Yesterday, Transport Minister Simeon Brown announced some progress on congestion pricing and it’s a mix of good, bad and ugly.
The Government will introduce legislation this year to enable time of use schemes to be developed to reduce travel times on our busiest roads and boost economic growth, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says.
“Congestion is a tax on time and productivity. It means that we are away from home for longer, sitting in gridlock. It results in fewer jobs being done, fewer goods being moved, and delays to services across the city.
“Faster, more reliable travel times will increase productivity, and lower costs for businesses and their customers. That is why we are enabling time of use schemes to be put in place.
“Time of use schemes will improve network efficiency to increase productivity and enable Kiwis and freight to get where they need to go quickly and safely. It is not about raising revenue.
“Enabling time of use schemes is a priority for our Government and a commitment under the National-ACT Coalition Agreement.”
Cabinet has agreed to a legislative framework focused on seven key components that will enable local councils to propose time of use schemes on their networks.
“Schemes will be focused on increasing productivity and improving the efficiency of traffic flow in our cities. Local councils will propose schemes in their region, with the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) leading the design of the schemes in partnership with councils to provide strong oversight and to ensure motorists benefit from these schemes. All schemes will require approval from the Government.
“Time of use schemes will need to consider the impacts on motorists and businesses that use the roads that fall within the charging areas, as well as the impacts on the wider network.
“Any money collected through time of use charging will also be required to be invested back into transport infrastructure that benefits Kiwis and businesses living and working in the region where the money was raised. Councils will not be able to spend this money on other priorities or pet projects.”
Auckland has long been considered a leading candidate for a time of use charging scheme, and the Government will prioritise working with Auckland Council.
“Auckland is grappling with pressing productivity challenges that demand effective solutions. By enabling time of use schemes to be implemented, we are addressing these challenges head-on, providing our heavily congested city with faster and more reliable journeys.
“Our Government is committed to working with Auckland Council to deliver a time of use charging framework that will improve travel times and network efficiency for Aucklanders.
“Travel times per kilometre in Auckland are much higher than in comparable cities in Australia. Aucklanders are fed up with the gridlock that is plaguing our roads and making the city less accessible and productive.
“Allowing businesses and tradies to be able to do more trips per day will mean more productivity on our roading networks, and a boost to our economy.
“While time of use schemes will help manage congestion and increase productivity in our cities, it is not a standalone solution. That’s why the Government is continuing to prioritise new Roads of National Significance and major public transport projects to enable Kiwis and freight get to where they need to go, quickly and safely.”
The Government expects to introduce a bill to Parliament before the end of the year. The Bill will then go to select committee where New Zealanders can make a submission on the legislation.
The Good
To start with, it’s pleasing to finally see some progress on this issue. Labour had started to make some progress and in 2021 even put the idea through an inquiry by parliament’s Transport and Infrastructure Select Committee, where it was unanimously supported. The committee included now Prime Minister Christopher Luxon.
But then nothing happened; and, while it was claimed work was still being done, it ended up feeling like another case of Labour getting too scared to actually do anything.
Perhaps that’s not surprising: these schemes always tend to get a lot of noise in the lead up to implementation and that tends to make politicians scared. This is something we’ve seen most recently in New York City, where the Governor cancelled (or hit indefinite pause on) a long-planned congestion charging scheme less than a month before it was due to go live.
So while it’s good to see this issue moving forward, there’s a lot that still needs to happen before we see it implemented in Auckland. We could still see this government do the same thing as New York, and chicken out.
I also think it’s good that other regions will be able to implement schemes in the future too. Labour had for some reason focused on only allowing congestion pricing for Auckland, despite other regions expressing an interest in getting similar schemes.
The Bad
Unfortunately there are a number of areas of concern with what the government are proposing.
The big concern is that this government’s proposal will result in a much more centrally controlled outcome, giving the government – and especially the transport minister – a much stronger say in what happens, both with how the scheme is developed and how any money raised is spent. This is notable given the government’s opposition to centralisation of local issues in other areas, such as Three Waters.
A fact sheet released with the announcement notes:
When developing a scheme, local authorities will talk to local stakeholders and the community. The NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) will lead the design of schemes in partnership with local authorities to provide strong oversight that ensures New Zealanders are benefiting from the time of use scheme.
Once a scheme has been designed, it will be referred to the Minister of Transport for approval. If the Minister approves the scheme, it will be implemented through an Order in Council.
…..
Proposed schemes will need to be approved by Cabinet and roadside and back-office systems put in place. This is likely to take a year or more after schemes are enabled in legislation.
…..
Schemes will be developed and operated in partnership with NZTA, who will be the majority partner. The Government will be able to propose a scheme, through NZTA.
The proposed process for designing a congestion pricing scheme is showing in this diagram and as you can see, the Minister is right in the middle of the process.
In some ways, this odd as it puts the minister in the firing line of any opposition to schemes rather leaving it to local politicians to take any heat.
The Minister is also inserting himself into the question of how any revenue raised gets spent.
The Government’s intention in enabling time of use schemes is to manage road network demand and improve efficiency, not to raise revenue.
The proposed design sets out that local authority members of the partnership and the Minister of Transport will agree how net revenues are to be spent. The design will require that scheme revenue must be invested in the transport system in the region where it was raised. Revenue will supplement rather than substitute national and local funding and will not result in eligibility for additional funding from the National Land Transport Fund.
That last sentence is particularly weird as it means regions will only really be able to use the funding for dedicated projects that they are unlikely to get funding for from the NLTF. This means they’re likely to be smaller, standalone projects – and key examples that also help provide congestion relief or help in giving people alternatives are ….. checks notes ….. cycleways.
The Ugly
Auckland Transport has been busy working on a scheme for some time now with a focus on trying to get it in place for when City Rail Link opens. That makes sense, as it will be a moment when many people are prepared to rethink how they travel.
The concern here is that handing this over to Waka Kotahi will only result in the process being slowed down, as they inevitably relitigate all of the work behind it. We saw similar outcomes with Integrated Ticketing and light rail.
Also ugly has been Labour’s response to the announcement with their Auckland Issues spokesperson, Shanan Halbert arguing it’s just another tax, while also claiming credit for doing “the groundwork on this policy“. This is disappointing because Halbert was also on the Select Committee that investigated this earlier and there’s plenty of issues with the proposal above that he could have focused on, like the centralisation issue, rather than a weak tax argument.
Note: Matt also spoke to Stuff’s Newsable podcast on this topic. You can access the episode via Apple Podcasts or Spotify., and Matt’s section starts at around three minutes in.
Processing...
[Edited by admin – please avoid random criticisms of people and focus on the issues]
Good article by Peter Moth on Auckland’s Frequent Transport Network, worth a reprint?
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/aucklands-frequent-transit-network-hits-40-routes-now-peter-moth-vgx6c/
Living in Onehunga it is incredibly disappointing to see the Onehunga train line continuing to be purported as ‘frequent’ by these maps. The maps definition of ‘frequent’ is 15mins. Onehunga frequency is 30mins now, improving post CRL to…20mins. It leads me to doubt the accuracy of the rest of the map.
It’s not branded as such and non of the rail network is frequent
I’m pretty sure it’s staying as 30 mins post-CRL based on the latest shared running patterns.
It’ll be interesting to see if this ever comes to see the light of day. Traffic in Auckland hasn’t really gotten worse over the last 4 years due to more people working from home. Only the weekends seem busier than they used to but I doubt weekends will have congestion charging applied. There is obviously the usual spots where congestion gets bad like Greenlane and the Harbour Bridge but other Motorway sections have gotten better as they have ironically built their way to less congestion. The northwestern in good weather is surprisingly a relatively easy run in the AM/PM peak and the southwestern isn’t too bad most mornings and SH18 can be an easy run too most of the time. Really the bigger delay is waiting to get on the motorway maybe a congestion charge will mean no more on ramp lights we can only hope, nothing worse than traffic backing up into local streets. The obvious place to first put a charge to enter the motorway is Greenlane as this can have the biggest back ups of all the on ramps.
I am presenting today at noon in a webinar on the 2nd Emissions Reduction Plan, along with Tui Warmenhoven, Christina Hood, and Anita Wreford. All welcome.
Tuesday 13 August, 12-1pm
https://otago.zoom.us/j/97964601170?pwd=UCt2U2pWQk9EUnNHc2tJaXc0ZlBxUT09
Password: 532120
Never mind the emissions reduction plan we have an electricity crisis at hand. We need to do anything we can to keep the lights on. Govt should ditch the ETS making coal a more affordable baseload option as it’s what the country needs right now.
We do?
Just turned my bathroom light on, seems ok. Think someone might be gaslighting you.
Nope we have a crisis brewing the lake levels keep dropping. Gas is what we are short on to light as well. If we don’t get decent rainfall we will be entering a national conservation campaign to reduce electricity usage. https://www.waikatotimes.co.nz/business/350376644/energy-crisis-all-options-table-regulatory-initiatives-possible-next-week
Funds raised should be paid back to the citizens in a dividend, much like the Vector dividend for folk in Auckland, rather than becoming a fund for car-centric solutions that could not get budget support.
This approach (of a dividend benefitting a widest possible group of people, beyond road users) would make the whole concept much more politically acceptable.
Like vector? lol.
The thing is, the cost of transport, particularly roading for cars is astronomical and only set to get considerably more expensive. Given the NZ transport issues and how many insane roads the nats want to build there simply won’t be left over funds.
There is talk of the Government taking over all of Auckland Transports network and PT functions. Sounds like someone is finally noticing.
Congestion? As in everybody drives, everybody believes they have the right to drive, and no one has ever had the courage to tell them they do not?
Ban cars in urban areas. Problem solved, just like those in power claim to be focused upon.
But no, this is all about the economy, how will our economy move without private motor vehicles? By bus? Train? Ferry? Bike? Scooter? Skateboard? Roller skates?
bah humbug
Yes, exactly. The most ridiculous thing about the assumption was that it assumes people are driving around just cos they want to! They are driving because there are too few alternatives, and congestion charging isn’t going to change that, making it “just another tax”, especially on the poor.
bah humbug indeed 🙁
The buses are slow and infrequent which means that they’re worse against taking the car.
The trains are non-existent at this point. When the trains are off every weekend (and disruptions getting worse on the weekdays) and the rail replacement buses are pathetic, it means that people can’t rely on the trains to provide service. I had to get into Britomart over the weekend and the bus routes would take 2-3 times as long door to door which is just a terrible situation. I’m waiting (a very long time at this point) to see how AT manages to make the trains ever worse once CRL opens and the network becomes more complicated.
Fullers (the ferries) are awful and cannot run a service if they tried properly – I don’t believe they are trying or care enough to as long as the taxpayers money keeps rolling in. Let’s get Transdev to run our ferries – they do a terrific job in Sydney.
The other alternatives that you provide aren’t realistic for either long distances or in Auckland.
Auckland isn’t well designed for biking because of the lack of cycling infrastructure and natural environment. The ‘cycleways’ that AT have built are pathetic in many cases and Auckland is just too hilly and the weather is terrible. This pushes away lots of potential cyclists from commuting by bike which congests our roads further. We just aren’t going to become an European style city because the environment just isn’t correct for it.
Cycle infrastructure is a solvable problem, and ebikes take care of the hills.
The only reason we’re not a european style cycling city is because we don’t want to be (or the bumpkins in charge don’t, anyway).
All of your complaints can be solved by more funding for public transport and a long-term integrated plan. The situation we are in is a choice, not something dictated by geography.
More funding for public transport cannot solve for the complete incompetence that has crept into Auckland Council and AT. Just pumping more money into governmental agencies is not the correct way to solve for these types of problems. We need to stop just blaming the money and need to start blaming the wastefulness at AT and the council. Let’s just bring in people from functioning public transport cities to fix our problems (Europe and Australia). AT doesn’t know the solution and they need to stop lying to the city and to themselves about their incompetence.
Agree with you on getting a better plan because AT doesn’t seem to discuss long term plans properly.
Space – there’s plenty of international experience at Auckland Transport. While I slightly agree with you that the solution is not just simply pumping more money.
Rather it’s repurposing a lot of the existing money into a huge range of quick win projects for buses. Every frequent bus route should have a range of bus priority measures eg. bus lanes / traffic light jumps etc.
However, fear of parking removal is still AT’s and Council’s biggest issue.
Auckland’s bus network would get noticeably better – more reliable journey times, less sitting in traffic, happier passengers.
Labour can’t criticise the proposal for its centralisation because that’s probably what they wanted to do themselves. As I’ve said before the dominant theme in Labour’s handling of every local issue was “Wellington knows best”.
I think there are valid criticisms of AT’s responsiveness to council plans that create something of a “the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing” issue, but handing over control of technical issues to politicians is not a good idea and it gets increasingly worse the further from the consequences of their decisions the politicians are. The article was paywalled so I didn’t read it but purely from the headline it looks like Auckland Brown’s plan to rationalise AT and AC’s operations is just going to end up with Wellington Brown seizing control.
To be fair, Labour let Auckland have the regional Fuel tax, which was completely in control of Auckland council. The Nats not removed this, but demanded that AC find their preferred projects and now have this proposal that sounds like it will have very little local input.
My post didn’t go through at first attempt but to summarise, TRM is a fan of congestion charges though TRM is very wary of politicians using new taxes to increase the tax burden. This should be a switch.
Do you always refer to yourself in 3rd person?
Curious Cat believes Beatrice meant to say, does TRM always refer to TRM’s self in 3rd person?
It was third person and initials, so CC believes BW meant to say about TRM. BMG over and out
Congestion pricing would help greatly in Auckland. A small tweak to charges is likely to make a big difference to “flow” and making the most of our current networks without adding lanes and such. Money should be for the local authority to spend it on public transport & active modes which is more logical as “more vehicles = (congestion + pollution + emissions + accidents + bad health outcomes + wastes time + poor quality of life) = bad “, so tax it and increase “(PT + active modes) = good = (less congestion + less pollution + less emissions + less accidents + good health outcomes + better time spent + good quality of life)”
What about hte North Shore , Auckland , penalised , no Rail , people work away form home in areas that have BAD PUBLIC TRANSPORT , which is a real sham on the North Shore . live in Torbay and Transport Levies are outraeaus for a rubbish systrm . Employers will need to foot the bill for getting staff to work driving up the cost of goods and services ,
The North Shore has the NX1 and NX2 and several 9* and 8* busses that go directly to the city centre.
Sure, some suburbs don’t have direct/good access to those but if everybody who had good access actually used the bus, it would speed up journey times for the rest (and the people on the bus!) considerably.
The Northern busway is about as good as it gets for Public Transport in Auckland.
What about adding more asfalt?
Why is there conjestion at any time of the day at the s1 with s18 constilation drive even on a Sunday at midday?
Why if there is space for a third lane all the way to the Harbour bridge are there only 2 lanes?
No one is addressing the fact that town houses are going up all over up all over Auckland, 6 or 7 to a property drastically increasing the population here. Maybe its time to stop this and investing in towns outside of Auckland. New Zealand is more than Auckland and no matter what congestion rules are put in place, unless this population increase is steamed, its going to continue to get worse.
Not really an issue. More an issue is the more central isthmus areas are lacking dense development potential due to NIMPYism.
John, are we going to force people to small towns? Ban them from coming to Auckland?
If not, how are you going to entice people and developers, with lower demand for and employment in, these small towns?
My suggestion would be investment in quick, frequent rail to get people from satellite towns to where (most of) the jobs are. Eventually the town will generate some more jobs of it’s own, due to an increase in population.
From my assessment of councils rates there are two parts of calculation, one is based on valuation on property with multiplication (0.00192)(previously 0.00180). The other part is comprised of small amounts over small charges like waste and uniform charge. Regardless of what political colour, council in Auckland pay out 34% revenue to transport. We need to review the mix of revenue from rates ,congestion and patronage versus the benefits of transport. Main goals would be transport be attractive and cheap to keep living in city worthwhile. Aggressive use of transport may include minimal charge in off peak and in children under working ages. Transport need resets to get mix between costs and benefits right .