Travel Time

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The average weekly commuting time in Australia has increased considerably since 2002. According to the latest Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) <a href="https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/hilda" target="_blank">Survey released today</a>, workers averaged 3.7 hours’ commuting time per week in 2002, but this had increased to 4.5 hours by 2017.
In 2017, workers in mainland state capitals (Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth) had consistently longer commute times than those living elsewhere. These city workers typically spent more than an hour travelling to and from work each day. The average was about 66 minutes. This is a 20% increase from the average of around 55 minutes in 2002.
As in past surveys, Sydney had the longest average daily commutes (71 minutes). In 2017, it was followed by Brisbane (67 minutes), Melbourne (65 minutes), Perth (59 minutes) and Adelaide (56 minutes). Reasons for the increasing commute time vary among different cities but may include increased road congestion, urban expansion and poor public transport services.
Average daily commuting times across Australia also increased from about 49 minutes in 2002 to almost one hour in 2017.
<img src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/666/Mean.gif?1564036035" width="100%">
Workers in the Northern Territory had the shortest commutes in 2017, averaging close to 35 minutes per day.
The HILDA analysis covers all workers aged 15 years and older. This includes those with commuting times of zero (that is, who work from home).
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285781/original/file-20190726-136744-124z3od.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Daily commuting times are calculated by dividing the time spent travelling to and from work in a typical week by the usual number of days worked per week. Data source: HILDA
The survey, based on interviews with about 17,000 Australians yearly, also reveals that the share of people commuting two or more hours a day is increasing, from 12% in 2002 to 18% in 2017. Men are more likely than women to be long-distance commuters. And middle-aged workers (aged 25-54) are more likely to have long commutes than younger and older workers.
Interestingly, fathers of two children had the highest likelihood (27%) of having long commutes, while mothers with two children were the least likely (less than 13%). On the one hand, households with dependent children are more likely to live in suburban locations for the larger houses, potentially increasing commuting distance for workers in these households. On the other hand, female workers’ relatively lower wage rate and more household responsibilities, such as child rearing, may restrict them to choosing jobs closer to home.
Impacts on job satisfaction
According to the HILDA Survey, long-distance commuters (two hours or more a day) are less likely than short-distance commuters (less than one hour) to be satisfied with their working hours, work-life balance and even pay. Therefore, they have lower levels of overall job satisfaction. These long-distance commuters are more likely to quit or lose their jobs within the next year.
These results from the HILDA Survey align well with the findings of <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0966692318307269" target="_blank">our research</a>. Our findings suggest longer commutes not only impose physical and mental strains on workers but may also affect their work participation, engagement and productivity.
Negative impacts go beyond work
A growing number of studies have found long-duration commuting can <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856410000960" target="_blank">reduce the time a person has for other activities</a>. These other activities, such as physical exercise, time with family, social activities and so on, are important for psychological well-being.
Lengthy commuting also potentially increases <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9442.2008.00542.x" target="_blank">exposure to nuisances and hazards</a> such as traffic noise, crowds, congestion, pollution and uncomfortably hot or cold conditions. These can cause physical or emotional distress and have a direct influence on people’s physical and mental health.
What can policymakers do about this?
A better balance of jobs and housing within a smaller geographic area could help to shorten commuting distances and time. Planning policy such as polycentric cities – with multiple activity centres – have been proposed in Sydney and Melbourne, and could help achieve this.
Most Australians still rely on their cars for daily commuting. Aside from long travel distance, traffic congestion is another important factor in increasing commuting times. Encouraging alternative travel modes for commuting could potentially relieve congestion.
The HILDA Survey reveals that close to 28% of workers live and work in the same postcode. About 55% of workers live within 10 kilometres of their place of work. This suggests there is huge potential to promote active travel – cycling and walking – for daily commuting trips. Only for a minority (11%) are the postcodes of the home and place of work 30 or more kilometres apart.
High-frequency and reliable rapid public transport networks linking major residential and employment centres could encourage more medium and long-distance commuters to use public transport for daily commuting.
Finally, emerging transport technology, such as autonomous vehicles, is also promising to curb traffic congestion and reduce the “perceived” commuting time, if these vehicles are shared rather than owned by individuals.
Companies also have a role to play in helping to reduce commuting times and their impact on workers’ well-being. Flexible working times, which allow employees to avoid peak-hour travel, and a supportive company culture for working from home can help reduce weekly commuting time. In return, companies potentially benefit from improving employee job satisfaction and retention rates.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/runing-ye-646743" target="_blank">Runing Ye</a>, Research Fellow, Melbourne School of Design, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722" target="_blank">University of Melbourne</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/liang-ma-746823">Liang Ma</a>, Vice-Chancellor's Postdoctoral Research Fellow, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063" target="_blank">RMIT University</a>
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-city-workers-average-commute-has-blown-out-to-66-minutes-a-day-how-does-yours-compare-120598" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Australian city workers' average commute has blown out to 66 minutes a day: Runing Ye & Liang Ma

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/63603/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Transport modelling for major road projects like Sydney’s WestConnex and Melbourne’s Western Distributor is at odds with what is known about motorists' behaviour.
A big part of the benefits claimed for new major roads in Australian cities is travel time savings. Evidence shows, however, that instead of saving travel time, these roads encourage us to travel further and often increase car dependency.
Travel time savings (calculated by transport models) have been used in transport project assessment since the 1960s and are often the main justification for projects. These models assume people try to minimise the “generalised cost” of travel (a combination of money cost and the dollar value of time). UK transport researcher David Metz notes that this assumption “is consistent with the idea that travellers take advantage of improved infrastructure to save time”.
Standard economic theory assumes people are motivated to obtain the maximum satisfaction (economists call it “utility”) from the consumption of the goods or services they can afford. This implies they are also motivated to keep the costs associated with that consumption to a minimum.
Where travel is concerned, motorists are assumed to minimise the generalised cost of that travel. Transport models use this approach to calculate travel time savings from new transport infrastructure.
A recent review of research, however, shows that people have a certain amount of time they are prepared to spend travelling each day. This means they don’t take advantage of added infrastructure to save time.
While new roads may reduce travel time for a period on some routes, in the longer run, these savings are spent on travelling further. This means the travel time savings put forward by proponents for these plans are not backed up by real world evidence.
As a result, these assumptions should not be relied upon for the assessment of road projects like WestConnex and the Western Distributor. For WestConnex, the value of calculated travel time savings is A$13 billion, or about half the claimed benefits for the project. Without these time savings, the costs of the project exceed the benefits.
Melbourne researchers John Odgers and Nicholas Low found that the forecast time savings for Melbourne’s CityLink project did not eventuate. They suggest that, rather than being based on evidence, transport policy is probably driven by political momentum to build more roads, because that’s what Australia has been doing for a long time.
Governments and their technical advisers also have strong incentives to find benefits to justify what politicians want to do.
Partly in recognition of the problems with transport modelling, some European cities have changed the way the problem is framed – from meeting forecast travel demand, to achieving a number of social and economic objectives through transport investment. Through sustainable urban mobility plans, different types of projects are favoured. These include: better integrated bus networks, more bus lanes, safer cycling and walking routes, improved park and ride facilities, and traffic calming measures that redesign streetscapes and reduce speed limits to improve mobility for all road users.
Rather than facilitating the movement of motor vehicles, this process emphasises creating safe, reliable and affordable access with less travel and a reduced environmental footprint. It also requires that engineers, urban planners, economists and other specialists sit down with the business and community sectors to build a consensus on what needs to be done. This is in contrast to current engineering-dominated methods.
In Australia, the Delivering Sustainable Urban Mobility report prepared for the federal government emphasises “putting people first” in urban transport. The report recommends a three-part approach: less travel, shifting away from trips by car, and improving vehicle fuel efficiency.
While this is somewhat encouraging, there is no recognition in the report that current methods of calculating the benefits of roads projects are unreliable because of the way time savings are calculated.
Despite a lack of evidence, the use of travel time savings calculated in transport models is deeply entrenched in government and professional practice. Until this flawed approach is replaced by something like sustainable urban mobility plans, government road spending will continue to encourage sprawl and car dependency, rather than save us time.
Cameron Murray is economist, The University of Queensland an author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/cameron-murray-172480" target="_blank">here</a>.
Urban planner Brian Feeney substantially contributed to this piece.
</body></html>

Travel Time

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Travel Time

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News