City of Tea Tree GullyCommunity profile
Skip to content

Hope Valley

Method of travel to work

In Hope Valley 37 people rode their bike or walked to work in 2011.

Hope Valley's commuting statistics reveal the main modes of transport by which residents get to work. 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, the number of motor vehicles available within a household, and the distance travelled to work.

Commuting data is very useful in transport planning as it informs decision-makers about the availability, effectiveness and utilisation of local transport options, particularly when analysed with Residents Place of Work data and Car Ownership.

Derived from the Census question:

'How did the person get to work on Tuesday, 9 August 2011?'

Employed persons (aged 15 years and over)

Method of travel to work
Hope Valley - (Enumerated)20112006Change
Main method of travelNumber%City of Tea Tree Gully %Number%City of Tea Tree Gully %2006 to 2011
Train
00.00.200.00.10
Bus
35011.09.83209.89.4+30
Tram or Ferry
60.20.100.00.0+6
Taxi
00.00.100.00.10
Car - as driver
2,16368.067.22,09864.365.8+65
Car - as passenger
1434.54.41574.85.1-14
Truck
230.70.7481.50.9-25
Motorbike
90.30.4190.60.5-10
map this data in atlas.idBicycle70.20.4150.50.4-8
map this data in atlas.idWalked only300.90.9331.01.0-3
Other
70.20.9290.90.9-22
map this data in atlas.idWorked at home732.32.6762.32.6-3
Did not go to work
33610.611.342112.911.7-85
Not stated
361.11.0471.41.4-11

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Census of Population and Housing 2006 and 2011. Compiled and presented by .id , the population experts.

Method of travel to work, 2011
Method of travel to work, 2011 Train, City of Tea Tree Gully: 0.2% Bus, City of Tea Tree Gully: 9.8% Tram or Ferry, City of Tea Tree Gully: 0.1% Taxi, City of Tea Tree Gully: 0.1% Car - as driver, City of Tea Tree Gully: 67.2% Car - as passenger, City of Tea Tree Gully: 4.4% Truck, City of Tea Tree Gully: 0.7% Motorbike, City of Tea Tree Gully: 0.4% Bicycle, City of Tea Tree Gully: 0.4% Walked only, City of Tea Tree Gully: 0.9% Other, City of Tea Tree Gully: 0.9% Worked at home, City of Tea Tree Gully: 2.6% Did not go to work, City of Tea Tree Gully: 11.3% Not stated, City of Tea Tree Gully: 1.0% Train, Hope Valley: 0.0% Bus, Hope Valley: 11.0% Tram or Ferry, Hope Valley: 0.2% Taxi, Hope Valley: 0.0% Car - as driver, Hope Valley: 68.0% Car - as passenger, Hope Valley: 4.5% Truck, Hope Valley: 0.7% Motorbike, Hope Valley: 0.3% Bicycle, Hope Valley: 0.2% Walked only, Hope Valley: 0.9% Other, Hope Valley: 0.2% Worked at home, Hope Valley: 2.3% Did not go to work, Hope Valley: 10.6% Not stated, Hope Valley: 1.1%
Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Census of Population and Housing, 2011 (Enumerated data)
Compiled and presented in profile.id by .id, the population experts.
Change in method of travel to work, 2006 to 2011
Change in method of travel to work, 2006 to 2011 Train, Hope Valley: 0 Bus, Hope Valley: +30 Tram or Ferry, Hope Valley: +6 Taxi, Hope Valley: 0 Car - as driver, Hope Valley: +65 Car - as passenger, Hope Valley: -14 Truck, Hope Valley: -25 Motorbike, Hope Valley: -10 Bicycle, Hope Valley: -8 Walked only, Hope Valley: -3 Other, Hope Valley: -22 Worked at home, Hope Valley: -3 Did not go to work, Hope Valley: -85 Not stated, Hope Valley: -11
Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Census of Population and Housing, 2006 and 2011 (Enumerated data)
Compiled and presented in profile.id by .id, the population experts.

Dominant groups

In 2011, there were 356 people who caught public transport to work (train, bus, tram or ferry) in Hope Valley, compared with 2,338 who drove in private vehicles (car – as driver, car – as passenger, motorbike, or truck).

Analysis of the method of travel to work of the residents in Hope Valley in 2011, compared to the City of Tea Tree Gully, shows that 11.2% used public transport, while 73.5% used a private vehicle, compared with 10.1% and 72.7% respectively in the City of Tea Tree Gully.

The major difference in persons between the method of travel to work of Hope Valley and the City of Tea Tree Gully was:

  • A larger percentage of persons who travelled by bus (11.0% compared to 9.8%)

Emerging groups

The number of employed people in Hope Valley decreased by 79 between 2006 and 2011.

The largest changes in the method of travel to work by resident population in Hope Valley between 2006 and 2011 were for those nominated:

  • Did not go to work (-85 persons)
  • Car - as driver (+65 persons)

To continue building your demographic story go to...