City of Tea Tree Gully
Local workers - Method of travel to work - All industries
Within the City of Tea Tree Gully, the have a lower proportion of people using public transport to get to work than South Australia.
This data reveals the main modes of transport used by local workers in a particular industry to get to work. Workforce transport data for the City of Tea Tree Gully is very useful in transport planning as it informs decision-makers about the effectiveness and availability of public transport.
There are a number of reasons why people use different Modes of Transport to get to work including:
- The availability of affordable and effective public transport options between place of residence and place of work (For instance, industries located near railway stations are likely to have higher public transport use than those located away from main public transport routes);
- The number of motor vehicles available from within a household; and
- The travel distance to work, which for example, can allow people to walk or bicycle to their place of employment.
Method of Travel to Work data should be viewed in conjunction with Workers pace of residence and Residents Place of work for a clearer picture of where people come from to work in the the City of Tea Tree Gully, and Employment locations for the Destination Zones they work in and how they arrive there.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) – Census 2011 (experimental imputed) & 2016 – by place of work
Please note – The 2016 Census used a new methodology to “impute” a work location to people who didn’t state their workplace address. As a result, 2016 and 2011 place of work data are not normally comparable. To allow comparison between 2011 and 2016, .id has sourced a 2011 dataset from the ABS which was experimentally imputed using the same methodology. To provide this detail, City of Tea Tree Gully in 2011 had to be constructed from a best fit of Work Destination Zones (DZNs). While it may not be an exact match to the LGA or region boundary, it is considered close enough to allow some comparison. Users should treat this time series data with caution, however, and not compare directly with 2011 data from any other source.
|Local workers method of travel to work|
|City of Tea Tree Gully - All industries||2016||2011||Change|
|Main method of travel||Number||%||South Australia %||Number||%||South Australia %||2011 to 2016|
|Car, as driver||14,742||69.3||66.2||13,196||66.2||63.9||+1,546||2001|
|Car, as passenger||1,107||5.2||4.5||1,138||5.7||5.3||-31||2002|
|Other - multiple methods||214||1.0||1.4||183||0.9||1.4||+31||2017|
|Worked at home||1,256||5.9||4.4||1,084||5.4||4.2||+172||2019|
|Did not go to work||2,484||11.7||10.7||2,804||14.1||11.4||-320||2020|
Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Census of Population and Housing (opens a new window) 2011 and 2016. Compiled and presented by .id (opens a new window), the population experts.
In 2016, there were 612 people in the who caught public transport to work (train, bus, tram or ferry) in City of Tea Tree Gully, compared with 15,990 who drove in private vehicles (car – as driver, car – as passenger, motorbike, or truck).
Analysis of the method of travel to work of the in the City of Tea Tree Gully in 2016 compared to South Australia shows that 2.9% used public transport, while 75.2% used a private vehicle, compared with 6.5% and 71.7% respectively in South Australia.
The major differences between the method of travel to work of the workforce in the City of Tea Tree Gully and South Australia were:
- A larger percentage of local workers who travelled by car (as driver) (69.3% compared to 66.2%)
- A larger percentage of local workers who worked at home (5.9% compared to 4.4%)
- A smaller percentage of local workers who travelled by bus (2.6% compared to 4.7%)
- A smaller percentage of local workers who travelled by train (0.3% compared to 1.9%)
The largest changes in the method of travel of work of the workforce in the City of Tea Tree Gully between 2011 and 2016 were:
- Car, as driver (+1,546 local workers)
- Did not go to work (-320 local workers)
- Worked at home (+172 local workers)
- Train (+34 local workers)