If Australia wants to manage congestion, it needs to look at road charging

Rush hour in Melbourne. Image: Getty.

Average travel speeds in Australian cities are decreasing. And congestion is only likely to worsen as our population continues to grow.

Urban Infrastructure Minister Paul Fletcher recently gave an important speech, albeit largely unnoticed, in which he made the case for a universal road user charging scheme. Charging people to drive has previously been the dream of transport and economic policy wonks – serving politicians tend to see the idea as political poison.

Fletcher trod gently, cautioning his Sydney Institute audience that “there is a lot of work to do” and that any move in this direction would be “a ten to 15-year journey”. It is still remarkable that a federal minister even took these first steps.

Singapore introduced the world’s first electronic road pricing system back in 1998 to manage traffic volumes in the city. Image: Jason Tester Guerrilla Futures/Flickr/creative commons.

Fletcher warned of the potential impact of electric vehicles on fuel excise revenue, but automated vehicles represent an even bigger change.

The future of road use is made unclear by the looming arrival of these vehicles. Despite predictions that these could be the answer to traffic congestion, complications include the interaction of autonomous and traditional vehicles and the complexities of human behaviour.

Autonomous vehicles could even lead to greater congestion. The ease of travel in these vehicles might encourage travellers to take more trips as they reduce the time cost of being stuck in traffic by being able to read emails and stay connected while the car drives itself. Empty vehicles travelling to pick up goods and passengers could further clog roads.

So it is prudent to target road congestion now, especially when current strategies aren’t helping much. Building more road capacity or even improving public transport can’t solve congestion.

The best strategy is management of demand via a pricing mechanism that reflects the cost of the congestion caused by one more vehicle on the road. With prices that vary by location, time of day and distance travelled, such a scheme would encourage people to take non-essential trips at a different time, or not at all.

The charge could be efficient, as the trips that are discouraged are those for which the congestion caused outweighs the benefit derived. And it would be fair: drivers adding to the delay faced by others pay more, while those who drive in non-congested areas or at non-peak times pay less.

The ability to observe road users’ willingness to pay for road space will also give a better signal to planners of where additional road capacity will be of value to the community.

The European experience of road user charging has produced multiple economic and social benefits. Image: Federation European Cyclists/Flickr/creative commons.

Don’t treat it as a revenue raiser

So Fletcher deserves plaudits for raising the issue. But he got one important thing wrong: he said that the fuel excise tax funds road spending.

Pointing out that fuel excise receipts would fall with the advent of more fuel-efficient vehicles, and electric cars in particular, he argued for a road user charging scheme on the ground that it would raise revenue for road spending.

Linking fuel excise to road funding is a furphy and gets us onto the wrong track at the very start of the road-pricing journey. Fuel excise is merely one source of general government revenue and is not in any way hypothecated, meaning pledged by law to be spent on a specific purpose – in this case roads.

It is no more relevant to say that falling excise revenues will put road funding under pressure than it is to say this will put pressure on health spending or the age pension.

Furthermore, about 75 per cent of road funding comes from state and local government revenue, while fuel excise is a federal tax. It is true that falling fuel excise receipts would add to the federal government’s deficit problems. But there is no reason why a loss of fuel excise revenue must be replaced by another charge on motorists, or why motorists alone should fund additional road spending.


Take care to avoid an inefficient, distorting tax

The government should take a holistic approach to repair its pressured budget. It should restrict the most wasteful spending, wherever it is, and introduce or increase the most efficient, fair and simple taxes. It is not helpful to limit our thinking to motorist-based taxes to solve that part of the budget problem caused by falling fuel excise receipts.

The other problem with introducing road user charging as a revenue raiser rather than a congestion reducer is that a scheme designed on those terms is likely to produce poor results.

If we approach the task asking how we can maximise revenue, we’ll end up with charges on the wrong roads, at the wrong times, priced to maximise financial return rather than optimise congestion. For example, we might charge heavily on major roads, just to increase revenue, when some targeted charges on minor roads might do more to reduce traffic. In short, we’ll have one more inefficient, distorting tax.

So kudos to the minister for opening the debate. Let’s talk about road user charging, but let’s talk about what it should really achieve.The Conversation

If we start by asking the right questions, road user charging could be the best congestion management policy we’ve seen in Australia. It could improve the driving experience without the need for big spending on more road capacity, and make sure we get the most economic and social value from our roads.

Marion Terrill is transport program director, and Owain Emslie an associate, at the Grattan Institute, Melbourne.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

 
 
 
 

Here’s how Henry Ford and IKEA could provide the key to solving the housing crisis

A flatpack house designed by architectural firm Rogers Stirk Harbour and Partners, on display at the Royal Academy, London, in 2013. Image: Getty.

For many people, the housing market is not a welcoming place. The rungs of the property ladder seem to get further and further out of reach. There are loud calls to build hundreds of thousands of new homes (and equally loud demands that they’re not built in anyone’s back yard).

If there was ever a time to introduce mass-produced affordable housing, surely that time is now.

The benefits of mass production have been well known since Henry Ford’s car factories made the Model T back in 1908. It was only made in one colour, black, for economic reasons. Not because it was the cheapest colour of paint, but because it was the colour that dried the quickest.

This allowed the production line to operate at faster, more cost effective, speeds. And ultimately, it meant the product could be sold at a more attractive cost to the customer.

This approach, where processes are tested to achieve increasingly efficient production costs, is yet to filter properly into the construction of houses. This makes sense in a way, as not everybody wants exactly the same type of house.

Historically, affordable mass-produced housing removed a large amount of customisations, to ensure final costs were controlled. But there is another way. Builders and architects have the ability to create housing that allows a level of flexibility and customisation, yet also achieves the goal of affordability.


Back in 2006, the “BoKlok” approach to affordable housing was launched to great acclaim in the UK. Literally translated from Swedish, the term means “live smart”. Originally created from a collaboration between flat-pack favourite IKEA and Swedish construction giant Skanska, the BoKlok housing approach was to allow for selected customisation to maximise individuality and choice for the customers. But at the same time, it ensured that larger house building components were duplicated or mass-produced, to bring down the overall costs.

Standard elements – wall panels, doors, windows – were made in large numbers to bring the elemental costs down. This approach ensured the costs were controlled from the initial sketch ideas through to the final design choices offered to the customers. The kitchens and bathrooms were designed to be flexible in terms of adding additional units. Draw and cupboard fronts interchangeable. Small options that provided flexibility, but did not impact on overall affordability.

It’s a simple approach that has worked very well. More than 10,000 BoKlok houses have now been built, mainly in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, with a small number in the UK.

But it is only part of the architectural equation. The affordable housing market is vital, but the cost of making these homes more adaptable is rarely considered.

Flexibility is key. The needs of a house’s inhabitants change. Families can grow (and shrink) and require more room, so the costs of moving house reappear. One clever response to this, in BoKlok homes, has been to allow “built in” flexibility.

Loft living

This flexibility could include a loft space that already has flooring and a built in cupboard on a lower floor which can be simply dismantled and replaced with a “flat-pack style” staircase that can be purchased and installed with minimal disruption to the existing fabric.

Weeks of builders removing walls, plastering and upheaval are replaced by a trip to the IKEA store to purchase the staircase and the booking of a subcontractor to fit it. The original design accounted for this “future option” and is built into the core of the house.

The best approach to new affordable housing should consider combinations of factors that look at design, materials and processes that have yet to be widely used in the affordable housing market.

And the construction sector needs to look over its shoulder at other market places – especially the one that Henry Ford dominated over a century ago. Today’s car manufacturers offer customised options in everything from colour to wheel size, interior gadgets to different kinds of headlamp. These options have all been accounted for in the construction and costing of each model.

The ConversationThey share a similar design “platform”, and by doing so, considerably reduce the overall cost of the base model. The benefit is quicker production with the added benefit of a cost model that allows for customisation to be included. It is a method the construction sector should adopt to produce housing where quality and affordability live happily together.

David Morton, Associate Professor in Architecture and Built Environment, Northumbria University, Newcastle.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.