Congestion charging: Good policy, bad politics?

Sunday, 18 August 2024

Andrea Vance is National Affairs Editor for The Post and Sunday Star-Times.

OPINION: The road to congestion charging is full of potholes for the coalition government.

Transport Minister Simeon Brown last week announced Cabinet had agreed to introduce legislation allowing councils limited options to introduce the tax.

It is a decision that has the potential to be this government’s Three Waters.

The overhaul of water services wasn’t a vote changer — but it was a strong feature of a narrative that soured the last government’s popularity.

That’s because there is a difference between good policies and good politics.

Often that is to do with timing.

Even before Cabinet’s decision, Wayne Brown mooted a $5 one-way toll for Auckland’s busiest roads. With the Government’s plan to remove the regional fuel tax in the city, the mayor needs to fill that hole in the transport budget with another source of revenue.

In Wellington, Mayor Tory Whanau has also championed the policy. At her suggestion, the capital’s cash-strapped council voted in February to investigate further.

Christchurch is lukewarm. A recommendation to investigate road pricing is included in Christchurch City Council’s draft transport plan, but that’s yet to be approved, and there seems to be little appetite among its local politicians.

Tauranga is even more reticent. After consulting on road pricing (the only council in the country to do so), the community backlash saw the concept dropped.

‘User pays’ is probably the best idea around to reduce traffic in a city’s busiest zones, with the added benefits of cutting air pollution and provide public transport networks with much-needed funds. It also keeps other taxes lower because it eases the pressure of having to build more road capacity.

But in today’s politics, logic and cost-benefit aren’t always persuasive in the battle of ideas. Three Waters being a case in point.

And as Tauranga proved, drivers don’t like congestion charges. Why would you pay for something when you currently get it for free?

Congestion charging is a choice tax, but it’s only a choice if the public transport network is functioning well.

Cities like Stockholm, London, Singapore and Milan successfully introduced user-pays systems. Those schemes went from public opposition to high approval rates within a relatively short period of time because they worked.

But what works for those metropolitan centres will not apply to all cities —and in some cases, may worsen conditions for their poorest residents.

Those places put in place alternatives that were convenient, reliable and reasonably priced (although that is less true for London, today). Before introducing its congestion charging zone, England’s capital made comprehensive improvements to the bus networks, upgraded the fleet and offered discounted fares.

Singapore boosted the frequency of public transport and built thousands of park-and-ride spaces on the outskirts of its cordon.

New Zealand is bad at public transport, isn’t reading for pricing, and councils don’t have the revenue to fix that in the short-term.

Commuter services on Auckland’s CRL are at least two years away. Greater Wellington Regional Council’s recent 10% hike on bus, rail and ferry services last month was a cruel joke to the city’s jaded commuters.

As well as that, Auckland and Wellington pose a unique geographical challenge — there are no ring roads to bypass the central business districts. Expensive and limited housing mean much of its workforce must travel into the inner city, at peak times.

Where there is no choice, congestion pricing becomes a regressive tax, one that rich people can easily afford and disproportionately burdens poor people.

In the capital, the politics are also deeply charged.

Transport has become a cultural battlefield. Social media posts and policy submissions are filled with residents who mistrust the council’s motives, and can’t see how its strategic direction for transport makes their lives easier.

The central city is suffering from the double whammy of the pandemic and the Government’s purge of the public service.

To introduce a new cost to enter the city, when residents have just been hit with a 20% rates rise, the streets resemble a confusing obstacle course of cones and ghost road markings, and its restaurants and shops are empty, is bad political timing.

Similar miscalculations derailed a $15 toll to drive into Manhattan. Inflation was still cutting into wages, and the charge was judged enough to break a middle-class family’s budget.

New York’s economic recovery from the pandemic was incomplete, commercial vacancies were high, and many workers still working from home.

Previously a champion, Governor Kathy Hochul flinched, fearing a backlash that would impact the Democrats at the upcoming election. Polling showed two thirds of residents were opposed, a view especially pronounced in the suburbs, and there were eight lawsuits to delay implementation.

She abruptly pulled the plug, only weeks before drivers were due to start paying.

Hochul’s supporters said it was the right policy at the wrong time.

Political ideas don’t exist in a vacuum. They still need to be applied to the realities of the moment. And bad timing can be as disastrous as a bad idea.

What do you think? Email sundayletters@stuff.co.nz. Please include your full name and address.