The Impact of Traffic Congestion
The first thing that comes to mind when a person encounters traffic jam is the delay that they shall experience. This is a real phenomenon to the people in Brisbane City and Australian residents as well. During the morning commute, people experience additional stress because the traffic makes people to get to work late than they expected (Australia State of the Environment, 2016). When the ends, the afternoon rush sets in, a frustrating time for commuters because they want to get home and rest but the traffic congestion is preventing them (Australia State of the Environment, 2016). These delays affect all the commuters using congested roads since they have to maneuver through congested roadways (Australia State of the Environment, 2016).
Unpredictability of Travel Time
Traffic jam makes it impossible for travelers to approximate the time that they will need to get to their intended destinations. Even for those living in Brisbane City, it is impossible for them to guess the time that they will spend in traffic (Australia State of the Environment, 2016). Therefore, the city dwellers have to consider adding “just in case time” in the event that the traffic congestion is bad. Such situations forces commuters to use time which could have been used for more constructive activities for travel (Kumarage, 2004).
High Fuel Consumption and Environmental Pollution
The slow movement in traffic jam makes commuters to burn more fuel as compared to what they would use if they were driving smoothly in an open highway (Kumarage, 2004; Australia State of the Environment, 2016). Drivers use a lot of money to buy fuel which stresses their financial life and planning. In addition, the high fuel consumption leads to increased emissions of greenhouse gases which lead to air pollution (Australia State of the Environment, 2016). Air pollution has detrimental effects on people’s health; most especially it could lead to respiratory problems. Additionally, these emissions are known to be the main cause of global warming and consequently climate change which will affect the way of life of people in Brisbane City (Australia State of the Environment, 2016).
Road Rage
It is essentially a temper tantrum experienced by frustrated commuters in traffic. Any slight mistake by one of the comminuting drivers could elicit different types of reactions sometimes negative which affects the social cohesion of the people living and traveling within Brisbane City (Kumarage, 2004). Road rage leads to incidents that could be risky to the people involved and other road users as well. Road rage manifests itself in the following ways; shouting matches, deliberate tailgating, careless traffic maneuvers, and lack of attention to other road users (Kumarage, 2004).
Delay in Emergency Response
When a resident of Brisbane City has an emergency and requests for a police officer, a fire brigade or an ambulance, they expect them to get to them in time (Kumarage, 2004). Although, due to traffic congestion the first responders may not get to the callers in good time which may lead to loss of life or property.
Economic Issues Associated with Road Congestion in Australia
Traffic congestion has some economic repercussions on the residents of Brisbane City and Australia as a country. The cost that traffic imposes of the Australian cities is estimated to be around $16 billion a year as of 2015, which is a rise from 2010 which was $12.8 billion (Australia State of the Environment, 2016). $6 billion of that money is paid directly by the city commuters and according to Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) employers will have to pay more $8 billion to cover for the expenses of their employees (Australia State of the Environment, 2016).
By 2030, the cost of congestion in capital cities will have rise up to $30 billion. Australian residents are using an average of 85 minutes every day trying to maneuver that capitals’ traffic (Australia State of the Environment, 2016). Also, more people are travelling for longer distances in the congested roads which affects the country’s economy negatively as well as the livelihood of the city dwellers (Wright, 2006). The congestion costs in Australia this year could be broken down as following; $6 billion on private time, $8 billion on business time, $1.5 billion on vehicle operations, and $1 billion in air pollution. In 15 years, the congestion cost in Brisbane alone will amount up to $2.3 billion (Australia State of the Environment, 2016).
Analysis of The Effect of Road Congestion On the Economic Efficient Equilibrium of the Market
The earlier discussion could be dubbed as the “avoidable costs of congestion”, which refers to the discrepancy between optimal level of congestion (the prevailing situation) and the actual level – also called the deadweight loss from excessive congestion (Harrison, 2012). Notably, more than 85% of the congestion cost burden falls on the time costs which have detrimental effects of the country’s economy (Productivity Commission, 2011). Similarly, to any other costs, it would be worth shouldering the burden of pollution or congestion if the benefits outweighed the costs. But in this case, it is not economically efficient to have congestion or pollution at all.
Fig 1: Congestion costs in Australian cities like Brisbane (Harrison, 2012)
The figure above is from the “avoidable social cost” analysis presented by the BITRE. The AC curve represents how the average cost that is paid by each identical commuting driver for a typical trip fluctuates depending on the number of trips taken at the prevailing road capacity and condition. When there are low levels of congestion or no traffic at all, they are usually at ACF, expenditures per trip under no-congestion conditions.
Ultimately, bringing in another car on the road further slows down the already traffic, rising the travelling costs for other drivers (which an externality). As the AC begins to slope upwards, the social margin cost (MC) of an extra trip is the private cost (AC) added to this cost which is imposed on other commuting drivers; the MC curve lies above the AC curve when the AC curve slopes upwards (Harrison, 2012).
The optimum number of trips is denoted by X*, whereby the benefit from an additional trip is equal to the marginal social cost. In the event that each driver decides if to use the road, they compare the private costs versus the benefits without taking into account the increased cost that they will impose on other commuting drivers (Harrison, 2012; Productivity Commission, 2011). The equilibrium of the quantity of travel is denoted by X0, at this point, the total travel cost is the rectangle X0 multiplied by the AC0, or equally, the area under the MC curve up to X0. Total costs of congestion are the section that is above the discontinuous line (above ACF). The BERTI approximates the resulting deadweight loss from the excessive trips, X multiplied X0 which impose those social and other congestion costs which are greater than the benefits: the triangle area A, which is approximately half of the total costs of congestion X0 (Harrison, 2012).
Analysis of Policies to Reduce Congestion
According to BITRE, if the government decides to take an initiative and build more reduce it will increase congestion costs in the country. An increase in capacity will make the marginal and average costs curves shift from MC0 to MC1 and AC0 to AC1 respectively making them more flat (by reducing the effect of extra vehicles on travel times). The added capacity shifts them down to increase free-flow speeds on the roads. The deadweight loss acquires a new capacity denoted area B, which has the potential to be larger that area A depending on the shape of the cost and demand curves. The cost incurred by drivers falls from AC0 to AC1, benefitting the driver’s equals to the shaded region and there is a possibly to surpass the cost of the added capacity (Harrison, 2012). Therefore, as much it looks wise to increase the number of roads, it would lead to rising costs of congestion.
Fig 2: Capacity expansion effects in Australia (Harrison, 2012)
The BITRE presumes constant elasticity of the travel demand which means that 1% drop in AC increases travel by 1%, the travel costs (AC *road use quantity) rise, and expenditures of excess travel may rise as well. Therefore, increasing capacity would increase congestion costs. A rise in demand will increase the measured deadweight loss; an increase in capacity may encourage use of road and further raise the deadweight loss. From this analysis, it is clear that there should be other ways of dealing with congestion like people using public transport as opposed to private transport without necessarily increasing the number of roads.
Cost Benefit Analysis
To come up with the best choice, all available avenues and options have to be explored. Congestion charging is an ultimate gain to the road owners which is a loss for drivers (Wright, 2006). Therefore, the efficiency gain attained from this is very small relatively to the gain in revenues. In the same, it would be of no use to increase the number of roads because it will have no effect on reducing congestion costs in Australia (KPMG, 2016). The money used in such projects would be better off spent in other ways to better the life of Australians. Commuters should be encouraged to use public transport which is an important initiative in road pricing since it increases demand for alternative transport (Wright, 2006). Using alternative means of transport eases congestion on the roads consequently reducing congestion costs.
References
Australia State of the Environment (2016). Built environment. Increased traffic. Retrieved from https://soe.environment.gov.au/theme/built-environment/topic/2016/increased-traffic
Harrison, M. (2012). The problem of road congestion: The futility of “avoidable cost” estimates. Agenda: A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, 77-86.
KPMG (2016). Unblocking traffic congestion. A map to road pricing schemes in Australia
Kumarage, A. S. (2004). URBAN TRAFFIC CONGESTION: THE PROBLEM " SOLUTIONS.
Productivity Commission (2011). A ‘Sustainable’ Population?— Key Policy Issues. Australian Government
Wright, S. J. (2006). Review of urban congestion trends, impacts and solutions (Consultancy Report). Traffic Management Systems for Australian Urban Freeways.
