Impact Of Population Growth On Transportation System In NSW

Research Statement

In the world of globalization, countries have become increasingly interconnected. In building a strong inter-country relationship transport and communication system play an important role. Now a day, different modes of transportation is being used. People travel to their desired destination by road, water or air (Neirotti et al., 2014). Both private and public sector have now come forward to invest in transportation. Means of transportation being a part of infrastructural development has a vital role in economic growth of a nation (Meyer & Shaheen, 2017). With growing population, traffic congestion has become a major problem worldwide (Mayer & Trevien, 2017).

The problem of traffic congestion in Australia is going worst day by day. People in popular capital cities in Australia especially Sydney and Melbourne face trouble of congestion in rush hours (Boyac?, Zografos, & Geroliminis, 2015). During peak hours, it takes more than double time for commuters to reach office, schools and to other important places. New South Wales is one of the most populated State of Australia. Around one third of Australia’s total population live in New South Wales (Chaturvedi & Kim, 2015). The estimated population of New South Wales during 2015-2016 is 7.7 million (Bugheanu, A. M., & Colesca, S. E. (2016). With growing population, the state is likely to face severe traffic congestion. The research paper aims at finding the impact of population growth on transportation system of New South Wales.

Literature Review

In connection to growing concern for impact of population on transportation system several scholarly research have already been undertaken in this field. In a paper formulated by Kroes et al., 2013 focus is given on finding the perceived value of overcrowding in public transport vehicles in France. The paper has made a qualitative research analysis to derive perceived value in terms of their physical comfort (Kroes et al., 2013). Passengers are classified into 4 groups- Type 1 contains passengers who fear closeness to other passengers, Type 2; this group contains people who enjoy traveling a time of their own, Type 3; those who wait for saving time and finally Type 4; those acting as individualist. The result of the paper reveals a clear distinction of preferences to avoid crowding out among the four groups. Other papers as well (Lam, Leung & Chu, 2016) support the results.

Another study developed by Haywood et al., 2017 concentrates on crowding out of public transport vehicles. The paper has twin objectives. First is to analyze the discomfort in public transport with varying density level and across heterogeneous groups. Second is to find the reason for this effect of discomfort. The level of discomfort is analyzed using three different perspectives- dissatisfaction arising from not getting seat and for long standing hours, discomfort due to having less opportunity to utilize time at times of journey and finally uneasiness from being physically close in the crowded vehicles (Haywood, Koning & Monchambert, 2017). The paper concerns with interaction between in vehicle density (IVD) and crowding discomfort (CDD). These seem to be significant and negative for discomfort measured from standing, Wasted time and over closeness (Clifton & Mulley, 2016). Passengers having high level of dissatisfaction in any of these three discomfort have greater disutility from crowing effect (Lam, Taghia & Katupitiya, 2016). The results show Standing and Time Wasted from it are the most important aspect affecting satisfaction (Geertman et al., 2017). This is followed by the problem of over closeness. It is found that people have high disutility in times of high density followed from long standing during their journey (Pearce, 2017).). The disutility arises from the not getting scope for utilizing time while traveling and physical closeness to other passengers.

Prior Research on Overcrowding in Public Transport Vehicles

A similar research is conducted by Tiranchi, Hensher and Rose in their paper in 2016. The effect of passengers’ density is different at bus stops, rail stations and inside trains and buses. The single paper researches on multiple dimension relating to long waiting time, reliability of travel time, well-being of passengers, importance of time saving in vehicles, choice of travelling route, size of vehicles and its fare (Tirachini, Hensher & Rose, 2013). The externalities from crowding in vehicles are for bus and rai service in Sydney are estimated to capture the impact of crowding on prediction of demand and in-vehicle time saving. A regression estimation is made to find out how crowding impacted passengers in times of alighting and boarding. The high level of occupancy raises the probability of vehicle circulation (Philip et al., 2014). This causes people to wait for a long time in stations and bus stops increasing the waiting time and variability of travel time (Hendrigan & Newman, 2017). While coming to impacts of health and well-being the paper documented an increase in anxiety, exhaustion, stress level with perceived risk for personal safety and interruption of privacy. These factors contribute to a negative valuation for the resulting from high occupancy of passengers at stations and stops (Chen, Gong  & Paaswell, 2012). The passengers’ choice is likely to be affected from competing routes and unbalanced loads of vehicles (Gharehbaghi & Georgy, 2015). The externality arises from crowding increases marginal cost for travelling. This external effect should be taken into consideration for designing the system of public transport. The frequency for vehicles availability, its size and fare are subjected to the impact of population growth on vehicles (Glazier et al., 2014).

The research paper developed by Li et al. in 2016, studies traveler’s mode of choice in the presence of a multimodal network. The paper conducts a comprehensive study on perceived behavioral differences based on a travel time reliability (TTR) model with considering crowding out for different transport modes with a multimodal network. A survey of passengers’ is conducted at two stage including a combined mode of travel with park and ride in reference to four major factors ( Li, Gao & Tu, 2016). In the first stage, the perceived travel time reliability in obtained with respect to delays at different transportation mode (Li, Burke & Dodson, 2017). After obtaining perceived TTR, in the next stage the paper designs an experimental analysis using balance theory of utility for the stated preference survey to examine mode of choice behavior and the difference in passengers’ perception in TTR and crowding (Chen, Gong & Paaswell, 2012). The results obtained from the first stage survey revealed that the travelers have differential tolerance level regarding the span of accepted delays for different modes (Saberi et al., 2017). The perceived TTR of travelers measured in relation to a certain delay differs by transportation mode (Ricciardi, Xia & Currie, 2015). The survey results from the second stage further confirms the result of perceived difference obtained from the first stage survey (Grinin & Korotayev, 2018). TTR based on different modes greatly influences choice behavior and hence should be taken for consideration in times of forecasting models used for analyzing mode in a multimodal network (Blanco Ramírez, 2016). 

Effect of Passenger Density on Operations and User Perception

There are studies that found some contrasting results on effect of population growth on mode of transportation and satisfaction. According to Olsen, Macdonald and Ellaway, 2017 the effect of population growth on trasportation is not uniform. That is it is not true that population growth always have detremental effect on satisfaction and transportation (Olsen, Macdonald & Ellaway, 2017). Studies aim at finding how overtime satisfaction changes with mode of trasportation. It is found that satisfaction level of two third of the population increases with their mode of transporatation (Boyac?, Zografos & Geroliminis, 2015). The unsatisfied people are those who has poor health condition. Access to car was related with satisfaction level of transportation (Yao & Yang, 2012). The deprivation or dissatisfaction offsets when adjusted for car access to household. When population from 1997 to 2010 are considered, the results shows most of the retired individuals travelled by public transport with satisfaction (Bugheanu & Colesca, 2016). However, those using private car are relatively less satisfied following increased consumption level.  

Based on the theoretical backgroud and research objectives following hypotheses are framed

Hypothesis 1

H01: There is no significant relation between railway trasporation and population growth

HA1: Significant relation exist between railway transpportation and population growth.

Hypothesis 2

H02: There is no significant relation between bus transportation and growth of population.

HA2: Population growth significantly influences bus transportation

Hypothesis 3

H03: There is no significant relation between aircraft travel and growth of population.

HA3: Population growth significantly influences aircraft travel and population growth

Hypothesis 4

H04: There is no significant relation between private car transportation and growth of population.

HA4: A significant relation exists car transportation and population growth  

Data on population and different mode of transportation are collected along with length of road and safety measures. The timeframe considered are varied from 2009 to 2016. All the relevant data are collected for New South Wales, one if the major capital city of Australia. The data on population is obtained from “Australian bureau of statistics’. The data related to transportation system are collected from ‘NSW and Sydney Transportation Facts’.

The paper has conducted a quantitative research analysis. The obtained data are analyzed with statistical software namely SPSS. The trend in population growth is considered by constructing a line graph with respect to time. The description statistics is estimated to have an overall idea about the mean, variability, range of the data set for the chosen timeframe (Golub & Martens, 2014). As far as mode of transportation is concerned, transportation via Rail and Bus routes are considered. The length of roads are considered for different time to find whether population growth significantly influence length of roads. Finally, data on road, rail and aviation accidents are considered to analyze the safety status.

Contrasting Results on the Effect of Population Growth on Transportation System

Chart 1: History of congestion level in NSW

The congestion history in New South Wales is presented in the above figure. In 2008, the congestion level is below 20%. From 2009 onwards, the congestion level started to increase and remain at the level 20% until 2015. Between 2015 and 2016, the congestion level grows up slightly (Parolin & Rostami, 2017).

Char 2: Evening Peak Hours in NSW

The evening peak rate for different days of the week are considered. The peak rate for Monday and Tuesday is almost same (Pettit et al., 2017) . Evening is high in Wednesday and Thursday. Evening peak in Friday is less as compared to that is Thursday.

Chart 3: Morning Peak in NSW

The morning peak is greater as compared to the evening peak. Because of rush hours for schools and offices morning peak is higher. The peak rate is maximum for Wednesday. For Tuesday and Thursday, peak rate is around that in Wednesday. For Monday and Friday, peak rate is lower as compared to three other days but still higher than evening peak.

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics of Population

Population
N	Valid	8
Missing	0
Mean	7419350.00
Median	7378750.00
Std. Deviation	205955.719
Variance	42417758392.857
Skewness	.337
Std. Error of Skewness	.752
Kurtosis	-.807
Std. Error of Kurtosis	1.481
Range	613175
Minimum	7133275
Maximum	7746450
Percentiles	25	7261393.75
50	7378750.00
75	7607387.50

The average population for the chosen time is 7419350. The population has reached to its maximum level in 2016 with population being 7746450.The population in New South Wales has constituted an upward trend overtime.

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics of mode of transportation

Statistics
	Rail	Bus	Aircraft	Cars
N	Valid	8	8	8	8
Missing	0	0	0	0
Mean	3293.88	1184.00	924.25	46645.50
Std. Error of Mean	96.499	42.399	44.574	974.573
Median	3320.00	1187.50	896.25	46743.50
Mode	2803a	998a	770a	41806a
Std. Deviation	272.941	119.923	126.074	2756.510
Variance	74496.982	14381.429	15894.723	7598346.286
Skewness	-.606	-.419	.647	-.400
Std. Error of Skewness	.752	.752	.752	.752
Kurtosis	.166	-.714	-.308	.163
Std. Error of Kurtosis	1.481	1.481	1.481	1.481
Range	859	335	379	8828
Minimum	2803	998	770	41806
Maximum	3662	1333	1149	50634
Sum	26351	9472	7394	373164
Percentiles	25	3102.50	1069.00	828.98	44827.25
50	3320.00	1187.50	896.25	46743.50
75	3494.50	1299.50	1008.35	48681.00
a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown

The average number of visitors in rail transportation in the last 8 years is 3294. The same for bus, aircraft and cars transportation are 1184, 924 and 46645 respectively. The standard deviation in rail transportation is 272.941, for bus it is 119.923 and for aircraft and bus standard deviation is 126.074 and 2756.510 respectively. The standard deviation are lower than mean implying less variability in mode of transportation.

Table 3: Registered vehicles

Year	Registered vehicle	Annual growth
2011	5.6	2.30%
2015	6.2	2.50%

The number of registered vehicles has increased in between 2011 and 2015. During 2011, the number of registered vehicles were 5.6 million which increases to 6.2 million in 2015. The annual growth rate for registered vehicles has increased from 2.3% to 2.5%.

Table 4: Correlation between population and different mode of transportation

Correlations
	Population	Rail	Bus	Aircraft	Cars
Population	Pearson Correlation	1	.654	.737*	.977**	.842**
Sig. (2-tailed)		.079	.037	.000	.009
N	8	8	8	8	8
Rail	Pearson Correlation	.654	1	-.621	.610	.762*
Sig. (2-tailed)	.079		.100	.108	.028
N	8	8	8	8	8
Bus	Pearson Correlation	.737*	-.621	1	-.643	-.535
Sig. (2-tailed)	.037	.100		.085	.172
N	8	8	8	8	8
Aircraft	Pearson Correlation	.977**	.610	-.643	1	.806*
Sig. (2-tailed)	.000	.108	.085		.016
N	8	8	8	8	8
Cars	Pearson Correlation	.842**	.762*	-.535	.806*	1
Sig. (2-tailed)	.009	.028	.172	.016
N	8	8	8	8	8
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The correlation between population and rail transportation is 0.654. This means with growth of population, the use of rail transportation has increased. For bus, the correlation is negative having a correlation co-efficient of -0.757. That means with growth of population use of bus transportation reduces because of high congestion on roads. For aircraft and cars, there is high correlation between population and these transportation means.

Hypotheses

The relation obtained from correlation analysis further analyzed using linear regression

Relation between population and rail transport

Table 5: Regression model between rail and population

Model Summary
Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate
1	.654a	.427	.332	223.077
a. Predictors: (Constant), Population

Coefficientsa
Model	Unstandardized Coefficients	Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.
B	Std. Error	Beta
1	(Constant)	-3134.429	3038.397		-1.032	.342
Population	.001	.000	.654	2.116	.079
a. Dependent Variable: Rail

The R square value of the model is 0.427 implying a positive relation between rail transport and population. However, the coefficient is not statistically significant. Therefore, the null hypothesis of no significant relation between rail transport and population growth is accepted.

Model Summary
Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate
1	.737a	.543	.467	87.520
a. Predictors: (Constant), Population

Coefficientsa
Model	Unstandardized Coefficients	Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.
B	Std. Error	Beta
1	(Constant)	4368.793	1192.059		3.665	.011
Population	-.0004	.000	-.737	-2.673	.037
a. Dependent Variable: Bus

The regression results shows a statistically significant relation between bus transportation and population growth. An inverse relation exists between the two variables. Therefore, the null hypothesis of no significant relation between bus transportation and population growth is rejected.

Relation between population and aircraft transport

Table 7: Regression model between aircraft and population

Model Summary
Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate
1	.977a	.955	.948	28.884
a. Predictors: (Constant), Population

Coefficientsa
Model	Unstandardized Coefficients	Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.
B	Std. Error	Beta
1	(Constant)	-3514.111	393.409		-8.932	.000
Population	.001	.000	.977	11.286	.000
a. Dependent Variable: Aircraft

The estimated co-efficient of population is 0.001. Therefore, population growth has a negligible impact on aircraft transportation. The co-efficient is statistically significant as obtained from the significant p value. The positive and significant co-efficient implies population growth positively influences aircraft transportation.

Table 8: Regression model between cars and population

Model Summary
Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate
1	.842a	.710	.661	1604.402
a. Predictors: (Constant), Population

Coefficientsa
Model	Unstandardized Coefficients	Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.
B	Std. Error	Beta
1	(Constant)	-37004.462	21852.569		-1.693	.141
Population	.011	.003	.842	3.829	.009
a. Dependent Variable: Cars

For car transport, a positive coefficient is obtained from the regression result. The p value for the co-efficient is 0.009, which is less than significance level. Therefore, the null hypothesis of no significant relation between population and car transportation is rejected.

Table 9: Population and road length

Length of roads
Year	Population	Length
2009	7133275	184,761
2016	7746450	185,000

With an increase in population overtime, the length of roads has increased. The length of roads in 2009 was 184,761 km, which increases to 185,000 km in 2016.

The analysis has shown, population in New South Wales is growing continuously. This is now considered as one of the most populated regions of Australia. With increase in population, there is an increasing pressure on transportation system. The number of registered vehicles have increased significantly with level of population. This is in line with results of previous research papers (Stevenson et al., 2016).

With growth of population, the use of different mode of transportation increases. The used mode of transportation are rail, bus, aircraft and cars. A positive relation exists between rail transport and population. The rail patronages though have increased for city rail and metropolitan areas, in regional and rural areas patronages has accounted a decline as compared to previous years. This means more people are now shifted to the metropolitan areas (Wanke, Barros & Figueiredo, 2016). Popualtion growth has a negative signifiant relation with bus transportation. However, with increasing population crowd in public and private transportation is likely to increases. To avoid heavy crowd, people prefer to use their own cars. A statistically signifcant positive relation exists between car use and popualtion growth. To avoid traffic congestion people increasingly uses the means of airtransport.  Popualtion growth has a positve significant influence on aircraft users.

Methodology

For easing the congestion level, new roads are constructed. The congestion level in New South Wales is increasing at a comparatively slow rate.

Conclusion 

The first research question of this paper is how population growth impacts transportation system of New South Wales. Overtime the population in New South Wales have increased. With this, the number of vehicles on roads have also increased.

Secondly, the paper tries to find relation between mode of transportation and population growth. Passengers travelling by rail records a significant increase. However, most of the increase in transportation have recorded in metropolitan areas. For bus transportation population growth negatively influnces bus trasportation leading to a decrase in number of people using bus transportation. The use of cars and aircrafts have recorded a considerable incrase.

Third objective is to find whether length of road increases along with population. The length of roads in NSW has increased to control the traffic congestion.

The main limitation of the paper is only a limited data can be obtained and analyzed. The timeframe taken for comparison is relatively small. Another limitation is that the study focuses only on New South Wales. However, major capital cities like Sydney and Melbourne also faces problem of congestion because of overpopulation. The scenario in other cities has not considered in the research.

The limitation of present research opens up scope for further research in this field. The paper makes only quantitative analysis on transportation and population growth. Research can be made to find how population growth affect comfort of people. For this, a qualitative research needs to be conducted on the comfort and satisfaction level of people along with population.

The paper finds that with growing population the preference for rail transportation has increased. Therefore, government should focus on a better development of rail transportation in the city.

Reference list 

Blanco Ramírez, G. (2016). Many choices, one destination: Multimodal university brand construction in an urban public transportation system. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 29(2), 186-204.

Boyac?, B., Zografos, K. G., & Geroliminis, N. (2015). An optimization framework for the development of efficient one-way car-sharing systems. European Journal of Operational Research, 240(3), 718-733.

Bugheanu, A. M., & Colesca, S. E. (2016). Empirical Research on Urban Public Transportation in the Context of Population Growth and the Demographic Development. Management and Economics Review, 1(2), 183-193.

Chaturvedi, V., & Kim, S. H. (2015). Long term energy and emission implications of a global shift to electricity-based public rail transportation system. Energy Policy, 81, 176-185.

Chen, C., Gong, H., & Paaswell, R. (2012). Role of the built environment on mode choice decisions: additional evidence on the impact of density. Transportation, 35(3), 285-299..

Clifton, G. T., & Mulley, C. (2016). A historical overview of enhanced bus services in Australian cities: What has been tried, what has worked?. Research in Transportation Economics, 59, 11-25.

Geertman, S., Allan, A., Pettit, C., & Stillwell, J. (2017, July). Introduction to ‘planning support science for smarter urban futures’. In International Conference on Computers in Urban Planning and Urban Management (pp. 1-19). Springer, Cham.

Gharehbaghi, K., & Georgy, M. (2015). Utilization of infrastructure gateway system (igs) as a transportation infrastructure optimization tool. International Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering, 4(1), 8-15.

Glazier, R. H., Creatore, M. I., Weyman, J. T., Fazli, G., Matheson, F. I., Gozdyra, P., … & Booth, G. L. (2014). Density, destinations or both? A comparison of measures of walkability in relation to transportation behaviors, obesity and diabetes in Toronto, Canada. PloS one, 9(1), e85295.

Golub, A., & Martens, K. (2014). Using principles of justice to assess the modal equity of regional transportation plans. Journal of Transport Geography, 41, 10-20.

Grinin, L. E., & Korotayev, A. V. (2018). Origins of globalization in the framework of the Afroeurasian world-system history. In Comparing Globalizations (pp. 37-70). Springer, Cham.

Hendrigan, C., & Newman, P. (2017). Dense, mixed-use, walkable urban precinct to support sustainable transport or vice versa? A model for consideration from Perth, Western Australia. International journal of sustainable transportation, 11(1), 11-19.

Kroes, E., Kouwenhoven, M., Debrincat, L., & Pauget, N. (2013). On the value of crowding in public transport for Ile-de-France. International Transport Forum Discussion Paper.

Lam, A. Y., Leung, Y. W., & Chu, X. (2016). Autonomous-vehicle public transportation system: Scheduling and admission control. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 17(5), 1210-1226.

Lam, S., Taghia, J., & Katupitiya, J. (2016). Evaluation of a transportation system employing autonomous vehicles. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 50(8), 2266-2287.

Li, H., Gao, K. & Tu, H. (2016). Perceived discrepancy in mode-specific in-vehicle crowding and travel time reliability in multimodal networks. Working paper.

Li, T., Burke, M., & Dodson, J. (2017). Transport impacts of government employment decentralization in an Australian city–Testing scenarios using transport simulation. Socio–Economic Planning Sciences, 58, 63-71.

Luke Haywood, Martin Koning & Guillaume Monchambert (2017). Crowding in public transport: Who cares and why? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, 2017, 100, pp.215-227.

Mayer, T., & Trevien, C. (2017). The impact of urban public transportation evidence from the Paris region. Journal of Urban Economics, 102, 1-21.

Meyer, G., & Shaheen, S. (Eds.). (2017). Disrupting Mobility: Impacts of Sharing Economy and Innovative Transportation on Cities. Springer.

Mulley, C., & Tsai, C. H. P. (2016). When and how much does new transport infrastructure add to property values? Evidence from the bus rapid transit system in Sydney, Australia. Transport Policy, 51, 15-23.

Neirotti, P., De Marco, A., Cagliano, A. C., Mangano, G., & Scorrano, F. (2014). Current trends in Smart City initiatives: Some stylised facts. Cities, 38, 25-36.

Olsen, J. R., Macdonald, L., & Ellaway, A. (2017). Changes over time in population level transport satisfaction and mode of travel: A 13 year repeat cross-sectional study, UK. Journal of transport & health, 6, 366-378.

Parolin, B., & Rostami, S. (2017). Identifying the Transport Needs of the Transport Disadvantaged Groups in Rural Areas of New South Wales, Australia: A Case Study. Journal of Sustainable Rural Development., 1(1), 15-26.

Pearce, P. (2017). Taxes to influence energy use in road transportation in Australia. Renewable Energy and Environmental Sustainability, 2, 16.

Pettit, C. J., Klosterman, R. E., Delaney, P., Whitehead, A. L., Kujala, H., Bromage, A., & Nino-Ruiz, M. (2015). The online what if? Planning support system: A land suitability application in Western Australia. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 8(2), 93-112.

Philip, P., Chaufton, C., Orriols, L., Lagarde, E., Amoros, E., Laumon, B., … & Sagaspe, P. (2014). Complaints of poor sleep and risk of traffic accidents: a population-based case-control study. PloS one, 9(12), e114102.

Ricciardi, A. M., Xia, J. C., & Currie, G. (2015). Exploring public transport equity between separate disadvantaged cohorts: a case study in Perth, Australia. Journal of transport geography, 43, 111-122.

Saberi, M., Wu, H., Amoh-Gyimah, R., Smith, J., & Arunachalam, D. (2017). Measuring housing and transportation affordability: a case study of Melbourne, Australia. Journal of transport geography, 65, 134-146.

Stevenson, M., Thompson, J., de Sá, T. H., Ewing, R., Mohan, D., McClure, R., … & Wallace, M. (2016). Land use, transport, and population health: estimating the health benefits of compact cities. The Lancet, 388(10062), 2925-2935.

Tirachini, A., Hensher, D. A., & Rose, J. M. (2013). Crowding in public transport systems: effects on users, operation and implications for the estimation of demand. Transportation research part A: policy and practice, 53, 36-52. 

Wanke, P., Barros, C. P., & Figueiredo, O. (2016). Efficiency and productive slacks in urban transportation modes: A two-stage SDEA-Beta Regression approach. Utilities Policy, 41, 31-39.

Webb, J. C., Wilson, C., & Briggs, M. (2017). Automotive modal lock-in: a theoretical framework for the analysis of peak car and beyond with special reference to Australia. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 24(4), 406-422.

Yao, S., & Yang, X. (2012). Airport development and regional economic growth in China.

Data Source:

3101.0 – Australian Demographic Statistics, Jun 2017. (2018). Abs.gov.au. Retrieved 30 January 2018, from https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/3101.0

Bitre.gov.au. Retrieved 30 January 2018, from https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2014/files/is_059.pdf

NSW and Sydney Transport Facts | Transport for NSW. (2018). Transport.nsw.gov.au. Retrieved 30 January 2018, from https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/newsroom-and-events/reports-and-publications/nsw-and-sydney-transport-facts

Destinationnsw.com.au. Retrieved 8 February 2018, from https://www.destinationnsw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/travel-to-nsw-time-series-ye-sept-17.pdf