Spinifex is an opinion column. If you would like to contribute, contact us to ask for a detailed brief.
Many Australians believe that motorists “pay their way” to enjoy a transport culture designed primarily around personal car use.
Our recent study, published in the journal Transport, challenges this notion. We analysed road and economic data from five Australian states to gauge the amount private passenger vehicles contribute to the economic, social, and environmental costs of the nation’s “car-centric” transport network.
The study shows that drivers shouldered only half the total cost of a system that supports 17.5 million registered cars and light commercial vehicles and 389,800 kilometres of paved roads across New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia.
The remainder of the costs – including government spending on building and maintaining roads and the indirect cost of congestion, pollution, and traffic accidents – were borne by the public. Everyone pays regardless of whether they drive or not.
This tells us that regardless of personal preferences, our system of car use is extremely expensive to run. And contrary to popular belief, only a portion of these costs is covered by private vehicle users.
Australia has a deeply ingrained culture of personal car use on account of the country’s vast geography, its sprawling urban centres, and planning decisions that have favoured detached housing over apartment living and integrated public transport and micromobility.
So, we set out to determine the wider costs of this driving culture to society and who ultimately pays. We replicated a study on the state of Massachusetts in the US, conducted by a group at Harvard University.
Following their methodology, we used a range of academic and industry benchmarks and data, including the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics motor vehicle census, to determine the total annual cost of Australia’s personal vehicle economy to be $316.12 billion.
The privately borne cost of Australia’s personal vehicle economy included costs directly incurred by drivers such as depreciation and financing, fuel, car insurance, servicing and tyres, registration, compulsory third-party insurance, licenses, roadside assistance, and the indirect construction costs of carports, garages, and residential parking.
This was estimated at $157.48 billion, or 49.8 per cent of the total, slightly lower than the publicly borne costs of personal driving, which came to $158.64 billion each year.
Publicly borne costs involve the allocation of resources such as money, time, and land. This means government road construction and maintenance, and indirect factors such as the cost of congestion, pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, non-residential parking lot construction, and injuries and deaths resulting from vehicle-involved collisions. All Australians contribute to vehicle costs through general taxation, on top of other costs generated by vehicles that society bears as a whole.
The cost burden of heavy vehicles and trucks was not included in our study because of their significant economic contribution beyond operating costs, something private passenger vehicles do not necessarily provide.
Freight is essential to keep the economy running, and there are very few alternatives for freight transport in Australia, whereas there are a number of potential alternatives to private car transport.
The research ultimately highlights that much of the financial, environmental and social burden of Australia’s car network is passed on to those who may not drive, which often includes lower-income or vulnerable populations.
To many Australians, cars represent freedom, convenience and even pleasure. Others do not necessarily enjoy automobility but feel compelled to rely on cars due to limited transport alternatives and dispersed settlement patterns.
A small portion of the population actively dislikes cars and driving, yet has little choice but to participate in a car-oriented system.
Governments need to decide whether it is fairer and more economically sensible to use public money to build a public transport network that benefits everyone regardless of whether they have a car.
In a well-functioning society, there are services such as public education and healthcare which everyone should support regardless of whether they personally use them or not. For example, the childless should not opt out of helping pay for public schools.
However, automobility is not on par with these services in terms of public utility. On the contrary, overreliance on cars is detrimental in many ways.
Future studies should investigate scenarios in which private car ownership and use are partially or fully replaced by carsharing, carpooling, ride hailing, personal micromobility, and public transport.
Initially, the potential alternatives may be capital intensive. But there are clear economic and social benefits to a sustainable and car-lite urban future.
