All these sorts of financial incentives to reduce congestion are fine. But it begs the question; if traffic congestion is so irksome to most people, then why don’t they just automatically choose other options…if those options are readily available, and are better time-wise and/or expense-wise?

And if those options are not easily utilisable, then what is going to be gained by imposing further financial burdens on drivers?

Ok, so financial disincentives will be bound to have some effect. But it would be a mishmash of coercing some people into making positive changes to their bad habits and disadvantaging others who simply can’t change their transport arrangements and can’t really afford the extra financial burden….and everything in between.

People who get disadvantaged by increased costs, when they cannot readily change their arrangements, but can justifiably point the finger at government for allowing the congestion to build up and the infrastructure to lag behind, are going to feel badly done by and are very likely to vote against the relevant government at the next election.

So it is not as easy as it might sound.

The comparison with “sin taxes” on tobacco, alcohol and gambling is only valid up to a point.

you can't vote for a good transportation policy. you get one vote to 'choose' which policy is a:close to your need, and b: more important to you than all the others. you wind up voting against policies you suspect are better for the nation.

if someone offered you a choice of a society where you could directly vote for each minister, and thereby get a chance to have the best policy in every field, you'd say: "yes, please".

but parliament doesn't work like that, chiefly due to the 'alpha-male' phenomenon of primate societies: a bully plus henchmen will dominate any group not subject to oversight. the bully and henchmen are political parties and their leaders, and none of them care much for transportation, they care for power and status.

you can't vote for a good transportation policy. you get one vote to 'choose' which policy is a:close to your need, and b: more important to you than all the others. you wind up voting against policies you suspect are better for the nation.

if someone offered you a choice of a society where you could directly vote for each minister, and thereby get a chance to have the best policy in every field, you'd say: "yes, please".

but parliament doesn't work like that, chiefly due to the 'alpha-male' phenomenon of primate societies: a bully plus henchmen will dominate any group not subject to oversight. the bully and henchmen are political parties and their leaders, and none of them care much about transportation, they care about power and status.

the only effective tactic is: leave the group. buy a bicycle or motor scooter if you must live in the city, or 'down-size' to the country. and don't vote for a politician. i put 'democracy!' on my ballot, or you could just write "none of the above".

TAKE A GIANT STEP INTO THE 21ST CENTURY.

The first traffic light was installed outside the House of Commons in London in 1868.
The first roundabout was installed in 1904 in the USA.
The first multi level Cloverleaf intersection for a Freeway was installed in 1924 in the USA.
All were and are designed to stop and slow traffic!

Too often I hear claims of road construction reducing congestion and yet it never happens.

Imagine if you will a roads infrastructure that allowed all motorists to enter and exit an intersection all day every day without stopping without fail.

Imagine that you can cross town without stopping at any major intersection.

If you can do this then the only limiting factor is the speed any number of vehicles have to drive at to maintain flow. If you have unrestricted exit from all major intersections you will never get traffic tailbacks on to a roadway or Freeway reducing the lanes as a consequence of the intersections inability to cope with the flow.

The problem with the traffic is that we all want to get to where we want to go, and we want every traffic light and intersection we approach to give us a clear run so we don't have to stop at a single intersection.
Not possible you say?
Well you would be wrong!
The simple solution to traffic jams and congestion is to design a road system that lets you do this.
Well we have that solution.
This allows all vehicles that approach any intersection on or to an arterial road to enter the intersection and exit it without stopping. All day, every day, in the worst peak hour traffic and save up to 40% on fuel costs and pollution emissions.

At www.ubtsc.com.au are models that allow everyone approaching an intersection to do exactly that!

People mentioned in this article are invited to visit and prove for themselves that we can design a city traffic infrastructure that eradicates congestion, jams, and gridlock.
Jozef Goj CEO UBTSC Pty Ltd

Like Howard the first thought of how to fix a problem is a tax. Howard and many other politicians and big money players even think a tax will fix the climate. Do you believe that too? They do because they will get even richer through that tax market arrangement.

If they don't want people in these areas then just issue passports to those who they allow. That's more open than this backdoor predjudice.

Does anyone here think this congestion tax applies to all people? It doesn't of course. Would any politician pay it? NO. In London would the Queen pay it? NO.

So explain how it is even and fairhanded. You can't.

All this achieves is to penalise the poorer in society from actually using their vehicles while the richer carry on as they were but using roads mainly paid for by the poorer people.

You really haven't thought this through but of course politicians of all smelly colours applaud it. Because they won't pay it stupid.

As to Etags. In Brisbane the fools that have put transponders in their cars that don't use the toll roads regularly have discovered they are deducted a "minimum" payment each month. So in fact they are taxed for Not using the roads. If you don't believe this, ask Beattie. He's proud of it.

Why should any Australian pay a toll for roads they own and have paid for over many decades through their families taxes? This is simply today's politicians ways of making themselves look like they can manage finance. Selling our possessions They can't manage money at all.

What they are good at is collecting tax and baffling people like this author into thinking it's right and proper.

If there are areas of any rural or urban community that are overcrowded the question is "Who let this happen?" Not "Who is going to pay for my mess?".

Simpler answers are to decentralise the public service and political functions to less crowded areas and to stop buliding high rise where we can't afford it people wise.

Analyst you are not Andrew.

I am not at all convinced about the "quiet new toll-roads in the outer suburbs" that Andrew mentions, but the argument still stacks up pretty well: congestion charges clearly do shift more commuters from private to public transport.

Pegasus, you may be surprised to learn that Dr Leigh is, indeed, an analyst. I have read him analysing several topics over a number of years and I can sincerely confirm that he does, indeed, perform analysis. I suggest you cut out the ad hominem.

Speaking of which, has anybody noticed Tracee Hutchinson's columns in The Age recently? Is this an attempt to be the left's Janet Albrechtsen?