Congestion charging schemes for Australian cities

A major problem lurking in the shadows of our booming economy is the burgeoning cost of traffic congestion in our major cities. Up to date data is hard to come by but the oft quoted 1999 Bureau of Transport Economics (BTE) report Urban Transport - Looking Ahead is still relevant and paints a grim picture of the hip pocket impact of traffic congestion that awaits all of us if our leaders do not act soon. The following table derived from this report tells the story.

(In Brisbane, the cost per family in 2015 will rise to a pay packet crunching $12,000 per family per annum - after tax!)

These gloomy predictions were based on projected congestion trends in the late 90s and it is likely that transport infrastructure upgrades now under way in major cities will go some way towards reducing these costs, at least in the short term. Improvements in public transport infrastructure (rail track and busways) and a consequent boost in public transport services will also help. It is clear however that we will not be able to simply build our way out of the problem. We need other incentives to prevent overloading our transport networks.

What then are the underlying causes of the congestion problems we are now facing?

Lack of investment in transport infrastructure is an obvious target. No doubt the healthy economy and consequent high employment rates have an influence, while "just in time" inventory control and courier services boost the numbers of commercial vehicles. Delays due to traffic incidents which take too long to clear are another factor. But it is our underlying preference for private motor vehicle use that is the main cause.

Critics of private motor vehicle use often refer to our "love affair with the car" and assert that it is the reason why public transport usage is declining as a proportion of overall travel. This is a convenient but inaccurate aphorism - our real love affair is with the convenient personal mobility afforded by the private car - and we are clearly prepared to pay a premium for it. This mobility is not a privilege that we will easily forgo.

Even significant increases in fuel prices, parking charges and so on, seem to have little long-term impact on our choice of travel mode. It will certainly take more than pious appeals to "consider the environment - take public transport" to get us to switch from our cars. Most of us think it is a good idea - for other drivers - to switch, so we can have a congestion-free run!

So how to convince motorists to forgo the convenience of their personal chariot and mend their wicked ways?

As well as ensuring that comfortable and accessible alternatives are available, I believe the solution must be via the hip pocket nerve, through a user pays system of road use charging which makes those responsible for traffic congestion pay for it.

Current charging regimes for use of Australia's roads include vehicle registration charges, compulsory third party insurance charges and a range of fuel excise charges (a clumsy surrogate for a road use charge). None of these are linked to congestion costs. The registration and insurance costs, in particular, are patently unfair. A pensioner whose car rarely leaves the garage pays the same fees to access the road network as a commercial driver travelling 100,000 km a year.

A charging regime based as closely as possible to actual road usage would be much fairer and could be structured to reflect the real cost to the community of travel on congested roads. The idea is not new. A few cities have implemented various forms of congestion pricing, including Singapore, Orange County (California State Route 91) and the cities of Trondheim, Oslo and Bergen in Norway, while London has had a congestion pricing scheme in place since February 2003.

The London scheme involves a charge (currently A$12 but about to rise to A$19 per day) to enter central London during weekdays between 7am and 6.30pm. The scheme has had a substantial impact on inner city congestion. Peak period delays have declined by 30 per cent, average travel speeds have increased by 40 per cent and bus congestion delays have declined by 50 per cent. Net revenue from the scheme is directed to improve public transit services including more buses and major renovations to the Tube system. The system is far from ideal (it charges for area access not road use and uses a fairly inefficient charging system based on video cameras) but it is a welcome demonstration of what can be achieved when the political will to deal with congestion is strong.

Following the apparent success of the London scheme, other cities around the world are now moving in the same direction. Edinburgh, Cardiff and Stockholm are actively working on charging proposals, while Barcelona, San Francisco, Minneapolis and Sao Paulo are said to be interested. The World Bank is also reported to be pressing booming cities in developing countries to use charging regimes to curb rapidly worsening urban traffic congestion.

Europe is leading the way in developing smart technology to allow a rational and efficient congestion and heavy vehicle-charging regime to be implemented. Using this technology, prices can reflect type of road, distance travelled, congestion impact, environmental ranking of the vehicle, weight of load and pavement capacity. Switzerland is already using this technology to charge heavy vehicles a premium to use the nation's road system as a shortcut through Europe.

So what steps are Australian governments taking to follow Europe's lead? Apparently only a very cautious few! Toll roads in a number of cities provide a modicum of user charging, (but charges are not linked to congestion) and the move towards wider use of electronic tolling with a system which is compatible with toll facilities nationwide is to be applauded. Some interest is being shown by our governments in introducing a satellite-based heavy vehicle charging system founded in part on the European work, but very little is apparently being done to investigate the development of congestion charging schemes.

Motoring organisations such as Queensland's RACQ and professional bodies such as Engineers Australia have been calling for the introduction of urban travel demand management schemes to be given a much higher priority in government circles. Unfortunately, there appears to be a distinct lack of political will to really grapple with the urban congestion problem, and a particular reluctance to even consider congestion charging schemes. Even the Australian Government's Auslink program - supposedly a "strategic" response to the nations transport infrastructure needs - specifically rules out funding for projects to relieve urban congestion let alone foster investigation of road charging reform. It is hard to see how a looming $29.5 billion congestion cost blowout is not worthy of "strategic" consideration.

It is time for action. Action to investigate best practice in charging policy, systems and technology world wide, action to develop a range of proposals for road pricing reform and action to institute informed community debate about the issue. There is clearly a need for the federal government to take a leadership role in this process (with active support from the states), as any system adopted should be compatible nationwide. The federal minister for transport chairs the Australian Transport Council which includes ministerial representatives from all states. It is time for him to put the issue of congestion charging on the council agenda.

Obviously, any change in charging regimes will result in a wide range of "winners" and "losers" with the distinct possibility of some resultant electoral pain. Nonetheless, a well-researched and technically sound scheme that addresses the problems of the losers and provides a real funding boost for alternative transport modes will benefit the whole community in the long term. One way or another we are all going to pay for congestion - and we'll pay a lot more if our leaders don't take action now.