Think tank study proposes congestion charging

It may read like an April Fools joke to some, but a well known think tank has produced a report lobbying for a 'cordon charge' to reduce the influx of private transport in major urban areas during peak hours.

Such an idea was proposed by the Victorian government as long ago as 1994. And the concept has been implemented in other parts of the world since.

But the idea – in the context of Australia's two largest cities – has been given added impetus in the new report from the Grattan Institute. The report, named 'Why it's time for congestion charging' and authored by Marion Terrill, goes to some lengths outlining the inconvenience and cost to the motorist of galloping congestion in Melbourne and Sydney.

But motorists aren't portrayed as just victims of congestion. The report highlights statistics revealing drivers in peak hour are twice as likely to be earning over $100,000 a year, which is well above the average wage. According to the report, Sydney commuters who drive to work are typically earning as much as $130,000 a year on average.

Furthermore, 21 per cent of peak-hour drivers clog the roads for the purposes of socialising, recreation or shopping. In other words, if we were that concerned about traffic congestion, we would find other ways of reaching work, or leaving later to catch up with friends.

Employees cop a serve also, as do schools and universities, all of whom expect their staff and students to be at the same place at the same time. If drivers car-pooled, if peak hours could be broadened – with staff arriving and departing earlier or later – and if existing residents moved out of the cities into regional areas, then congestion would cease to be the problem it is.

With few of those options likely in the short term, the report suggests two solutions to congestion: allow congestion to reach critical mass and force commuters to walk, ride or take public transport to work, or charge commuters a congestion tax for driving into the city during peak hour.

The report mounts a number of arguments in favour of imposing a congestion charge in Melbourne and Sydney. Those arguments range from the personal cost of sitting in traffic wasting fuel (and one's own personal time) to productivity costs across society more broadly. Consumers ultimately pay more for goods delivered to shops during peak hour and emergency services vehicles are frequently delayed, possibly leading to loss of life.

Back in 2015, according to the report, the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics calculated the cost of congestion to Australian at $16.5 billion, across the eight capital cities. That included $6.1 billion for Sydney and $4.6 billion for Melbourne.

Curiously, the word 'climate' does not appear in the 58-page report at all, and other than references in the 10-page 'bibliography'. The word 'environment' only appears four times in the report, two of those occasions specifically applied to the road network. From this, it could be deduced that 'environment' and 'climate change' are dirty words if the intention of a document is to persuade decision makers to adopt a congestion charge.

Those decision makers are likely bureaucrats and politicians working within state governments and city municipalities. NSW and Victoria both seem to be amenable to the idea – although it would be a hard sell to voters. The report declares that state governments fund up to 53 per cent of road construction and maintenance. Local municipalities pay for 26 per cent and the federal government, despite collecting 41 cents of excise for every litre of petrol and diesel sold, funds just 21 per cent of road construction and maintenance.

In some ways, the report suggests, our two largest cities are victims of their own success, spreading a low-density population over vast areas and discouraging workers from finding jobs closer to home. Long commutes have become part of the lifestyle in Australian cities, and like a frog in a boiling pot of water, few have noted the steadily rising traffic congestion.

In the longer term, the report indicates, a congestion charge would drive people to make sensible choices concerning their residential address – in closer proximity to their workplace address. Rightly or wrongly, that seems to ignore the oft-noted point that people live where they can afford to buy or rent, and that location is often far removed from their preferred workplace.

Other recommendations from the report include smaller parking bays and narrower lanes – to encourage the purchase of narrower cars, rather than the two exemplars cited: the Holden Commodore and the Jeep Cherokee. These are both cars around 1.9 metres wide. Larger cars, of the type commonly bought in the past by Australian motorists, not only occupy more space on the road (and thereby exacerbate congestion), they also block the sight lines of drivers behind, frequently forcing drivers to slow down.

A cordon charge, the report claims, would reduce peak-hour traffic entering Melbourne or Sydney central business districts by up to 40 per cent. Average speeds would improve by 16 per cent in the city and by 20 per cent on inner-urban arterial roads. After implementing the cordon charge for the CBD, the report's author goes further, suggesting charges for 'corridors' (freeways and arterials) could also be imposed within five years.

The report suggests too that now is the time to implement congestion charges, given both New South Wales and Victorian governments are embarked on major public transport infrastructure projects that could alleviate the overcrowding on existing services during the morning and evening peaks.

In conclusion, the report offers the view that congestion charging is "the least painful way to manage congestion", with the added benefit of being revenue-positive, as opposed to the expensive projects building new roads for future demand.