From the pdf document

STATE OF AUSTRALIAN CITIES NATIONAL CONFERENCE

SYDNEY, 2003

SPONSORS

University of Western Sydney

Australian National University

The University of New South Wales

Griffith University

The University of Melbourne

Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment

NSW Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources

ACT Planning and Land Authority

Black and Suthanaya (2001) report that person kilometres of journey to work travel

increased most dramatically in the outer ring suburbs of Sydney (those beyond 20

kilometres from the CBD), and that this increase was mainly attributed to increases in

vehicle kilometres travelled by car. A primary reason for this trend over the time

period of this study is generally the dispersed patterns of employment opportunities

and the release of land for development at the urban fringe, which has not addressed

public transport infrastructure needs. It is interesting to note that car use for the

journey to work increased from 57% in 1981 to 63% in 1996. Further, our analysis of

the data indicates that 40% of all public transport users reside within 10 km of the

CBD. Employees in suburban and outer suburban areas who commute by public

transport generally undertake longer distance trips that are facilitated by a radial

suburban rail network.

Our analysis of journey to work data for Sydney for 1981 and 1996 suggests that

there is some evidence of a move toward the planning goal of subregional

employment self-sufficiency (NSW Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, 1998).

However, as reported in the previous section, the 20-60 kilometre area of Sydney

remains deficient in jobs as compared to the available work force. Even established

subregional centres such as Parramatta – Sydney’s official second CBD - and

Liverpool have extensive daily commuting sheds extending far beyond their local

area, and local residents themselves travel to a wide range of job destinations. This

complicated geography of employment and commuting suggests that division of the

metropolitan area into relatively self-contained spatial labour markets anchored by

major activity centres is a long way off (Freestone and Murphy, 1998).

Accessibility to Employment, 1981-96

Figures 2 to 4 show the patterns of geographic accessibility to employment and their

changes across the Sydney metropolitan area. In 1981, areas with relatively high

accessibility occurred within 15 km of the CBD where most of the jobs and workforce

were located (Figure 2). These areas are also characterised by a dense public

transport network of rail, bus and ferry services. The core areas include North

Sydney, the CBD and central industrial area extending to the airport, and the

Auburn-Lidcombe-Granville industrial areas. Beyond the 20 km radius are the key

employment centres of Penrith in the west, and Liverpool and Campbelltown in the

southwest. It took, on average, 126 minutes by public transport, to access all Sydney

metropolitan area jobs in 1981.

Figure 2 reflects the spatial distribution of employment and workforce as at 1981,

which is characterised by spatial inequity in access to employment opportunities.

The inner and middle ring of suburbs, which are generally more affluent and contain

a well-educated workforce, enjoy the lowest average access times by public

transport. The less affluent outer western and southwestern suburbs which have

been undergoing rapid growth in the workforce and in locations of dispersed

employment, are characterised by the highest levels of inaccessibility to employment

opportunities by public transport. Our analysis of the proportion of jobs that can be

reached in one hour of travel by public transport indicated that these areas could, at

best, reach only 20 per cent of metropolitan area jobs – as compared to 50% or

above for inner and middle areas. The implication of this finding for the workforce

located beyond 20 kilometres is of longer commuting times by public transport – a

situation that promotes increased car dependency and a lower propensity to use

public transport.

and so some final points:

# DON"T get back to me about this before apologizing for calling me a liar;

#NOTE that the Sydney Metropolitan Area is some 4000 square kilometers, the size of London and twice the size of New York City but without the population, manufacturing infrastructure or transport infrastructure;

# DON'T presume to know anything about the special and seemingly intractable housing and transport issues which face this city, in which I have lived all my life and so which I can claim to know more about, than you.

Good night.