If you’ve kept up-to-date with the media over the past few months you might have caught wind that Uber’s Head of Transportation Policy and Research, Andrew Salzberg, publicly endorsed the idea of charging drivers to use congested roads.
Granted, this revelation would have had car-reliant city commuters up in arms all over the place. After all, no one wants to be penalised for travelling to work in the air-conditioned comfort of their car. But should they be?
There’s logic behind congestion charging
In reality – the concept of charging drivers to use congested roads during peak traffic periods is simply based on the old “supply and demand” theory. This is where it usually becomes widely acceptable to introduce premium price tags where the demand for a commodity or service is high. So, is congestion charging in our cities really any more outrageous than elevated property rental prices for inner-city dwellers?
And there’s another logical reason to support congestion charges. Have you ever walked or cycled alongside a traffic jam and seen just how many engines are running for the sake of one passenger’s transport – the driver?
That’s right, congestion charges are also meant to encourage commuters during busy traffic periods to share charges by ride-sharing or use public transport as an alternative.
It’s not a one-size-fits-all solution
Opponents to the argument might argue that transportation during peak traffic periods is no different to other basic “life staples” such as bread and water – it’s all in high demand but that doesn’t mean we should pay through the nose. Perhaps this is a fair point, but is it that clear cut? Arguably not – because it may just be that congestion charging isn’t a one-size-fits all solution to every city’s traffic chaos.
Take a look at London. The world’s biggest congestion charge scheme was introduced to London as far back as 2003. The congestion charge for commuters driving into the city between 7am and 6pm now stands at a hefty AU$19. So, does this mean the same scheme could be fairly introduced to Sydney’s CBD?
London might have the most extensive congestion charging scheme in the world and some of the highest prices, but it also has one of the most sophisticated and affordable underground rail networks covering several zones. This isn’t exactly parallel to Sydney – a road-oriented city that’s only just discovered it’s a really good idea to reintroduce some of those trams they turfed decades ago.
Here, a congestion charge which aims to penalise or push commuters off the road is hardly ethical when thousands have no other viable transport alternative. In Sydney, we really might end up paying through the nose for an essential “life staple”.
As for Melbourne – well, that might be another story. In fact, Melbourne’s detailed tram network really is a viable alternative for any commuter looking to move around within the inner-city ring. Congestion charges for Melbournians who elect not to take advantage of this infrastructure could be far more ethical compared to Sydney.
A matter of ethics
Simply “endorsing the idea of charging drivers to use congested roads” is a rather sweeping statement. Whether it’ll work, or is ethical, can only be answered following a case-by-case assessment of any given city.
The real question is, are drivers choosing not to use viable transport alternatives – or is the local government failing to sort out infrastructure issues? If it’s the latter, road users shouldn’t be paying the price.
In any event, whether Uber is the right advocate for this initiative is matter for debate. After all, who stands to benefit from a rising trend towards carpooling? You guessed it; Uber and it’s UberPOOL service.