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.

IT COMES DOWN TO THIS. MONEY.

Poor planning is the difference between poor quality of life and these inherant problems.

The local councils are to blame. They approve (along with relevant bodies if required) the developments that are transit orientated, they approve the building plans for the facade of new homes to have Garages as the main aesthetic feature and they move a population into a growth region with little infrastructure, forcing us to be car orientated, even having to jump into cars just to buy a loaf of bread.

There are many differing theories on the spacial development of cities. I wont bore you but if you plan a transit based society reliant on cars (as is the case in all Aussie capitals the developers are putting money in councillors pockets to fund their campaigns so they approve what makes money, not what makes sense), yet you discourage those same people you put out there now from driving to the main employment (not to mention the rest) hub of the city? Stupid.

In other words, live out there with your cars, or live in town without them, you cant have it both ways now.

And society is not approaching segregation hey?

Blame our problems on our councils. They make or break this issue, and it is an issue that will not go away, only get worse.

Petrol is the lifeblood of the modern world, now we will go and fight wars for the problems we have created. There is an answer to this, there is a way in which people can have their cars yet be public transport orientated. But we have to start from scratch.

So every time you are in a traffic jam, curse your trusty local government.

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

Ahh Leigh, you surpass yourself. An article about traffic congestion becomes a chance to slip in a bit of racism with absolutely no link to the topic.

Is there any topic imaginable where you couldn't be casually racist? "Hmm yes, I do think the Australian cricket team has a real chance to win the next World Cup - but only if we stop immigration right this minute!"

Patrick, your article is very rational.

May I add another suggestion. A key reason why many people don't use public transport, or cycle, or walk, is a perceived lowering of status. Pensioners and others less well off have to resort to buses, don't they?

Its time to paint the public transport user as a global and local hero. A saviour of the planet. A pollution fighter. A smart, responsible citizen.

With a backdrop of the climate mayhem that private cars are causing it is not hard to change the ubiquitous negative image that public transport conveys. A hard hitting advertising campaign can do this. After all, look at how smoking habits have changed with a little bit of coaxing..

The idea just needs promotion and can be done without demeaning those who, for one logistic reason or another, still need to use private transport.

Just grist for the mill.

Count0, what are you on about?

At the mere mention of immigration and/or population policy, you bring out the racist slur. According to you, no one can in any way discuss anything to do with immigration or population without being racist. How utterly deplorable.

“Is there any topic imaginable where you couldn't be casually racist?”

Count0, is there any topic imaginable that you couldn’t find a racist connotation in??

This is the most absurd posting I have seen yet on OLO.

May I also remind you that the first rule for posters is to keep responses on topic, which you have completely failed to do here.

.
I have been an avid cyclist for 36 years, since primary school. I ride to work a lot, a return distance of about 30kms. I mix it up with driving. It serves a very good second purpose – aerobic exercise. Cycling is excellent value.

It is one aspect of congestion-alleviation that we should really be promoting. It doesn’t suit everyone of course but if only a small portion of drivers rode to work, only half the time, it would really make a difference. Riding in heavy traffic is a bit of a concern, but with a concerted publicity campaign for both riders and drivers, about the road rules and courtesy, along with a shift in right-of-way rules in the favour of cyclists, it could become a lot more attractive. Anyone who lives within 20km of their workplace, and who is of reasonably fitness or capable of becoming reasonably fit, should be into it

Good to see you're getting published, mate.

Nice article, though I would prefer a tram loop to a bus one.

DK

Mr. Wall,

In your first 5 paragraphs you describe the high economic costs and other negative aspects of traffic congestion in no uncertain terms: 'And these figures cannot begin to predict the widespread and everlasting effects of cars on the environment and our health, which are beyond economic consideration.', 'Something has to be done.', 'Essentially we need to, in one way or another, reduce our dependence on cars..'.

The next 7 paragraphs you outline some of your ideas for solutions. However nowhere in your article, about tackling traffic congestion and pollution, have you even mentioned the establishment of dedicated cycle lanes. I am teaching English in Germany at the moment, and where I live I would estimate 40 to 50 percent of the population uses bicycles to go to and from their place of work or study. That's a huge amount, and in a climate that sometimes drops below -10°C in winter, with very icy conditions. Cycling is so popular that people of all ages are doing this; I've sometimes also seen mothers or fathers pulling a 'chariot' for their toddler behind their bike! (And that's legal). There are no regulations that you have to wear a helmet, because the risk of being hit by car is massively reduced, simply by having cycle lanes.

An extensive cycle network is spread across the entire country, which normally takes about 12 hours to drive a car from one end to the other. This is Germany, the industrial powerhouse of Europe, and the home of Mercedes, BMW, Audi and Porsche, very popular brands at the schools like those that you and I went to Patrick..

Our climate in Australia is far more condusive to outdoor activities than in Europe, and Australians are famous around the world as being amongst the most sports-loving people. Yet we don't even have the most basic cycle path network for commuters to use in our largest city.

How much more expensive could it be than whole new public transport systems? What would be your estimate of the short and long term economic and environmental costs of doing this?

Congratulations Patrick on being published – you seem to have a bright and well balanced future if you stick to your good principles and common sense (which is very uncommon these days especially in areas of town planning, migration and immigration.)

In Sydney where I live – the emphasis is on relocating bottle necks by regulating traffic speed flow and tunnels building; hopeless and costly band-aid measures.

One has to look at the source of the problem as well. Some have already been mentioned here.

1. our love affair with the car
2. our obsession with centralising ‘jobs’ in CBDs
3. our immigration influx (well over 1000 new individuals arrive weekly in Sydney)
4. lack of incentives for population distribution outside main cities
5. disconnectedness of local councils with the overall urban infrastructure
6. our relentless relying on petrol for transport “at any cost and perils”
7. unreliable (unsafe) and costly public transport
8. our reluctance to change work habits (9 to 5 - Monday to Friday)
9. underused technological advancement (many could work from home)
10. limit/ regulate private car access to CBD by increasing park and ride options

Ludwig,

Yes. I'm not easily surprised, but this twerp really did the job. It's the first time I've been accused of racism (even on OLO) because of my concern for the environment and the effect of unsustainable immigration on it.

CountO presumes to know all about me: I "surpass" myself, apparently, and, and there is no topic on which I can't be casually racist.

Do we know this character? Has he posted before, and perhaps my inbuilt rubbish filter has screened him out? Or is he one of these lurkers who finally works up the courage to let fly at someone he has taken a particular dislike to? The idiotic remark about cricket shows that he is not the brightest candle on the table. If he sticks around, he should be good for a laugh, at least.

Count0

You have redefined the english language. How can a proposal to stop ALL immigration be considered racist? All races are treated equally, in that none of them are admitted.

The mathematical fact is that as the population of Sydney rises, the amount of land available to each person must decline. Of course the powerful lobbies, mainly in real estate and industry, push all the time for ever more people.

In 1931 the Governor-General issued a proclamation declaring immigration to be suspended until further notice, and this was enforced by vigorous use of the dictation test. The next significant group of immigrants were Jewish refugees from Germany in 1938.

Getting back to the main thread of this article, I think there are many more methods of combatting congestion than have been mentioned. Some that I like are:

1. Requiring all tolls to be paid in cash in five cent pieces.

2. Variable tolls. The amount payable, on the bridge, for example, would vary in ramdom fashion from 10 cents to $50 as you approached the toll booth.

3. Adopting the Singapore system of trading the right to drive a car on the road. A new car could only go on the road when another came off, and this right would be traded on the stock exchange. I believe the price in Singapore is around $175,000 at the moment.

4. Remember that the whole problem could be solved by government in 12 months, by simply announcing that car registrations would not be renewed when they fall due.

Pigs might fly.

Sydney has got to the point where any solution to any problem will be far more expensive than the same solution applied to a distributed population elsewhere in the state. And that includes the cost of governance itself. Sydney is long past the point where problems no longer simply accumulate by addition, they multiply in complexity and cost. And it is long past the point where the major beneficiaries of devolved population, power and governance would be the residents of Sydney itself.

Ironic isn't it, the Sydney political elite has been so absorbed in imposing their will on the rest of the state that they completely lost the plot on their own problems and needs. But that is Carr's legacy.

Sydney needs to mind its own business and give the regions the independent state, or states, they should have had at federation.

After a couple of days of sober reflection, and having read the additional comments made here, I find the whole subject even more depressing.

Mr Wall is a recent product of our school system, obviously bright and keen, with enough self-motivation to do a stint teaching in Peru. If this is put together by the cream of the crop - which he clearly is - what dross can we expect from the rest of them?

Some observations, Mr Wall, before you get too set in these ways.

It is not always necessary to be politically correct. (Although come to think of it, it probably pays better these days.)

It is not always necessary to follow where so many have gone before. Originality of ideas and expression is still valued in some places.

But most importantly, it is necessary to actually check those primary sources, in order to find out what they really say. The two pieces that you refer to in your article are both already second-hand. You might find - as I did - that the entire basis for calculating "costs" doesn't bear close scrutiny.

Simply quoting somebody else's interpretation of what the source might mean puts you firmly on the road to perdition, I'm afraid. You'll have a long, and mildly interesting career in the public service, then you'll retire, then you'll die. All without having to apply one single solitary brain cell of your own, or form one single opinion that you worked out from first principles, or having created anything of value from your own character.

So what happened here? Someone said "hey Pat, how about shovelling a couple of hundred words together - I'll make sure it gets published, so you can put it on your CV for when you apply for that job in Canberra"

"Just write something easy, not too taxing, traffic congestion is always good for a bit of self-righteous posturing..."

And you fell for it. Sad, really.

Pericles,

Good points, but at our age and in 2006 the young revolt when being treated condescendingly.

He needs to hear what you have to say, but taking yourself down a peg or two to his level will have a greater impact, and enable him to listen more openly to some of your well intended words.

You seem to have good intentions on the most part, sometimes i perhaps dont give you credit. I am looking forward to your articles, where you will make many pessimistic assumptions, just like your posts.

His life is not mapped out, and he has a great future.

Best of luck mate.

Bit of dejavu here, Pericles. You forget, the costings did stack up. Or at least they stacked up long enough for government to spend big bucks on infrastructure that could have been avoided. Wasted time in traffic is a cost to business, wasted time is a cost to families, esp in extended day care etc, it feeds through into family stress levels, divorce rates, social costs etc. You may disagree on the hourly rate but as a person who has been in his own business in both Sydney and Brisbane, I can tell you that the time spent in traffic at the time I moved, was chalk and cheese. And it did not manifest itself at the rate of my take-home income. That time wasted in Sydney traffic was costing me at my charge-out rate of $130/hour. And this fed right through to the value of my business.

Applying a congestion tax or ring around the city center is not the answer, clearly more diverse alternative forms of transport is required.

In Victoria the previous governments reduced the number of trains and expanded the number of carriages attached to each train claiming that it was delivering the same service at reduced cost. Instead all it did was decrease the number of trains and delayed waiting times.

We need to look at creating a variety of options. More private mini-buses plying short routes linking local communities and transport hubs. (Russia and Ukraine is a good example of the effectiveness of public transport trains every 5 minutes and private mini buses covering a multitude of routes.)

Other alternatives is to share road resources more effectively and fairly. Bus/Bicycle lanes on designated routes could also me made accessible and available for use by motorcyclist during peak hour traffic. This would significantly improve road safety for motorcycle riders and encourage more people to consider motorcycles and Scooters as an alternative means of transport with minimal to no additional cost in providing additional infrastructure.

The imposition of a Central City congestion tax would create a economic gated community and further drive economic activities away form City centers and into the suburbs adding further to the number of cars on the road.

If a user pays tax needs to be applied then it should be on the price of fuel and not destination based. A fuel based payment system would encourage better fuel consumption and encourage better utilisation of public transport which must be expanded and improved. It's a multiprong approach that's required "the carrot not the stick" that required.

more:
http://melbournecitycouncil.blogspot.com