Latest News

• Add My News • Search Old News

Gippsland › Latest news › Howard S. Emanuel

I Commute; But You Pay! :: (Howard S. Emanuel)

When I try to fathom just why it is that so many people in Australia’s major cities continue to drive their cars to work each day, I am left truly wondering....

By Howard S. Emanuel - 17th May 2006 - Back to News

When I try to fathom just why it is that so many people in Australia’s major cities continue to drive their cars to work each day, I am left truly wondering. It didn’t make a lot of sense before the price of fuel went up so dramatically, it makes far less sense now. When a reasonable proportion of these cars are larger type fuel guzzling machines I wonder even more. When it seems the vast majority of commuters in these large vehicles are still single occupants, I am absolutely flummoxed at the folly of the whole thing and in despair of their behaviour. Surely reason and common sense must prevail at some stage.

The major argument has always centred on the unsustainability of the practice; the environmental damage that vehicle emissions cause and the ever-increasing volume of traffic on our roads. With all the evidence squarely in place so many choose to thumb their nose at this clarion call and continue the inane. Continue to pollute our cities and continue to damage our lifestyles and our health.

Now Australia’s major cities are generally not that well serviced by public transport at this time, that needs to be said but the systems do exist and in many locations are readily accessible. The cost of travelling daily on a train, tram or bus now more than ever offers real value when compared to driving a car with all its hidden and associated costs. Add in the social advantages of public transport and there really is no argument.

Perhaps we have become too use to walking out the back door and into the car each morning, driving to work and often walking upstairs into the office in which we will spend the rest of our day without ever really stepping outside. Not much exercise, not much adventure in that and we wonder sometimes why the "working week" can feel so humdrum, so droll at times. Increasingly many of us are prepared to pay a "personal trainer" lord knows what to keep us fit and yet there is real opportunity in each day to do this work ourselves and save plenty along the way.

Try walking to the bus each day or the train, smell and see the flowers, talk to someone. God what a morbid world we have constructed where human interaction has become a premium. When the only time we interact with nature is when we pay a fortune to spend a weekend down the coast in some cosy B&B at the latest "place to be". Walk to the train and exercise your heart and your soul.

When you think on it there must be some powerful reasons to continue what from every way you look at is seems to be senseless behaviour indeed. Could the ubiquitous salary package, you know the one where you get the car and often the fuel card to go with it, in fact be one of the reasons that so many continue to take the car and not public transport to work. It is in fact not costing these folk anything to get to work, only their time;(and their health) it is though costing you and I a very great deal. How so you say?

Consider that when an employer includes a car and fuel card in an employment package they are not manifesting some benevolent act, they are not loosing money on the deal. The cost of that car and the fuel card are passed on to you and I the consumer through a premium on the particular product or service that they offer. If the employee is a public servant, well the taxpayer picks up the tab.

So you see although the commuter is continuing a practice that is archaic in the extreme it is not really them that is paying, it’s you and I. And not only through the increased cost of goods and services (or taxes) but by having to breath foul air, listen to a droning, roaring din and pay a premium for a shrinking world resource that some folk treat as though it will last forever.

Perhaps if we got rid of the car package and say offered an annual public transport pass, something like a Metcard, what flexibility the commuter would have. Employees would still have their "package" with its associated travel benefits, their employer would still have leverage in the employment market and you and I would have cleaner air, a quieter space and a healthier life.

Maybe it’s the place of government to lead by example and be the first to eradicate the "Car Package" and replace it with the public transport employment package for our public servants, our state and federal workforce. What a way to combat obesity, pollution, traffic congestion, road rage, social isolation; you name it. Someone has to show some initiative in all this.

At the other end of the argument when all these people do finally reach their work destination, if the majority of their job role is carried out in the CBD or near environs, perhaps they don’t need a car at all. Maybe they can travel by tram or train to all those appointments and meetings, free of the need to congest our already over-crowded city streets even further. Radical thinking? I don’t think so, more likely plain modern common sense. 

In the extreme if a car is deemed to be absolutely essential to ones job role then why is it that so many of the vehicles that governments use are big 6 cylinder types. Most of the time there is only ever one occupant and yet the streets are a crawl with big, uneconomical sedans. There are plenty of comfortable, safe and fuel-efficient small cylinder capacity vehicles on the market and yet we insist on the big "sedan". Try unloading business machines and the assorted work paraphernalia some roles require from the boot of a sedan, no wonder "bad backs" are so common. A small wagon or hatch will be infinitely more accessible, that’s what they are designed to be.

From another perspective It has always confounded me as to why our MPs, our members of parliament who more often than not travel alone are also deemed to be in need of the classic 6 cylinder "Aussie" sedan. These things consume manifest amounts of fuel, are big and ungainly and intimidate smaller vehicles. This behaviour is no more than a hangover from our addictions of the past, when big was better and biggest was best. It also smacks of "Don’t do as I do, do as I say". Whilst our leaders sit and pontificate on the need to reduce greenhouse emissions and conserve energy, their own behaviour befuddles anyone attracted to a common sense, modern approach.

One would also question just how crucial is a car to the work of urban based local government councillors. The physical areas that particularly inner city based councillors have responsibility for are often quite small and would be serviced by at least one or two modes of public transport. Which again begs the question as to just why the taxpayer is asked to fund the acquisition and running of an enormous fleet of cars. Perhaps there could be some example set here from the level of government that is close to the people and therefore has the advantage of being able to promote impressionable and positive behaviour in the community; that is to set example.

When one adds up the enormous number of cars, that are in use in the public sector and as well are being utilized by different levels of political representatives in Australia, one can only imagine that the cost of leasing these vehicles and often providing fuel that has recently become a very expensive item, would be mind-boggling. All this in a time when health and education seem always to be needing of increased funding to ensure they meet their obligations to the community. This situation clearly has to change. The question though of course is, is there the political will to tackle the problem.

The energy question, the transport question in this country needs leadership and vision. Governments must commit to a future less reliant on motor vehicles. For this to be a realistic goal a profound and long-term commitment to public transport in this nation is required. A new approach to urban planning that builds in transports strategies and systems, an effort to reconfigure and improve existing systems is needed now. Funding streams need to be moved away from building ever more freeways which are not only archaic in the extreme in every possible dimension but are so obviously nothing more than a political sop to big and influential construction and business consortia. It is foolish in the extreme to continue to develop systems that impact on human health, on environmental health and on the bottom line in so many ways.

Which begs the obvious question of just how much influence does business have in this country on the development and direction of public policy. When you look at our transport policies you would have to argue, quite a deal. This situation needs to change. Society is there to provide for a decent standard of living for all in the community and granted at the same time in our market economies it is business that generally provide a great many of the necessities of the public. This is all very well until business decides it wants a bigger and bigger slice of the pie and uses its vast influence to skew policy to favour itself, often at a cost to the community. Who would in all fairness, given that they were interested in having a frank an honest discussion on the matter, argue that this was not indeed the case? Just look at transport.

We have to find some way to encourage people to leave the car at home. The old excuse of a poor public transport system just lost a lot of its currency. You see not only does the car cost us in regards to our own personal health and the health of our planet, but now it costs us all a lot of money and goodness that’s the last straw isn’t it. If its costing us money then it must be time to act, never mind the mess we’ve been making all these years.

Think about it!

Sincerely,