MPs prepare to brave the response to congestion charging

Parliament kicked off the legislative agenda this week with the first reading of a new bill, trying to improve something that, suffice it to say, everybody hates - sitting in traffic.

The Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill empowers the government's transport agency (NZTA) to partner with local government in developing 'time of use charging schemes' in areas that are plagued by regular bumper-to-bumper traffic.

Time of use charging, more commonly referred to as congestion charging, has been on the policy whiteboard for a while, with successive governments exploring some version of it, as well as a 2021 select committee inquiry into using congestion charging in Auckland.

Congestion charging involves drivers paying a fee for using busy roads at busy times (like the CBD in rush hour). Congested roads become toll-roads, but only sometimes.

The idea is that the charge is a deterrent against using that route at that time, therefore reducing the number of cars, and freeing up traffic. It can also help to reduce emissions, with fewer cars idling, and more people choosing public transport, walking or cycling.

Transport Minister and Minister in charge of the Bill Chris Bishop said during the first reading that "faster, more reliable travel times will help increase economic growth and productivity, lower costs for businesses and their customers".

Dense traffic plagues cities the world over. London, Singapore, New York and other major population bases have implemented similar models and have seen reductions in both traffic and emissions. These overseas examples are touted as justification by proponents of a similar scheme here.

However, these cities have vastly larger populations than Wellington, Auckland, and Christchurch combined; and have excellent public transport infrastructure to support them. This was something Green MP Julie-Anne Genter pointed out during the Bill's first reading on Tuesday.

"They have higher density, much greater use of public transport, because it's more frequent and it's more affordable, and they also have a much smaller supply of car parking and much higher prices to use car parking. So it does make sense to do all of those things first. That is, allow higher density, invest in public transport, invest in people-oriented streets, walking and cycling, and include sensible approaches to parking management, including pricing the use of parking, before you go to congestion pricing."

Her party gave their cautious support to the Bill, with hope that it can be adapted in Select Committee to ensure that local government is more empowered to run any potential scheme and provide more reliable, alternative modes of transport.

Across the aisle, New Zealand First's Andy Foster agreed.

"The first line of the explanatory note says, 'New Zealand's largest cities face significant traffic congestion compared to cities with similar population densities.' So what this is, basically, saying is we've got other cities around the world which don't face such a challenge, but what we've done is we've spread our cities out. I think there is a warning there that while it might make it cheaper, there's also a cost to spreading out, in terms of our cities. That cost is borne in congestion and the cost of infrastructure."

Foster, who is also the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, said details and considerations like these will be worked through by a committee which he said has "a very collegial approach."

That collegiality was perhaps bolstered as Labour also voted in favour of the Bill on Tuesday after a bit of Parliamentary will-they-won't-they.

"Congestion sucks," said Labour's Arena Williams; something her Manurewa constituents can likely attest to. "It sucks two and a half hours out of the day of a tradie from Manurewa who's working in town. He might be working in Henderson, might be working in Māngere - two and a half, three hours gone from his day. It sucks two hours out of a parent's day that they could otherwise be spending with their kids at the end of the day, but instead they're in their car. It sucks the joy out of living in the Auckland suburbs."

Balancing political risk and societal reward

Introducing new charges has political risks, especially in a cost of living crisis. Te Pāti Māori picked up this line of debate, but proved to be the only party to not support the Bill.

Takutai Tarsh Kemp said "the Government claims congestion charging will reduce emissions and improve productivity, but what they fail to acknowledge is that the charge is a tax-on those who often have no other choice. It is our cleaners, our caregivers, our construction workers, many of whom are Māori and Pacific whānau, who will feel this the most."

Kemp's concerns are representative of a frequent argument against congestion charging. Whether voters view a charge as another tax, or a small price to pay for free flowing traffic is yet to be seen.

Sometimes lawmakers must weigh a policy that is likely to be unpopular, but may be beneficial.

This dilemma is part of the balance between responsible lawmaking and representative lawmaking, and each politician in our Parliament is likely to have their own interpretation.

Henry Ford said "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses". It wouldn't be surprising if MPs sometimes feel a similar sense of frustration when canvassing an unpopular idea that they think makes good policy.

Holding your nose to public reaction

On the Time of Use Charging Bill, Chris Bishop suggested the public may be sceptical at first, but they'll warm to it once they start seeing results.

"It is going to be a bit controversial. My full expectation is that as we develop these schemes, there will be a bit of public debate about it. But the experience from overseas is that it is edgy when you first introduce it, but then as people experience it and they see the scheme working, and they see that it's easier to get to work in the morning and home in the evening to spend time with the kids, and tradies find it easier to get around and do three jobs in a day rather than two, people come to accept it. That's been the experience from overseas."

Labour's Shanan Halbert echoed Bishop's sentiments.

"We heard from countries overseas. We heard from Stockholm; I had the opportunity to travel to Vancouver to see how they were implementing congestion charging. They were very clear that change is instant on the day that congestion charging is introduced, but there will be a reaction from the public; that we, as members who are supporting this bill, will be challenged by that; and Government members do need to hold their nose and move through it and support this because it will be the change that we need to achieve in our city."

It is quite striking to hear an MP encouraging their colleagues to "hold their nose" at potential public reaction, but ultimately, all parties in Parliament bar one think the policy has enough merit to eventually sway that public reaction to a positive one.

Many of the MPs that spoke on Tuesday emphasised the importance of public consultation, not only in the legislative process (which happens anyway, thanks to select committees) but also in the development of any time-of-use charging scheme. Bishop said these arenas of public engagement were key to "protect the social licence".

MPs on the transport and infrastructure committee are now receiving submissions (and will be until 27 April) on the Bill. This will be a chance for Parliament to gauge the initial public reaction to the proposed specific legislation rather than just the idea of a congestion charge.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.