Three charts on: why congestion charging is fairer than you might think



Peak-time drivers to the CBDs of Sydney and Melbourne typically earn much more than the average worker.
Taras Vyshnya/Shutterstock

Marion Terrill, Grattan Institute and James Ha, Grattan Institute

Congestion charging should be introduced in Australia’s largest cities, as Grattan Institute’s latest report shows. Our analysis also finds that the people who commute to the Melbourne and Sydney CBDs by driving are two to three times as likely to earn six-figure salaries as other Australian workers.

One of the main concerns about charging drivers who use the busiest roads at the busiest times has been about fairness. But sensible congestion charges could be designed to avoid burdening financially vulnerable people who lack alternatives to using particular roads at busy times.

Congestion charging is gaining traction in cities around the world as a proven method to manage congestion. London, Singapore, Stockholm and Milan all have congestion charging schemes. New York City legislators have approved plans to introduce it in Manhattan.




Read more:
Traffic congestion reconsidered


It’s better than building new infrastructure

Sydney and Melbourne are big, global cities, but with growth and prosperity comes congestion. The solution from the federal, New South Wales and Victorian governments has been to throw money at huge infrastructure projects. Politicians like promising infrastructure because large benefits can be targeted at key voters, while the costs are spread across all taxpayers.

But this means many people are paying to alleviate some people’s congestion. And the relief from new infrastructure tends to be short-lived. In Australia’s fast-growing cities, extra public transport capacity at peak times gets chewed up quickly, while new freeways tend to fill with new traffic soon after opening.




Read more:
Do more roads really mean less congestion for commuters?


This doesn’t mean governments should stop investing in infrastructure. But it does raise the question of whether spending billions of taxpayer dollars is the best or fairest way to tackle congestion.

We usually think of congestion as a force that slows us down, without thinking about how we slow everyone else around us. Congestion charging fixes this by charging a modest fee to use the busiest roads. Drivers then have to decide whether it’s worth making their trip at that time on that road.

Drivers who need to travel at peak times are always able to do so – they just need to pay a fee. Heavy users will end up paying more for using an in-demand resource. The most flexible drivers will save money by travelling later, or elsewhere, or by another mode. And this means getting out of everybody else’s way.




Read more:
City-wide trial shows how road use charges can reduce traffic jams


Charging is also fairer than the licence-plate approach of Mexico City or Beijing, where cars are banned from driving on certain days depending on their licence plate numbers. These heavy-handed restrictions ignore the fact that people’s travel needs vary from day to day. Why ban a driver on the day of a job interview?

But what about all the drivers on low incomes?

It’s fair to ask whether congestion charging will burden the most vulnerable people in society. And the answer depends on the design of the scheme.

First, the people who we should really worry about are those who: are struggling financially; frequently or urgently need to travel on charged roads or to a charged area; and lack good alternatives to driving at that time on those roads.

A sensible congestion charge would target only the busiest roads and areas – think central business districts (CBDs), major freeways and key arterial routes – and only at times of high demand such as peak hour.

So if Sydney or Melbourne were to introduce a peak-period congestion charge around their CBDs, how many vulnerable people would be affected? Hardly any.

Our research shows the drivers who would pay the charge tend to be doing just fine. It’s mostly commuters and people driving as part of their job – think tradespeople and couriers. Those travelling for work could pass the cost on to their customers – every tradie driving to the CBD would face the same charge, so no one would gain or lose a competitive advantage.




Read more:
Don’t blame parcel delivery vans for clogging up city traffic, look to the tradies


Most CBD drivers are well-off

And the CBD commuters? They tend to earn much more than the typical Australian.

Grattan Institute analysis shows most people driving to the Sydney CBD for work each day earn six-figure salaries. Their median income is nearly A$2,500 a week – about A$1,000 a week more than the typical income for full-time workers in Sydney.

It’s a similar story in Melbourne. The median full-time worker driving to the CBD earns nearly A$2,000 a week – about A$650 more than the typical full-time worker in Melbourne.

And these CBD commuters are also generally well-served by public transport. The CBD is the most accessible location in Sydney and Melbourne, with multiple train lines and bus or tram routes running through it.

That’s why most people travel to the CBD by public transport. In Sydney, barely one in six full-time CBD workers actually commute by private vehicle. In Melbourne, it’s only a quarter. But these workers typically earn a lot more than the people on CBD-bound buses, trams and trains.


Grattan Institute, Author provided

Perhaps surprisingly, drivers to the CBD are more likely to come from inner, richer parts of the city – think Mosman and Double Bay, not Penrith or Parramatta. It’s the same in Melbourne: more people drive from Kew and Richmond than Broadmeadows or Dandenong. Even those driving in from lower-income areas typically earn more than most of their neighbours.

This means the number of genuinely disadvantaged people who would be burdened by a congestion charge is small. As for one-off trips to the CBD – maybe for a specialist appointment – these are by definition infrequent and can often be rescheduled to the middle of the day.

State governments should consider discounts for low-income people with impaired mobility. However, wide-ranging exemptions would badly undermine the effectiveness of the congestion charge – as happened in London.


Grattan Institute, Author provided

Congestion charging is a smarter way to improve Australia’s largest cities and fears that it would be unfair are overblown. It should be the centrepiece of a mixed strategy to tackle congestion. The NSW and Victorian governments should introduce cordon charging around the CBDs of their capitals within the next five years.




Read more:
Flexible working, the neglected congestion-busting solution for our cities


The Conversation


Marion Terrill, Transport and Cities Program Director, Grattan Institute and James Ha, Associate, Grattan Institute

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Religious Club Closures in Schools Touch Nerve in Malaysia


KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, August 11 (CDN) — More closures of non-Muslim religious clubs in Malaysian schools, including Christian fellowships, have surfaced since the first incident was reported on July 12.

Loh Seng Kok, central committee member of the Malaysian Chinese Association, said at a July 23 press conference that the situation was “getting worse” and that the initial incident at Klang High School was not an “isolated issue.”

Loh based his assessment on complaints received by various religious society representatives. Present with Loh at the press conference were Vice-President of the Young Buddhist Association of Malaysia Loh Yit Phing, President of the Subang Jaya Buddhist Association Chim Siew Choon and Executive Secretary of the Christian Federation of Malaysia Tan Kong Beng.

The Malaysian Insider online news agency reported that Chin Fook Khiang, a parent, disclosed that the Buddhist Society and Christian Fellowship in SMK SS17 in Subang Jaya, Selangor were ordered to stop activities in January 2009 – and that it was the second time the clubs were ordered to close by education authorities since 2005.

The religious clubs were closed even though they had been in operation since before 2000, excluding them from the need for official approval. According to Circular Bill 20/2000, non-Muslim religious clubs formed after education authorities issued the circular in 2000 must obtain their approval before they are allowed. Clubs that existed before the circular was issued do not require approval.

Malaysiakini news agency on July 23 cited an unnamed retired teacher who described the situation as “very serious,” to the extent that some teachers had been transferred because they were active in Christian fellowship activities in their schools.

Loh called for a fairer treatment of non-Muslim associations in the co-curricular activities listed in the co-curriculum management guidelines issued to schools. The guidelines only allow for Islamic religious societies to operate unconditionally without requiring prior approval from the education authorities.

Several political leaders, including veteran opposition leader Lim Kit Siang, have called on authorities to revoke outdated directives and circulars that contravene the Federal Constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion.

 

Public Outcry

Reports of non-Muslim religious club closures first surfaced when The Sun reported on July 12 that three non-Muslim religious student groups, including the Christian Union at Klang High School, were ordered closed by the Selangor education department last month.

Following the report, the Rev. Dr. Thomas Philips, president of the Malaysian Consultative Council for Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST), issued a strongly worded statement seeking “immediate confirmation” and “prompt explanation” from authorities.

“Needless to say,” Phillips added, “if indeed there had been such a directive to close non-Muslim religious societies in schools or to not permit the setting up of such societies in schools, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of National Unity should not be in doubt that MCCBCHST shall protest such a policy with the strongest possible vehemence.”

Following public outcry over the closure, Alimuddin Dom, director-general of education, reportedly said that the directive was a “misunderstanding” by the Selangor Education Department and ordered a reinstatement of the affected religious clubs.

Malaysia’s population is about 60 percent Muslim, 19 percent Buddhist and 9 percent Christian. About 6 percent are Hindu, with 2.6 percent of the population adhering to Confucianism, Taoism and other traditional Chinese religions.

 

Church Attack Trial

Reports of the religious club closures came amid the trial of three men who have been charged with arson in the attack on Metro Tabernacle church’s building earlier this year.

Brothers Raja Muhammad Faizal Raja Ibrahim and Raja Muhammad Idzham Raja Ibrahim, along with their friend Azuwan Shah Ahmad, were charged with committing mischief by torching the church building at 11:50 p.m. on Jan. 7. Since the trial started on July 6, however, the court has acquitted Azuwan due to lack of evidence.

Both brothers deny burning the church building, though they admit to witnessing the incident. They claim they left the scene of the burning to attend a barbeque at a friend’s house. Raja Muhammad Faizal claims he sustained burns from starting a fire at the barbeque, while his brother Raja Muhammad Idzham says he was injured in the course of helping his brother take off his flaming shirt on the occasion.  

The trial is ongoing.

Metro Tabernacle Church was among several churches that came under attack in January following a controversial court ruling that allowed the Herald, a Catholic weekly, to use the word “Allah” in the multilingual publication. The Herald had challenged the ban imposed by the Home Ministry.

The court decision angered some Muslims in the country who claim the term is exclusive to Islam.

Following the high court decision, the Home Ministry filed an appeal in February and won a stay, preventing the weekly from using the word until the case was addressed in the court of appeal. To date there has been no indication when the case will be heard.

On Aug. 1, Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein was widely reported as saying his predecessor, Syed Hamid Albar, should not have banned the word “Allah” from being used by the Roman Catholic Church, and that the decision will continue to haunt his ministry for a very long time.

Report from Compass Direct News

Rugby League: Some Thoughts on the Melbourne Storm


Like many rugby league fans I was stunned by the breaking news concerning the Melbourne Storm on Thursday evening. The Storm were never my number one team – that was Parramatta. However, the Storm were a team that I admired greatly, a brilliantly coached football team that had dominated rugby league in Australia for the last five years. They were the team to beat and they beat Parramatta in the Grand Final of 2009. Most fair-minded fans of the game were in awe of the Melbourne Storm and I used to love their football.

Now I feel cheated, as most rugby league fans do. Given the mighty resurgence of Parramatta in the lead up to last year’s Grand Final and their appearance in the Grand Final after some incredible wins in the finals, I felt the loss of the Grand Final along with the other Parramatta supporters – but the team had done their best and they hadn’t chocked.

Now we learn that they were playing an unfairly talent inflated team, paid for my illegal means and under the table payments, in total disregard of the salary cap rules that Parramatta and the other teams in the NRL were adhering to. The Parramatta team were playing a cheating team. Certainly many of the players and even some of the team management appear to have known nothing about the salary cap breaches. Yet by the actions of a few, the entire team were in fact cheats.

Parramatta have a right to feel cheated out of a premiership last year and Manly two years before that. These teams didn’t win the Grand Finals they played in, they lost them, so they don’t deserve the premiership title either. But it would have been a fairer opportunity for premiership glory to have been playing on a level playing field.

Shame on Melbourne – what hollow victories you had in 2007 and 2009, and what hollow minor premierships you gained from 2006 to 2008. At the moment I believe the Storm should be removed from the NRL completely – however, in time that view will be tempered, should the stories of players and officials of the Storm not knowing about the cheating prove true. At the moment however, it is difficult to believe that more people within the Melbourne Storm didn’t know about the cheating – including the players who received the extra payments.

More is to be revealed concerning this story in days to come I think.