Car clash: Private vehicles and the true price the nation pays

A new study has revealed that private vehicles in Australia impose an annual cost of at least $316 billion on the nation, with the public bearing nearly half of the burden. The research, conducted by University of Queensland academics, quantified the so-called “car economy” across five states, highlighting the hidden societal costs associated with widespread car use. These include congestion, road maintenance, emissions, pollution, and traffic-related injuries and fatalities. According to the findings, drivers cover only 49.82 percent of the total cost, approximately $157.48 billion, through fuel, vehicle purchases, parking, and tolls. The remaining $158.64 billion is funded by the broader public, encompassing individuals who do not drive, such as pedestrians, cyclists, and public transport users. Associate Professor Dorina Pojani, lead researcher from the university’s School of Architecture, Design and Planning, emphasized that the true cost of automobility extends beyond individual expenses. “Cars impose all these costs on society,” she stated. “People think of automobility, and they just think of the actual car that they drive. But automobility is a whole system.” Pojani explained that her motivation stemmed from conversations with students who believed drivers paid their fair share. “They’d say: ‘Yeah, but drivers, we pay lots of fees and taxes, and for fuel, etc.’” However, the study contradicted this perception, showing that the majority of the financial burden falls outside the hands of individual drivers. The public cost exceeded the private cost in all states except New South Wales. Pojani, who grew up in communist-era Albania where private car ownership was prohibited, expressed a personal aversion to automobiles. “To this day, I just never got used to cars,” she remarked. The direct cost to drivers includes expenses such as purchasing vehicles, fuel, parking, and tolls. Yet, drivers also contribute indirectly to the public bill through their impact on infrastructure and environmental degradation. Melbourne resident Luke Sapwell, who relies on public transport, voiced concerns over the disparity in cost distribution. A 34-year-old finance broker and business owner, Sapwell does not own a car and uses public transportation and shared e-bikes for commuting. He noted that while many people in cities have a choice between driving and using public transport, trucks remain essential for transporting goods across the country. As such, they were excluded from the study, which focused solely on cars and light commercial vehicles. Pojani clarified that the study aimed not to assign blame but to advocate for policy changes. “The point of the research wasn’t to cast blame on drivers, for many of whom cars were also a necessity,” she said. Instead, the study employed a Harvard University-tested methodology to push for more sustainable transport policies. “If [governments are] going to subsidise transport, they need to subsidise the right kind of transport, which is public transport, micromobility, meaning bicycle lanes, bicycle parking,” she added. Sapwell echoed this sentiment, stating that he believes government subsidies should align with taxpayer priorities. While he supports funding for schools and hospitals, he argues that the current model disproportionately benefits car users. His frustration intensified when his local council, the City of Yarra, recently revoked its agreement with US-based bike-hiring company Lime, removing shared e-bikes from inner Melbourne. “Having half of car user costs being borne by other people, that’s unfair,” Sapwell said. He called for greater consideration of how public funds are allocated, particularly in supporting alternative modes of transport.