Journey to Work 1981
The separation of workplace and home has been one of the liberating achievements of modern technology. It has given many people considerable freedom in their choice of location for their homes. It has allowed work to be carried out in large factories, office blocks and retail centres, gaining economies of scale in production and the efficiencies of proximity to other members of the work force. The costs associated with separation of residence and workplace, however, fall most heavily on those with the lowest incomes and the fewest skills.
The contrast between the places of work and places of residence is shown on the maps. Although it has often been an objective of town planners to secure a reasonable balance of opportunities for employment throughout metropolitan areas it is hard to achieve in practice, even in the planned city of Elizabeth. There are major daily flows from all council areas to the City of Adelaide, even from the outermost suburbs of Elizabeth and Noarlunga, although the highest proportionate flows are from the higher status suburbs.
Adelaide commuters depend on the car for their journey to work more than any other capital city commuters except Perth and Canberra. On Monday, 29 June 1981, 67.1% of employed people in the Adelaide Statistical Division travelled to work by private motor vehicle, 3.3% worked at home, 6.4% did not go to work that day and 14.2% travelled to work by public transport and 5.1% walked or cycled to work. The three methods of travel mapped show marked contrasts: the high percentage of car-based commuting from the outer suburbs; the importance of buses in the less affluent inner suburbs and of rail commuting from Elizabeth and the south-west; and the relative popularity of walking or cycling in the inner city and to local work force centres in some industrial suburbs.