I always have problems with articles such as this.

It is impossible to track back the two sources for the billions of dollars described glibly as "costs". The first is tied up in BTCE (1996), Transport and Greenhouse: Costs and Options for Reducing Emissions, which is a ten year-old collection of statistics with some dubious - or at least arguable - conclusions. The second simply isn't available yet, having been commissioned by a daily newspaper, so we can't assess either their sources or their calculations. Best to sell a few newspapers on the back of their sensationalism before examining their maths, right?

What all such reports and analyses fail to do is to take the obvious next step, and model some of the alternatives. If they did, enthusiastic and concerned students such as Mr Wall would have some basis for their guesswork when it comes to "solutions".

A congestion tax is simply that - a tax. The situation we find ourselves in has been exacerbated over the years by various governments' unwillingness to risk their political futures by spending our money on infrastructure. Now, of course, it is fashionable to outsource "services" - including transport - to the private sector. Maybe we should outsource the congestion tax too?

The simple fact is that no-one has any interest in making a call on what the real cost - in terms of the increased burden on businesses, particularly small ones - of decreasing CBD traffic would be. What prices would fall, which would increase? Would people be forced to move their businesses to the suburbs? What impact would that have on the transport infrastructure, and on jobs?

If Mr Wall wants to do something really useful in his University studies, he should eschew the easy points to be made from regurgitating tired old studies that say "woe, woe, all is woe", and actually do some of the hard work that is desperately needed.

What are the real alternatives? Who would win, who would lose?

Here's a hint: it ain't more taxes.

So the solution to congestion is to dispossess a significant portion of the population of their right to drive into the city? Looks like a sleazy old policy of exclusion to me.

The best way to beat congestion is to limit metropolitan population growth and the only way to do that while maintaining economic growth is to shift the population growth to regions that can deal with the infrastructure cheaply. This is not old style decentralisation because it doesn't work without shifting the business of government as well.

Create two new states in regional NSW and create head-office functions that will spread the growth to places that will not suffer serious congestion diseconomies for many decades. Continue stroking the metropolitan ego (ie, mine's bigger than your's) and spend your entire life with your nose up a buses backside.

Life is short, don't you have anything better to do?

What's a public transport system? haven't seen one of those for years where I live. Interesting that I just finished talking to an AC Neilson telephone survey on public transport (The caller was from New Zealand).

I only have to walk for 35 minutes to find the nearest bus stop, but whats the point it still gets stuck in traffic for 40 minutes trying to cross the maroochy river.

All governments have failed to spend money on infrastructure and we are seeing the effects of that now.

Further “Suggestions to relieve congestion”.

Cease all immigration and force the nincompoops in Canberra to formulate a Population Policy.

Round up all non-citizens and ship them out.

Show big-city lovers that there is life in regional areas, and transfer jobs and facilities there for them.

For Sydney- siders: there really is civilization west of the Blue Mountains

One of the many problems with public transport in Sydney is that it is only of any use to those who live and work within walking distance of train stations or express bus stops - ie. the minority. Any public transport system that requires people to swap to a different system eg. light rail is a nonstarter. It just adds too much time onto the journey.

In many UK towns and cities where carparking is scarce and expensive much use is made of Park-and-Ride facilities where regular and frequent bus services run continuously. The buses are clean and safe and there are covered bus shelters and well lit carparks. It works wonderfully at least into the main CBD and shopping areas.

Maybe we need to increase parking rates and supply cheap parking on major train and bus routes. High petrol prices should help too.

My friends who live and work in London speak highly of the congestion tax which has made travelling around London much easier either by car or by bus.

I would like to see more dedicated cycle lanes around Sydney that actually go where people need to go. I used to live in Cambridge, UK where the bicycle rules - safety in numbers

Patrick, yes the concept of a congestion charge and various others forms of disincentives to drive into the city would be good. But we would have to be very careful as to not critically disadvantage some people. No increase in regulations is going to be fair to all concerned, but we still have to strive to make it as fair as possible.

We need to very quickly start adapting to life with critically high fuel prices and all the upheaval that this will bring in the very near future if we are not totally ready for it. Gently but firmly encouraging people to use their cars less, explore alternatives and work these things permanently into their lifestyle and budget, is now a very important priority. So, just the same approach applies to peak oil as it does to traffic congestion. All the more reason to really get stuck into it, Messrs Howard, Iemma, Bracks and the rest.

“Cease all immigration and force the nincompoops in Canberra to formulate a Population Policy.”, writes Leigh.

Yes. We should at least cut immigration down to net zero, and quickly. It is simply completely and utterly mindlessly stupidly absurd that we don’t have a national population policy!

As for decentralisation, no thanks. I live in regional Queensland, in one of the prime places for transmigration if such a policy was to be implemented, but which already has a growth rate far too high. It doesn’t make sense to spread the problems around. If immigration was reduced to net zero and the likes of Costello started applauding our low fertility rate instead of pushing to increase it, then and only then should be consider the possibility of implementing significant decentralisation policies, beyond that which is happening now of its own accord.