaide and South East Queensland the urban growth areas are more likely to be within 5 kilometres of a station than the non-growth areas, suggesting better rapid public transport alignment than older urban growth areas. Older urban areas in other cities are more closely aligned to stations, particularly in Perth.

As an interesting aside, here’s a breakdown over the last three censuses of population by distance from train/busway stations (operational in 2016 – so it overstates 2006 and 2011 slightly):

You can really see how Perth has had much population growth remote from its rapid public transport network, which probably goes some way to explaining the overall 1.2% journey to work mode shift towards private transport between 2011 and 2016.

So how did people in these outer growth areas get to work?

Technical note: The figures here for “private transport” are for journeys involving only private transport modes – i.e. they exclude journeys involving both private and public transport (eg car+train).

While private transport (mostly car driver only journeys) dominated journeys to work from almost all growth areas, Melbourne and Sydney were the only cities to see significant numbers of residents in outer growth areas with private transport mode shares below 80%.

South East Queensland’s outer urban growth areas were the most reliant on private transport to get to work, with an overall private transport mode share of 93%, followed by Adelaide on 92%, Canberra on 91%, Perth on 90%, Melbourne on 86%, and Sydney on 81%.

Here’s how the growth area mode shares compare to other areas a similar distance from city centres (note: the Y-axis is not zero-based):

Significantly, the growth areas of Sydney and Melbourne had lower private transport mode shares of journeys to work than other parts of the city a similar distance out – even though they are generally further away from train or busway stations (as we saw above)! That’s not to say they didn’t drive themselves to a train station to get to work.

Similar to population density, here is a summary of growth areas compared to other areas in the same distance interval from the CBD:

There’s really not a huge amount of difference within cities. Sydney’s growth areas had a mode share 1.5% lower than non-growth areas, while Canberra’s growth areas had a mode share 2.5% higher.

What are motor vehicle ownership rates like in the outer growth areas?

My preferred measure is household motor vehicles per persons aged 18-84 (roughly people of driving age).

Motor vehicle ownership rates are generally very high across the growth areas – with the notable exceptions of Melbourne and Canberra where around a quarter of the growth area population had a motor vehicle ownership rate of less than 80 (although that is still pretty high!). (I explored this in more detail in an earlier post on Melbourne)

South East Queensland, Perth, and Adelaide outer urban growth areas had the highest motor vehicle ownership rates. Perth’s urban growth areas overall averaged 96.7 motor vehicles per persons aged 18-84 – pretty close to saturation.

How does motor vehicle ownership compare to established areas a similar distance from the city centre? The following chart compares motor vehicle ownership between urban growth and other areas at the same distance from the CBD (note: the Y-axis is not zero-based):

Motor vehicle ownership tends to increase with distance from the CBD, and in Sydney and South East Queensland the growth areas have higher ownership compared to non-growth areas. But the opposite is true in Melbourne, Perth and Canberra.

The population at each distance interval varies considerably, so here is a summary of the data across all distance intervals that have growth SA1s for each city:

The growth areas of Melbourne, Perth and Canberra had slightly lower motor vehicle ownership than other areas a similar distance from the city, while the opposite was true in other cities. That said, motor vehicle ownership rates are very high across all cities.

 

Finally, I’ll look at the relationships between these measures for growth areas (see another post for analysis for whole cities).

How does motor vehicle ownership relate to distance from stations?

Technical note: for scatter plots I’ve filtered out SA1s with less than 50 population as they are more likely to have outlier results (one person can change a measure by 2% or more).

Lower rates of motor vehicle ownership are generally only found close to train/busway stations (and are dominated by Melbourne examples), but close proximity to a station does not guarantee lower rates of motor vehicle ownership. Quite a few Adelaide SA1s are found the top middle part of the chart – these are all in Mount Barker which has frequent peak period express buses to the Adelaide CBD operating along the South East Freeway – which is similar to rapid transit although without a dedicated right of way.

How do journey to work mode shares relate to distance from stations?

Here’s a scatter plot of private transport mode shares of journeys to work and distance from train/busway station:

This shows that lower private transport mode shares are only generally seen within proximity of train or busway stations, and areas remote from stations are very likely to have high private transport mode shares. But also that proximity to a station does not guarantee lower private transport mode shares of journeys to work (particularly in SEQ).

Technical aside: You might have noticed that almost no SA1s report 99% private mode share. How can that be? The ABS make random adjustments to small figures to avoid identification of individuals which means you never see counts of 1 and 2 in their data. To get a mode share of 99% you’d need at least 300 journeys to work with “3” being non-private (or a similar but larger ratio). Very few SA1s have 300+ journeys to work, and even for over-sized SA1s, they are very unlikely to have only 3 or 4 non-private journeys to work. A mode share of 100% is much easier because you can get that no matter the total number of journeys.

How does population density relate to distances from train/busway stations?

Densities above 45 persons/ha were mostly only found within 5 km of stations, and almost entirely in Sydney and Melbourne. The highest densities were very close to train stations in Sydney. In the middle area of the chart you can see quite a few Perth SA1s that are around 30-40 persons/ha but remote from stations. These are all in the Ellenbrook area of Perth’s north-east, generating a lot of car traffic.

How does motor vehicle ownership relate to private transport mode shares of journeys work to work?

For interest, here is the relationship as a scatter plot:

There is certainly a relationship, but it’s not strong (r-squared = 0.22). Other factors are at play.

Conclusions

  • Perth and Canberra are seeing most of their population growth on the fringe, with Sydney, Adelaide, Melbourne, and South East Queensland seeing most of their population growth in established areas.
  • Growth areas in Sydney, Melbourne, and Canberra have higher than traditional urban densities, indeed Sydney and Canberra have a few very high density greenfield developments. Perth, Adelaide, and particularly South East Queensland have urban growth at relatively low densities. In fact, SEQ is the only major urban centre where growth areas are measured as less dense than non-growth areas at similar distances from the CBD.
  • Perth’s urban growth areas are largely remote from rapid transit stations, and this is likely contributing directly to very high and increasing rates of motor vehicle ownership and private transport mode shares. Melbourne’s current urban growth corridors are closely aligned to train stations (thanks to the opening of the Mernda line), and this is also largely true of Sydney and Adelaide.
  • Almost all outer urban growth areas had high rates of motor vehicle ownership. Overall, Melbourne, Perth, and Canberra’s outer urban growth areas had slightly lower rates of motor vehicle ownership compared to other areas at the same distance from the CBD. Only Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra have some growth areas with lower motor vehicle ownership and/or lower private transport mode shares of journeys to work – and these were all close to train or busway stations.

I hope you’ve found this at least half as interesting as I have.

For a similar and more detailed analysis around these topics, see this excellent 2013 BITRE research report on changes between 2001 and 2006.

1 Comment | Australian Cities, Brisbane, Car ownership, Melbourne, Mode share, Mode shift, Sydney, Urban density, Urban Planning | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by chrisloader

« Previous Entries