The Government’s plan to ease congestion on the Auckland motorway system may well hit its own gridlock.
In contrast to the “gone by lunchtime” legislative approach that was used to restrict pay equity claims, the proposal to levy congestion charges in Auckland is getting the full treatment at a Select Committee.
There is even a comprehensive Regulatory Impact Statement for the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill, which was before a Select Committee yesterday.
However, maybe in the back of some of the Committee members’ minds might be President Donald Trump’s reaction to the proposal to introduce a similar system into New York.
He opposes it, and his Transport Secretary Sean Duffy announced in February that the Department of Transportation had “terminated approval” for the congestion pricing programme.
This was applauded by the President.
CONGESTION PRICING IS DEAD,” Trump posted on social media. “Manhattan, and all of New York, is SAVED. LONG LIVE THE KING!”
Duffy’s move has had no impact so far; the whole issue is tied up in the Courts, and meanwhile, the congestion charging is working.
Metropolitan Transit Authority data shows fewer vehicles inside the road cordon on which charging is applied — 13 per cent fewer in March. Fatalities of cyclists and pedestrians have dropped dramatically. Cars are moving much faster over bridges and tunnels. Bus speeds inside the zone are up. Fire department response times are down.
Nevertheless Trump’s opposition has the potentital to ricoshet all the way to Auckland despite the case for congestion charging being formidable.
As a start, the Ministry of Transport’s Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) says that our three largest cities are 10 to more than 30 percent more congested than comparable Australian cities with similar population sizes and densities.
Thus, an Aucklander spends 80 hours commuting each year compared with someone in Perth who commutes for only 60 hours.
Earlier this year, Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown released a White Paper that found that congestion would cost Auckland $2.6 billion a year by 2026, factoring in the cost of lost time, as well as impacts like reduced business investment and consumer spending.
All of this is getting to Aucklanders.
The RIS said that working-age families were leaving Auckland in unprecedented numbers.
“Auckland still has more people of working age than other parts of the country, but this is being eroded by the outflows,” the statement said.
“The cost of housing and difficulties of moving around the city are likely to be significant contributors to this outflow.”
But.
The AA told the Committee that 16,000 Auckland, Tauranga and Wellington AA members had responded to its 2024 congestion charging survey, which was one of the highest responses to any of their surveys.
“The headline figure is that less than a third felt it should be seriously considered in their cities,” said Martin Glynn, AA Policy Director
“The AA has carefully considered the policy case for time of use charging alongside our members’ views.
“Our position is that we are open to time-of-use charging because we recognise it’s the only tool capable of meaningfully reducing congestion.
“But we’re mindful that it’s only been introduced in a handful of cities, and all have great public transport.
“And apart from Singapore, every single one is focused on the inner city rather than congestion on the wider network, which this bill allows for.”
At the heart of the concerns about congestion charging is the impact it could have on some sections of society, particularly those on lower incomes, women with children and disabled people.
Alongside this is the argument that there should be a public transport alternative available for those who can’t afford to pay.
Labour MPs on the Committee were worried about “taking Aucklanders with us” on the proposal.
The party’s Transport spokesperson, Tangi Utikere, asked about vulnerable groups, which he said some had defined as those that held a Supergold card and those from the disability sector and wondered whether they might be granted exemptions.
Labour list MP from Northcote, Shanan Halbert, said less investment in public transport and active modes affected people’s ability to take alternatives, and he wondered how workers might be impacted.
But the most blatant plug for exemptions came from the trucking industry.
Billy Clemens, Head of Policy & Advocacy for Transporting New Zealand, called for the exemption, referring to one Auckland Council study which suggested trucks might end up paying twice the rate that a car paid.
“Essentially, our view, which is shared in the Auckland Council submission, is that it has to work for Auckland; we also submit it has to really work for the freight sector, otherwise there will be ongoing challenges with implementation and buy-in,” he said.
But Auckland’s Mayor, Wayne Brown, wanted nothing to do with exemptions.
“We need to make sure this scheme doesn’t become unmanageable or too easy to evade by giving exemptions to everyone that I’m sure will be turning up and asking you for,” he said.
“Unemployed people don’t need to get to work at 8 or 9 am on a weekday, and we all pay the same price for fuel.
“It’s been like GST, with no exemptions, not even from fruit and veggies. It didn’t work for you last time.
“May I remind you that drivers are the main beneficiaries of a time-of-use charge, so they should be happy to pay.”
There was a more nuanced position from the AA.
“At a principal level, we don’t support exemptions. We think everyone’s contributing to the problem,” said Glynn.
“But reality-wise, they may be needed for some vulnerable groups, and they are reasonably common overseas.”
However, Brown was much more concerned that the Committee that would set the charges and the roads they applied to would be chaired by an official from the Ministry of Transport.
“If this is seen as a Wellington power grab, it won’t get across the line,” he said.
A number of submissions have supported his contention that the Committee should be chaired by someone appointed by the Council or by Aucklanders by some other method.
What echoed through the hearings yesterday was that any road charging scheme would need social licence.
The AA survey suggests that it will be difficult to get.
Browne believes the scheme will generate its own social licence.
“I want to be abundantly clear that I’m a huge supporter of time of use charging,” he said.
“And it’s time of use charging, it’s not necessarily putting a string around the city.
“ The bill has the opportunity to transform Auckland by ridding us of the chronic congestion that wastes Aucklanders’ time and money each and every day.”
Overall, the criticisms of the Bill centred on the possible need for exemptions, the need to boost public transport and for it to be an Auckland-led project.
They are big asks for the Government.
And with the direct electoral impact that time-of-use charging might have, what emerges as the final scheme may well depend on how nervous the Government is about the Auckland vote and whether they think Trump is on to something.
.
