The road to congestion pricing (aka “time-of-use charging”) is certainly not a fast one. So far, we’re at nearly a decade of official investigations into the idea. (It’s also over a decade and a half since the question was first raised on our predecessor, Transportblog – and we’ve covered the topic regularly since then, again and again)
Granted, a decade still seems like quite a short amount of time compared to some transport projects. And that’s not to say there hasn’t been progress.
Late last year, legislation was passed by Parliament to enable congestion charging schemes to be developed and implemented, with Auckland the first city in New Zealand to be considered.
Even before the enabling legislation was in place, Auckland Transport has been working to come up with a scheme, including exactly where it might apply. In July last year, we highlighted how they’d narrowed thirteen location options down to six.
Just over a month ago, Auckland Council was asked to approve the latest round of work, which brings the shortlist down to three options for public feedback, with consultation set for mid-November (after the election).
Even so, the image below highlights that there’s still a long way to go before anything goes live. We’re currently in only that first block and even if everything goes smoothly, a pricing scheme likely won’t be in effect until 2030/31.
There was plenty of media coverage of the three options a month ago, and I’ll go over them again in today’s post. But most of that coverage was based off a report released ahead of the Council meeting – and thus missed one key piece of information.
Before going into the options, it’s worth a reminder that the main goal of congestion pricing isn’t about raising money; it’s about using pricing to shift behaviour, and incentivising people towards optimal outcomes. As Auckland Transport puts it:
This charge encourages some drivers to shift to alternatives such as public transport, travel outside the peak period or not drive at all. These reductions in demand can have a significant impact in improving wider network performance, while providing those Aucklanders who decide to pay the charge with a faster and more reliable trip.
A key challenge in coming up with options is that the bigger the scheme, the greater the impact – but also, the harder it may be to get public and political support… unless the stakes are made abundantly clear.
The three shortlisted options vary in size and impact, so let’s look at them in turn, from smallest to largest.
Option 1: City Centre Cordon
The first option focuses on a pricing cordon around the city centre. This is relatively easy to delineate, as the motorway presents a clear barrier around the area. Moreover, this is the part of the city with the best public transport access – which has just become a lot better with the opening of the City Rail Link.
The final prices would be subject to review, but Auckland Transport offers an indication:
The illustrative charges needed to largely remove congestion at the cordon are in the order of $3-$4 during the morning peak and $2 to $3 in the afternoon.
In terms of results, they say this is what such a scheme would likely deliver:
- 3.1% of AM peak trips are charged
- Approx 4 mins saved for charged drivers, more reliable travel
- 21% of uncharged drivers get a faster, more reliable trip; 3% are slower
- 3.6% increase in public transport patronage
- 2-4% regional congestion reduction
- 1% to 2.4% average vehicle speed increase
- 1% average public transport speed increase
- 6,800 hours travel saved per day
- Very limited net revenue and long payback period
While the focus is on congestion reduction, these schemes do bring in revenue. And a clear message from previous discussions has been that any pricing scheme should go hand in hand with improvements to alternatives, especially public transport.
So the last bullet point is very important, and Auckland Transport notes that after paying to install and operate the system, there would be limited net revenue – meaning they could only fund “a modest level of public transport improvements“.
Option 2: City Fringe Cordon
A big concern that has been raised in the past is the fairness on city centre businesses, if a scheme only applies to that area. So the second option under consideration expands on the City Centre Cordon, by extending the boundary to cover Eden Terrace and Newmarket – and potentially Parnell and Ponsonby as well.
This option looks to involve a slightly higher charge to address morning congestion:
Illustrative charges needed to largely remove congestion at the cordon may be in the order of $5-$6 during the morning peak and $2 to $3 in the afternoon.
Auckland Transport notes that this option “offers significantly improved effectiveness compared to the city cordon, while still retaining many of the advantages of improved public transport alternatives and relative simplicity“.
This is reflected in the stats they provide, which show some big increases in performance:
- 5.1% of AM peak trips are charged
- Approx 5-7 minutes saved for charged drivers, morereliable trip
- 30% of uncharged trips are faster, more reliable; 5% are slower
- 6% increase in AM peak public transport use
- 3-6% regional congestion reduction
- 1.4 – 4% increase in peak average vehicle speeds
- 1.6% average public transport speed increase
- 9,900 hours travel saved per day
- Limited net revenue and long payback period
Note that last bullet point: because this is a larger scheme, it would cost more to build and operate. This means the payback (in revenue that can be reinvested into better public transport) is not too different from the city-centre-only option.
Option 3: Core Motorways & City Centre
The final option takes one of the options above, and adds charges to the core of the central motorway network; longer-distance trips would be able to use the Western Ring Route to avoid being charged.
At first glance, you might conclude this option would be the hardest to get over the line politically, in that the impact is broadest. That said, there’s a good story to tell about the benefits that would accrue to the city as a whole, and the much greater potential to pour investment back into improving alternative modes. A big swing, as it were.
Auckland Transport says that a $7 charge would be optimal here, but that $5 still produces good results and is what they’ll use in the consultation. That’s a good move, as starting the conversation at $7 would almost certainly attract opposition, just because it’s a higher charge.
Importantly, this option provides potentially a big step-up in performance across the outcomes:
- 6.9% of AM peak trips are charged
- Approx 7-12 mins saved for charged motorway drivers, 5 mins over the cordon
- 31% of uncharged trips are faster, more reliable; 12% are slower
- 7% increase in AM peak public transport use
- 13% regional congestion reduction
- 4-6% increase in average vehicle speed
- 1.2% increase in average bus speed
- 18,200 hours travel saved per day
- Significant net revenue with fast payback period
The revenue generated by this option is said to be big enough to not only fund significant public transport service improvements, but would also have money left over for other investments.
The Missing Detail
A key part missing from previous reporting is just what else Aucklanders might see from the proposed investment. As noted above, Auckland Transport is suggesting not all that much for the first two options, but a lot of potential with the third option.
The map below shows the range and variety improvements Auckland Transport could make to services under Option 3: Core + Motorways. It suggests a wide range of fairly significant wins across the region, including what looks like a City Centre to Mangere route. Is surface light rail back on the menu?
There are versions of this map for the other two options showing far fewer improvements – and which weren’t included in the presentation to council.
I did ask them if we could show all three maps, but Auckland Transport say they won’t provide me with them at this time. However, I hope they do include all maps in the public consultation, as I think that will really help to drive home that pricing isn’t simply a negative thing affecting only driving – it can underwrite major improvements across other areas too, rapidly expanding the transport choices available to Aucklanders.
When you put these improvements on top of the recent opening of the City Rail Link, and our existing frequent bus network, public transport starts to look increasingly more viable for many more people.
What’s more, AT say that even after funding these additional public transport improvements, there would still be money left over which could be reinvested elsewhere. They don’t currently have a view of what it would be used for but is no shortage of projects Auckland needs.
Lastly: if you want to see how Auckland Transport presented the three options to the council, check out the videos below.
Processing...
This shows the problem with the idea of the city centre charge: just 3.1% of peak car trips charged. It’s not going to do anything if you let the other 97% carry on as usual… except create a lot of noise and upset.
Kia Ora, 1) could you please explain why the % of drivers charged is so low? 2) Are there any helpful experts on congestion charging in other cities who could talk about the long term results?
I was living in London when congestion charging was introduced but I don’t know what the long term impact has been – and there are other cities with CG now – what’s it like – the benefits and what are the downsides – perhaps impact on low paid workers, small businesses etc in the charge-zone? Generally thinking about this, I also wonder what you guys think about estimates like these about the impact of changes. Do you have any idea (on the basis of your hugely impressive long term experience) of how accurate they prove to be?
Its not % of Drivers,
The metric they are using is “trips” so bus users (and potentially train and walking) users are included in the denominator,
,… that’s why they have the “X of uncharged trips are faster, more reliable; “.. these are likely bus users …
How can option 3 even be an option? It’s charging drivers who go through though motorway network and completely bypass the city. It’s a ransom for those if us who live on the shore and need to go to work and never go through the CBD. I go 80kms an hour to work every morning. There is no congestion yet I’ll be charged 14 bucks a day to go to work. It’s a money grab. It even says in the article that this will generate excess money!
If there’s no congestion, are you travelling outside peak hours? It sounds like you wouldn’t be charged at all. Hit cruise control and enjoy!
The point isn’t to hurt drivers, it’s to give you a reason to use other through routes at busy times.
That clears the roads for city bound drivers and transit riders who have no choice.
I travel every morning at peak times. 80 kms per hour at least from Onewa to Mt Wellington. No joke
Yeah and you are part of the reason why folks travelling from Hibiscus Coast to City are stuck in congestion. You are also part of congestion and traffic even if you dont experience it
I agree, it wouldn’t be a congestion charge without congestion.
I’m just saying I don’t want to pay a congestion charge if I’m going 80kms an hour and neither should you. If I’m travelling that fast on the motorway then Im clearly not the problem. My route isn’t congested obviously.
use the Western Ring Route then if you don’t want to pay the toll
The most telling step in the process flow diagram is the 2nd to last real step; “Minister decision: Approval of final scheme” All this consultation and planning work is going to be done at great expense by public bodies and for free by advocates and groups like GA and it will all come down to a single Minister’s approval or not. How much confidence do people have in a wise decision being made at that point?
Yeah, good point. Sticking to the programme will be crucial so that the Minister will be making the decision in mid-2028 more than a year out from the election.
No new taxes if its National. How could they possibly allow this?
Because they’ll call it a congestion charge, or a congestion levy. Most definitely not a tax
Kinda prefer option 3 but at only 7% of trips not sure if it’s worth it.
But even with only 7% of trips, they’re underestimating the impact of rat running and opportunistic parking through the rest of the isthmus.
At the moment they can’t even get parked cars off arterial roads, so not sure how they will be able to respond to the diversions. I think there’s an option D which is everyone entering the isthmus. More trips, more revenue, no rat running through the suburbs.
Ideally this would be paralleled by widespread Low Traffic Neighbourhood, strategic cycleway network, and an accelerated bus lane on arterials programmes.
As in London. These are not prerequisites, but all three, plus any pricing scheme, are all mutually reinforcing and supportive. All improve quality of the city and city life, and efficiency and effectiveness of our transport networks.
I think they need to do more to prove that they can and will deliver those good things. There’s a definite trust issue.
I live near Greenlane roundabout and I am concerned about rat running if the motorways are tolled. And if they go with option B and include Newmarket, then streets on the outskirts of the cordon could have people parking on them and then commuting from there. I’m not against congestion charging, however I think we need to consider all the possible impacts – positive and negative. I personally use public transport a lot so I would rarely expect to pay the charge.
It’s hard to tell which if any of the options are of any use. Not enough info.
The key objectives should be:
a) to manage congestion and keep it flowing smoothly.
b) provide viable PT alternatives for commuters
c) provide viable park n ride PT alternatives for commuters
i.e. a simply shifting the time of day of travel (to an untolled period) is insufficient.
d) tolls should be varied to manage congestion levels, not a fixed arbitrary fee.
The motorway scheme fails on this basis. There will be numerous trips caught by the congestion tolls which currently have no viable PT or AT alternative. The Mway scheme could be a future add-on once PT services are ramped up.
I’m also sceptical the Potential Variant scheme will be able to achieve the key objectives.
Without more info the CBD scheme looks to be the best starting point and can be expanded in the future.
Singapore is best practice and is what Auckland should follow.
• Variable Rates: Tolls typically range from S$0.50 up to S$3.00 per gantry pass, adjusted dynamically based on traffic speeds.
• Active Times & Locations: Charges apply during peak congestion hours on selected expressways and arterial roads. Many traditional Central Business District (CBD) gantries are inactive ($0.00) outside of heavy traffic periods.
• Operating Schedule: Rates are reviewed quarterly by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and are inactive on Sundays and public holidays
If it’s only for the city centre, wouldn’t a targeted rate on car parks (and an increase to AT’s parking cost) achieve most of the same outcome without all the hassle? If people are driving through the city instead of driving to the city, just block those through routes.
And if it is only the city centre, what does it actually achieve? I don’t give a toss if people stupid enough to drive into the CBD get stuck in traffic…
A new tax to drive mode shift behaviour.
Hard to imagine this will ever get implemented.
Easy to understand why it’s been talked about for 15y.
The two main parties have both promised no increase in FED which could imply more widespread RUC. I don’t understand why they are both being coy about this. If a universal RUC was included in the calculations, the results for the smaller cordons might be a little more favourable.
I haven’t watched the meeting so don’t know if RUC was mentioned.
Start with A, then expand it over time? Isn’t that what other places did? I don’t like the third option, as it will just divert traffic off motorways (where we want traffic) onto local streets.
Hopefully when option 3 is implemented the highest contributors/impacted, who will be in Kaipatiki, will get more than a few feeder buses
A congestion charge on SH1 between Newmarket and Ellerslie/Sylvia Park would certainly rack up a lot of revenue, and might make a dent in the everpresent congestion there. I’m all for Option C
We have already paid for these roads & motorways, via our taxes etc. What are the other routes? Jammed up roads? Roads with bus stops in the middle of the road that completely stops traffic. What nitwit came up with that idea? All the mega bucks spent on our roads & they are worse than ever, not better. You lot balls-up Auckland roads & now you expect us to pay to use them? We have already paid. Do we always have to follow other countries like sheep. Can’t think for ourselves. This or that country is charging for this. O goody, so will we. If Aucklands roads had kept up with Aucklands population growth this would be a different conversation. But no, been happening for years, the harbour bridge to small ended up with the clip ons. For once I wish these know it all’s would get it right the first time.
The roads are ruined because we use them too much and have so many of them that it’s impossible to keep them all maintained. Traffic would be a lot worse if those people on the bus were all in cars instead, NZ has one of the highest rates of car ownership in the world and most of our freight also travels on the roads. https://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Long-term-Insights-Briefing-2025_updated.pdf
City Rail Link, the South-City and East-West rail lines, the InnerLINK… girl you have alternatives, maybe give using them a go and stop whinging and complaining.
Also no, roads and driving are incredibly subsidised by generations of environmental terrorist and culturally destructive governments. You got 99% of the pie and now you’re throwing a tantrum over getting slightly less of a slice.
Public transport doesn’t always go where you need to go. So telling someone to use it is pointless.
Also, why use it when it can take twice the length of time and having to change modes, when you can drive direct with a car.
Telling someone to catch a plane for their holiday is pointless since there is no airport in Huntly.
Oh boo hoo, the poor oppressed car heads.
Grow up. As someone who uses public transport and is damn well aware of how decades of anti-public transport policy and urban design have made it take longer than driving – y’all in cars are a bunch of spoilt brats. Maybe it’s the psychological downside of shutting yourself off from the rest of the world in a metal death box on wheels.
“Also, why use it when it can take twice the length of time and having to change modes, when you can drive direct with a car.”
Cool, then keep driving and pay for it.
Finally someone on here with sense.
All these other comments are supporters of it.
Dangerous drivers are a scourge on this country, every time I leave the house I worry some fool might run me down in the street. Happy for drivers to eat another tax if it encourages them to go for a walk for once.
Dangerous drivers are a problem so tax all drivers regardless? Genius, truly.
Drivers are dangerous, selfish, and cars are spatially inefficient and environmentally destructive. So yes, it is the smart idea to discourage driving and incentivise environmentally and socially better means of getting around.
Congestion charging doesn’t tax all drivers, but yes I would support a blanket charge (like raising fuel excise tax)
Well said.
Lots of these comments are obviously from people who will profit from this going ahead.
tfw you need to comment 3 times to make it look like your side are “the majority”
I already paid for milk last week, why does the supermarket want me to pay for milk this week when I go there for milk. All the mega bucks spent on milk in the past and it tastes worse than ever. Milk bottles that you cant see the milk in, what nitwit came up with that idea. Why do we have to follow other countries like sheep, they start using money to pay for goods and services and so do we!
If the supermarket had just kept up with supplying enough milk for me, that I refuse to pay for, that would be have been nice! Or if my parents had simply spent a lot more money and built a much larger milk supply chain, then I wouldn’t have had to spend my money. Why didn’t they think of that?
“now you expect us to pay to use them? We have already paid.”
No you haven’t. Drivers are subsidised to a hilarious degree. The amount you pay in taxes comes nowhere close to paying for all the infrastructure you use.
These options look like a solution is looking for a problem.
If we are considering building another harbour crossing costing many billions of dollars which would be the largest project spend in NZ’s history, then surely this is the prime candidate for congestion charging, both for delaying the “need” and a small amount of prepayment.
As for the options, what sort of rat running and pushing congestion onto urban streets will they create? Previously there were options of charging cordons at motorway choke points, where rat running isn’t practical, e.g. the causeway on the western motorway, southern between Otahuhu and highbrook and Mangere bridge. What happened to these ideas?
In principle I support congestion charging, but we have got really good mode shift on the across the bridge at peak, with nothing more than better rapit transit priority.
Perhaps we start with real bus priority in/out of the CBD, particularly south of the bridge for the NEX. Let’s close lower Queen St to general traffic. All inner city on st parking is eliminated to facilitate bus and cycle lanes. Then let’s see what happens to traffic. Disincetives car travel, promotes PT and cycling.
If you get the congestion charging rates correct then it is like having bus lanes everywhere.
That’s the whole point!
But when? 2030?
My idea could largely be implemented by the end of the year with a lick of paint and some PR, at least on roads that arent under NZTA.
Option 2, with expanded borders seems the most practical to me. I like Option 3 in theory, but it would probably induce an awful lot of rat running along Great South Road/Mt Albert Road/Great South Road etc. to avoid the motorway cordon, which seems counter-productive.
Either way, Anglo cost disease strikes again. If we’re getting tens of millions of dollars of revenue per year, but only able to reap a small net profit per year, then something is completely rotten in our ability to execute infrastructure.
This entire blog is nothing but whinging and complaining
Also, “terrorist” “culturally destructive”? Hyperbolic much? We’re talking about transport
I see your point and raise you the last century or so of great power interventions, exploitation and wars over oil.
If we were all driving clockwork cars, I might agree with you.
You’ll fit right in
Option C feels like a slaughter line they built just to charge more. I vote Option D, built more train lines as alternative first, and we don’t rely on cars.
Agree, I’m not sure the incentive structure here is actually helpful. Those with the money will keep driving regardless. It will largely force poor people to take a slower mode of transport (they drive because it is faster, why else would you choose to drive through rush hour traffic?).
It also does nothing for general urban road congestion around the isthmus i.e. outside the CBD. This is the key slower of buses as inner city/CBD roads tend to have bus lanes so aren’t being held up by cars.
The law change on letting busses out is a positive move on this, it costs drivers nothing so they are unlikely to push back. I’m also a believer that if you build it they will come. People drive because it is faster and not particularly expensive. If other modes become faster/cheaper then people will switch without needing the politically unpopular big stick option.
Need money to build more train lines. Need revenue streams to get money.
Applying congestion charging to core central motorways will be a bad call. If road freight can’t use the SH1 through the city and had to use SH18 and 16 (Western Ring Route) to avoid tolls, it will simply increase congestion on the North Western and create addition transport emissions since the distance is further.
Also there are limits on freight that can move through the Waterview Tunnel. Trucks over 4.3m in height or carrying DG (dangerous goods) can’t use the tunnel, they’ll have to go through the central Auckland motorways.
As happens in London, businesses will suck-up the fees and pass it on to the customer. Congestion charge here (London) is a whole lot higher then the pennies quoted for Auckland yet still Jaffa’s moan. Imagine paying $40 plus a day as Londoners do!
Anything over 4.25m is an oversized load anyway so we’re talking about a relatively small portion of truck movements. Many oversized loads can’t travel on other motorways anyway.
Dangerous goods are more common but I still don’t think you would hold off on a policy just because of that.
How bigger component of a freight run would be the congestion charge anyway? The road space occupied by a truck is only slightly larger then that occupied by a car, when you take the 4 second following distance into account. In fact the difference is so small there is an case for a uniform per vehicle charge.
Increased productivity of trucks by less congestion delays would more then compensate for any congestion charging.
Congestion charging would most affect single occupancy vehicle journeys.
Those with nearly the same demand for road space as a bus carrying 100 people.
As happens in London, businesses will suck-up the fees and pass it on to the customer. Congestion charge here (London) is a whole lot higher then the pennies quoted for Auckland yet still Jaffa’s moan. Imagine paying $40 plus a day as Londoners do!
Strange thing is that congestion charging in other cities was at least partially driven to reduce pollution
The advantage of most of these schemes that they will reduce noise, pollution and emissions inside the congestion zone where many people live and work
No mention in the reports above, but I would hope this is considered as part of the outcomes being considered.
Note that I would not go as far as somewhere like Florence that bans all but zero emission vehicles in the inner city, but I really feel as the the denominator being used should not be total ‘trips’, but looking at private vehicles. A trip where somebody comes in via a bus, train, ferry or bike is already a win for reducing congestion, so the charge should really be focused at mode & time shift not only just for congestion but for pollution and other reasons
Other interesting thing that might get hit as a side affect; trucks to/from ports of Auckland
The biggest delays to Auckland traffic are caused by Auckland drivers. No lane discipline, rubber necking, cutting up the inside and pulling in at the last minute at Mt Wellington, cellphone use ( yes, we see you going slowly pretending not to be looking at the phone you are holding out of sight) sitting in the outside and middle lanes going slowly holding everyone up. Trucks sitting in the middle lane etc, etc. Improve the driving and you will reduce the traffic jams.
Option 3 is telling. It stretches into the burbs on the central and West side, but stops at the Harbour Bridge on the Shore – you know, before the busway they’ve had for over a decade that they could use to access the kind of bus services other parts of Auckland don’t have.
As is the investment map. All the way to Hibiscus Coast, no problem! However West Auckland stops cold at Westgate. Which area is taking on more housing and development again?
Why does this keep happening with our transport planning? Why is everyone so afraid of the North Shore?
Map reading skill issue. The empty areas on the map are actually the North Shore and South East Auckland. And note the ‘2031 frequent network’, it is super pessimistic about the North Shore.
The problem with going north of Westgate is there just aren’t many people living there. Hibiscus Coast has a main bus line because it has like 50,000 people living there.
This.
The 2018–2028 RPTP called for the 941 to be upgraded to a frequent route, the CATR programme intended for the 814 to be upgraded to the 81
The 856 and 917 are also busy enough to potentially justify upgrading to frequent routes
Hibiscus Coast has 50,000 people living there, it will take a lot of development before Kumeū comes even close.
And the North Shore (I guess along with South East Auckland) is way underinvested, just look at the map. That gap between feeders to the busway from the west is more than 5 km, and the one from Glenfield doesn’t even exist at the moment.
Kumeu, Huapai, Riverhead and Helensville have had huge amounts of development in recent years. The population of Whenuapai has doubled in the last thirteen years. Kuemu-Huapai has grown by about 500% in the same time-frame. There’s going to be at least 50,000 more added over and above what’s already been developed in the long term. It’s one of the fastest growing areas of the city.
I’m sure many here would love to have a problem of feeder services not feeding into a busway if it meant we could have a busway before 2039. If that’s your idea of underinvestment then I’ll take it.
Thanks for this – useful for informing my feedback response.