The human suffering caused by road crashes is ethically unacceptable. That is why public authorities and partners in civil society have set themselves the goal of preventing every victim in traffic.

Netherlands Road Safety Strategic Plan 2030

It’s ethical to invest in safety

Professional engineers are meant to abide by a code of ethics, which include a focus on safety:

Engineers have successfully reduced deaths and serious injuries in workplaces by conducting risk assessments and then designing out hazards. The process leverages our ability to foresee injuries. The success of Vision Zero programs in other countries clearly shows that these engineering skills can be applied to our streets. In contrast, here in Yarra people are still being exposed to hazards that can kill or seriously injure; which suggests that our engineers (and those that allocate funds to them) are failing to use basic ethics to reduce risk. The following webcast introduces the concept of “gross negligence” with examples from the USA. The same principles can be applied to the streets in Yarra.

In Yarra, ethical investment in safety means:

It’s ethical to charge to drive on congested streets

It’s ethical for the Victorian State Government to charge to drive on congested streets; and use the revenue to invest in walking, cycling, public transport and car sharing; because it would deliver more mobility for more people. It represents a transfer of wealth and mobility from people on high incomes (who dominate the cohort of people who drive) to people on lower incomes (who dominate the cohort of people who use walking, cycling, public transport and car sharing).

Our streets can’t fit a car for each person during peak hour. If we don’t impose decongestion charges, our streets will become gridlocked, which is bad for drivers and bad for business. A better solution is to use demand responsive driving charges to ensure traffic is always flowing (independent of the number of traffic lanes) and use the revenue to support viable alternatives including walking, cycling, public transport and car sharing.

When road user charges have successfully brought the demand for peak hour driving back down into balance with the supply of street space, we can begin to re-allocate space to other modes without risking regression back to gridlock. We can allocate space to wider footpaths, protected bicycle lanes, separated tram/bus lanes and protected public transport stops. These modes will deliver more mobility for more people.

Overall, it’s better for everyone in greater Melbourne (and more ethical) if:

  • traffic keeps flowing,
  • access to street space is managed using demand responsive pricing, and
  • revenue is invested in infrastructure to support walking, cycling, public transport and car sharing.

For a more detailed discussion, consider the detailed reports justifying demand responsive driving charges, or read this article:

It’s ethical to charge to park on the street

It’s ethical for the City of Yarra to charge for on-street parking because it helps deliver more mobility for more people. If Council increased parking charges it would represent a transfer of wealth and mobility from people on high incomes (who dominate the cohort of people who drive and park) to people on lower incomes (who dominate the cohort of people who use walking, cycling, public transport and car sharing).

It turns out that virtually wherever you go, whether it’s a city, a company, a university, and you look at the statistics, it’s the same. You have very heavily subsidised parking, that subsidy goes only to the people who can afford a car, or who choose to own a car, and virtually always, the people who have a car have a lot more money than the people who get around by walking and biking and taking the bus. It’s absolutely a transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy, and it’s one of the biggest reasons to work on parking reform.

Patrick Siegman, speaking on Talking Headways Episode 195, time stamp 37:00

Our streets can’t fit an on-street car park for each person. If we don’t charge market rates for parking, our on-street parking bays will remain congested, which is bad for drivers and bad for business. A better solution is to use demand responsive parking charges to ensure that one or two parking bays are generally always free on each block, and use the revenue to support viable alternatives including walking, cycling, public transport and car sharing.

When parking charges have successfully brought the demand for on-street parking back down into balance with supply, then we can begin to re-allocate space to other modes. It would enable Council to relocate parking bays for shoppers from directly on shopping streets to the first 5-10 bays on each side street, thus enabling the State Government to build protected bicycle lanes and level access tram stops. It would also raise revenue that can be invested in active transport. With effective, continuous networks for walking and cycling, the same amount of street space will enable more people to get around.

Overall, it’s better for everyone in Yarra (and more ethical) if:

  • a small number of parking bays are always available on each block,
  • access is managed using demand responsive pricing,
  • less space is allocated to on-street parking, and
  • revenue is invested in infrastructure to support walking, cycling, public transport, and car sharing.

For a more detailed discussion, consider this article:

The study concludes that the regressive effect of a market-rate residential parking benefit district should not be an impediment to implementing such a scheme because low-income permit purchasers can be subsidized with permit revenue from higher-income drivers in the district, resources from higher-income parking districts, or both. Additionally, revenues can be used to support transportation modes that particularly benefit all low-income residents.

Impact of Market-Rate Residential Parking Permit Fees on Low-Income Households