Comments on: Congestion taxes to encourage selectivity in car use

By: Francis Xavier Holden

Francis Xavier Holden — Thu, 29 May 2008 02:30:00 +0000

A 20c hike in fuel prices will only add another $200 to a typical 20,000ks a year fuel bill and given that say 10,000ks is non avoidable I can’t see much sense in making big changes for a “saving” of $100.

By: Francis Xavier Holden

Francis Xavier Holden — Thu, 29 May 2008 02:24:00 +0000

I don’t reckon the CBD in Melbourne is all that congested. There are other congested hotspots around the suburbs. Warrigal Road, Beach Road, Springvale Road, Whitehorse through Ringwood.

The congestion in Melb generally is in trying to bypass CBD or get across town suburbs to suburbs. Western Ring Road around Sydney Road is a mess in peak hours. Bell Street is a schemozzle. Punt Road almost any time. Toorak Road hopeless.

There seems to be an urban myth that most workers commute from outer suburbs into CBD. Not so – most people work within 10 – 15 ks of home and mostly commute across town rather than to a central hub.

By: trs80

trs80 — Wed, 28 May 2008 14:57:00 +0000

I’d say jobs in the CBD are higher-paying than those in the suburbs, and most commuters into the CBD already face steep car parking prices, so yes, CBD car commuters are somewhat price-insensitive. Although I was talking to a few friends recently, and better, cheaper public transport would also help.

By: Spiros

Spiros — Mon, 26 May 2008 23:56:00 +0000

Harry, how much do you reckon that petrol at $1.60 per litre, and heading north, will solve the congestion problem?

I know the idea of congestion pricing is to discourage driving at particular times of the day, so high petrol prices are not the same thing, but even so, if enough people cut their driving by enough because of petrol prices then the congestion problem should get better, shouldn’t it? Especially since driving in congested traffic uses more petrol per kilometre.

By: hc

hc — Mon, 26 May 2008 21:59:00 +0000

Derrida Derrida,

The standard story is that the wealthy have a high value of time and will pay the congestion tax. The ‘poor’ have a much lower value of time and are ‘tolled off’ – they suffer big deadweight losses since their behaviour changes a lot.

That said you might have a point. Maybe the wealthy will comprise most of the commuters into a CBD anyway – I’d like to see the facts on this. If it is true then to cut into congestion you would need a big toll.

By: derrida derider

derrida derider — Mon, 26 May 2008 12:07:00 +0000

I think its obvious that a congestion charge is a progressive tax. Have a look at the type of cars you see in the inner city and compare them with those you see in battler outer suburbs. There aint many 7-series BMWs in the battler suburbs.

In fact that's exactly one of the reasons "Red Ted" Livingstone was so keen on it for London.

By: conrad

conrad — Mon, 26 May 2008 09:51:00 +0000

I think you can argue black and blue with these quite reasonable suggestions. However, I’ll just assume that the average Today Tonight viewer is not exactly the type that is likely to fairly evaluate them (I presume you were just there for punishment, oh, and publicity for La Trobe). Its a pitty really, as I imagine many of these things would make Melbourne a far better place.

Cross-culturally, I might note that once people get used to these tolls, they get accepted quite well — people don’t complain in countries like France where there are tolls left right and centre on roads. However, they do take public transport much more (which is however much better than here). There’s a great place you can go to see this on the border of Germany and France — there are two freeways that run basically parallel, one where you pay (France) and the other where you don’t (Germany). Its funny watching people endlessly sitting in traffic on the German side, but having reasonable driving conditions on the French side.