PDF: 5191 KB - Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional ...

Chapter 6 | Air services in regional communitiessparseness of our population and the nature of our geography, the accessibility toairports in UC/Ls with less than 2000 people was reasonably good.Among the UC/Ls beyond the assumed access distance to any airport, most (279out of 332 UC/Ls) had less than 2000 people (Table 6.6). The 279 UC/Ls covered1 per cent of the total population from all UC/Ls. It could also be observed that 51UC/Ls with a population size between 2000 and 20 000 people were located beyondthe assumed access distance to any airport. The 51 UC/Ls covered 1.6 per cent ofthe total population. There are two UC/Ls with a population size between 20 000and 100 000 people located beyond the assumed access distance. As discussed inChapter 4, they were Shepparton-Mooroopna in Victoria and Bunbury in WesternAustralia. All UC/Ls with a population of more than 100 000 were within the assumedaccess distance to airport.Overall, the number of UC/Ls beyond the assumed access distance to any airportincreases as the population size decreases.Table 6.6 Distribution of UC/Ls: airport size by population size, 2005Distribution of UC/LsPopulation size Large airports Medium airports Small airports Rural airports No airportsLess than 2000 727 200 29 50 2792000–19 999 222 59 15 17 5120 000–99 999 29 13 1 1 2100,000+ 14 0 0 0 0Total 992 272 45 68 332Source:BITRE time series estimates.IncomeTable 6.7 examines the distribution of population in UC/Ls by average weeklyindividual income group according to the airport classification. Broadly speaking,the distribution of population in UC/Ls for each airport size was mostly concentratedon the average weekly individual income group of $400 to $600. Relative to otherairport sizes, the proportion of population in UC/Ls who received an average of $400to $600 a week was the highest (92 per cent) for those who are within reach of at leastone large airport. However, the correlation between the distribution of populationin UC/Ls by average weekly individual income group and medium/small/rural/noairport is not completely clear. Around 37 per cent who lived in UC/Ls within theassumed accessed distance to at least one medium airport were in a lower incomegroup of $200 to $400. The proportion is higher than those who lived in UC/Ls withinthe assumed access distance to small, rural and no airports.Generally, the distribution of population in UC/Ls by income group for those wholived beyond the assumed access distance to any airport closely resembled those wholived in UC/Ls within the assumed distance to medium, small and rural airports.169