Parts one to three of this series looked at the spatial
distribution of work in our major metropolitan centres, and the income profiles
of employment based on geography. The findings, simply put, are that between 8
and 9 out of ten of all metropolitan region jobs are in suburban locations (not
CBDs). This tends to be widely dispersed at densities up to around 500 jobs per
square kilometre, rising to over 2,000 and 3,000 per square kilometre and more
in some areas. While the suburbs represent the overwhelming majority of jobs,
they also tend to be lower paid than the jobs found in CBDs and inner city
areas which can earn on average between 50% and 100% more than suburban jobs.
So while the CBDs and inner cities are minority employers, they are employment
locations of relative financial privilege, concentrated in small geographic
areas.
This instalment looks at how the demography of employment
influences the commute. I am again indebted to Urban Economics for their
research assistance in pulling these figures together. There aren’t too many
questions this company can’t answer, so if these articles raise any particular
questions in your mind, please contact Kerriane Bonwick on kerrianne@urbaneconomics.com.au or phone
them on (07) 3839 1400.
The top 10 locations Australia wide for public transport
commutes to work are all CBD and inner city locations. Topping the list is the
Sydney CBD, Haymarket and the Rocks, with 67.7% of workers there using public
transport. Next are workers in the Melbourne CBD, with 57.8% using public
transport, followed by workers in Brisbane CBD, with 56.1% of workers there
using public transport.
Reading on through the top 10 reads like a list of some of
the more privileged or rapidly gentrifying workplace locations in the country:
North Sydney/Lavendar Bay (52.6%), Surry Hills (49.2%), Docklands Melbourne
(47.9%), East Melbourne (41.3%), Pyrmont-Ultimo (40.6%), Perth City (39.6%) and
Redfern-Chippendale (37.2%).
The top 25 employment locations for public transport use
paint a similar picture (click on the table to enlarge):
By and large, these are all mainly inner city locations.
While the proportions making use of public transport to work in these areas is
high, the same areas represent only a minority of 10% to 15% of metropolitan
wide jobs. Plus, these are jobs which earn, on average, a great deal more than
suburban employment. In short, the highest rates of public transport use are
found amongst the minority of workers who earn the most money.
The converse is also true. Suburban employment centres,
where the vast majority of jobs are located, are reliant on private vehicle.
Here’s a selection: North Parramatta – 10% by public transport, 74% by private
vehicle; Carindale (Brisbane) – 9.6% by public transport, 60.4% by private
vehicle; Maribyrnong (Melbourne) – 8.5% by public transport, 68% by private
vehicle. These are typically locations where public transport options are
limited: it’s simply too expensive to contemplate servicing lower density
suburban employment this way. Workers with jobs in these locations are not
choosing the private car, they are relying on it. It’s not a ‘love affair’ but
a necessity.
Visually, the picture is stark. The illustration below
(taken from a site called ‘Charting Transport’ which is full of useful analysis
– this particular illustration is from this article) shows clearly that public
transport is typically a mode of choice for CBD and inner city workers and
almost of no use to workers in middle or outer suburbs.
It’s the same pattern repeated across other metropolitan
regions. The parts in red or orange are where the majority of workers are, the
parts in green where a minority of higher paid workers are.
This point doesn’t need labouring but the implications take
some explaining. Public transport systems are heavily subsidised by taxpayers.
Yet the highest patronage is amongst the minority of workers who earn the most
money. Private transport receives no such subsidy and, as motoring bodies point
out, it raises more money through registration fees and fuel taxes than is
spent on it. Private transport –namely the car – is the only practical mode of
choice for the majority of workers in suburban economies, where they tend to
earn less. The reality is that suburban workers on lower incomes with limited
access to public transport as an option are subsidising the public transport
systems used by inner city workers on higher incomes.
The irony is that governments are under almost relentless
pressure to spend more taxpayer dollars on improvements to public transport for
the benefit of a higher income minority, and also to keep fares low (and hence
maintain or even increase the level of subsidies). The level of policy support
for taxpayer funded improvements to metropolitan road networks hasn’t been as
generous, with extensions and improvements to metropolitan road systems largely
approved on the basis of PPPs where investors believe they can mount a business
case (with mixed results). This is
despite the reality that the majority of employment is in suburban locations
and that arguably private transport users already pay more in taxes than the
road network receives in spending.
Australia is not unique in this regard. Many western
economies adopt similar subsidy arrangements. (Many eastern economies have such
vastly different levels of population and population density that comparisons
aren’t really meaningful). But what is missing in Australia seems to be an
awareness of how this subsidy plays out. Public transport users with high
paying jobs in inner cities are often the first to complain about incremental
increases in fare costs. Private car users with lower paying jobs in suburban
locations where public transport is simply not an option, are asked to shoulder
rising fuel prices, fuel taxes, registration fees – and even, lately, parking
costs in some suburban shopping centres – without much public policy sympathy.
None of this should be taken as a pejorative attack on
public transport. This is simply the reality of how people across our
metropolitan areas commute to work, and the costs – taxpayer and private funded
– involved in making this happen. No one, me included, is seriously proposing a
divestment in public transport systems in favour of private. The public
transport network is an essential element of our transport system. Without it,
our urban workforce mobility collapses. Witness any number of occasions when
train or bus networks fail, for whatever reason. Plus, public transport has an
important social function by providing low cost transport for work and non-work
trips for financially disadvantaged members of society who don’t have access to
a private care, elements of our aged population, and for students.
But given the way employment is distributed through our
metropolitan areas, is it sensible to suggest that spending even more taxpayer
money on public transport is capable of making much difference, without also
dealing with the realities of where the jobs are? This will tell us more about
the realities of how much of the work related commute can be provided for by
public versus private transport. We need to understand the economic and
geographic realities better, and hope that the media, the community at large
and transport policy groups base their arguments closer to the existing and
future patterns of employment distribution.
For example, proposals to increase public transport
patronage by imposing congestion charging regimes to punish suburban car
commuters are, based on the evidence, entirely doomed to fail. Only a minority
of the metropolitan workforce can realistically make use of public transport (mainly
those with jobs in CBDs or inner city areas). For the majority of commuters
with suburban employment, public transport isn’t an option (and making it one
would be even more prohibitive that the costs of the present system).
Penalising suburban car commuters thus imposes tax penalties on those least
able to afford it for no policy gain. Then there are the proponents of ‘free’
public transport, who might need to explain how providing this service to the
highest paid workers in our economy, at the expense of the lowest, stands the
test of social equity.
The reality of where jobs are located throughout our
metropolitan economies, and the nature of those jobs, should be a starting
point for discussions about how to more efficiently manage our transport networks.
Unleashing further economic potential in our cities won’t be achieved if the
policy discussion is removed from the realities of workplace geography.
This series began with the suggestion that public policy and
urban planning has become preoccupied with where we live, and with types of
housing choice and form. Little discussion seems to take place about where we
work. But where we work, and the nature of those jobs and the demands they make
of our urban infrastructure arguably have a larger bearing on urban economic
efficiency than housing. I hope these articles have made a few observations
about the demography of employment that will promote further thought and
discussion – based on realities rather than myth or presumption.
Next and final: the future of employment and how this could
re-shape cities.
