Brussels quietly abandons revolutionary congestion pricing programme

 Background

Belgium is a federation of three highly autonomous regions. Since 2016 it has operated Viapass, a nationwide heavy-vehicle distance-, weight- and emissions-based road user charge for trucks over 3.5 tonnes. Viapass is run jointly by the three regions rather than the federal government; pricing and network coverage vary by region (all roads in Brussels; selected roads in Flanders and Wallonia). It replaced Belgium’s participation in the Eurovignette system, which charged trucks of 12 tonnes and over for time-based access to main highways across participating countries. Viapass is a great success. Six companies offer accounts and the necessary equipment for trucks using the charged network. It is mandatory for trucks registered in Belgium and all those visiting it.  Brussels charges trucks more for using local roads compared to the motorways.  The rate structure is here. 

For light vehicles, distance-based charging has seen little progress. Fuel duty sits at €0.60 per litre. Registration fees remain high. Brussels attempted to change this with SmartMove, a pilot project designed to cut high annual vehicle registration fees and replace them with a distance-based charge that also varied by time of day and location within the Brussels Capital Region.

The aim was to shift taxation from ownership to use, cut congestion and emissions, and encourage modal shift.

I wrote back in 2020 about it and again in 2021. This was a system, piloted in 2021 designed to replace the high annual vehicle registration fees for light vehicles in Brussels, with a distance based charge, which would vary by time of day.  

I said it was interesting for three reasons:

1. It is the latest attempt to introduce distance-based RUC for light-vehicles in Europe, replacing an existing tax. (Since then Iceland has done so, for all vehicles, but on a vehicle class basis distance fee, not one that varies by location and time of day)

2. It seeks to combine RUC with a form of congestion charging, by varying distance by time of day and location. The time of day factor is intended to charge higher rates for peak time travel, and the location factor being that only distance travelled within the Brussels Capital-Region would be subject to a fee.

3. Smartmove intends to pioneer using smartphones as a means of identifying and measuring vehicle trips. This has not been successful elsewhere to date, primarily because of the difficulties in ensuring that the phone is always linked to the vehicle, and the vehicle always has a smartphone operating to measure and report trip data. 

The project had several key objectives. Reduction of congestion, reduction of emissions, encouraging modal shift and shift motor vehicle taxation from ownership to usage.

Deloitte led key elements: designing and building the smartphone app prototypes for large-scale testing; developing gamification and “nudging” tools to encourage shifts to public transport; and creating the public campaign and website.  Unfortunately, all of this has disappeared (although the Wayback Machine is always our friend).

Part of the former SmartMove website

Proposed Brussels area for distance charging

Registration fees in Brussels start at €79–€6,358 for initial registration, with annual road tax ranging from €107 to around €4,000. Reducing these fixed costs while introducing a usage charge would have made car ownership more accessible, giving flexibility to own a vehicle while raising the cost of peak-time driving. 

Modelling by Transport and Mobility Leuven (reports in French and Dutch) indicated that full implementation could cut total kilometres driven in Brussels by 12% on an average working day, 18% in the evening peak, and delays by 30%. Even after cutting registration fees, the scheme was projected to generate an additional €250 million a year, partly from visiting vehicles.

Some of the benefits modelled for SmartMove were:

• €54.1m per annum in economic benefits for all of Belgium
• €11.4m per annum in health benefits (mainly from more active travel and the subsequent health benefits)
• €10.6m per annum in reduced accident costs
• €9.8m per annum in reduced emission costs

The project noted that on an average weekday, around half of all light vehicles driven in Brussels are not registered in Brussels. Pricing those vehicles alongside local ones would be essential to reducing congestion.  Notable, the average car trip length in Brussels is only 6km. 

Why was SmartMove potentially revolutionary?

SmartMove would have been pioneering. Unlike Singapore’s evolving GNSS-based ERP 2.0, it relied on ubiquitous consumer smartphones rather than dedicated on-board units or OEM telematics. With the ability to price by distance, location, time of day and vehicle type (lower rates for EVs and micro-cars, higher for larger ICE vehicles and SUVs), it could have differentiated arterial routes from local streets and applied fine-grained peak pricing. The app was also intended as a broader Mobility-as-a-Service platform offering journey planning, pricing and ticketing for alternatives to driving.

SmartMove could have been the most highly evolved road pricing system anywhere. 

By using mobile phones, it was a significant shift from concepts involving bespoke equipment being installed in vehicles, or accessing OEM telematics, to a consumer product that is almost ubiquitous – smartphones. Technology that hardly anyone in either the Intelligent Transport System or transport planning community anticipated.

SmartMove website sales pitch

What happened?

The test phase began in August 2020 with 100 Brussels Transport Authority employees, expanding in September to 2,000 citizens. The pilot costed the Brussels government €24.8 million and it ran through the pandemic, being extended to June 2022. €51 million EU grant toward a total estimated implementation cost of €68 million), ran through the pandemic and was extended to June 2022.

The app showed participants what they would have paid under the new system versus existing fees and awarded points (with real value) for driving less at peak times or switching modes. Because no real money changed hands, the trial mainly tested technical feasibility and user appeal. Preparation for full rollout included purchasing ANPR cameras in 2022 to match vehicles to accounts and fine those without an active app. Forgetting a phone, a dead battery or app failure would have risked a fine—an obvious practical weakness.

Opposition and cancellation

Perhaps the biggest critics, and understandably so, were residents (and politicians) from neighbouring Belgian states. Belgium is a federation, with Brussels being one of the three constituent states. If Brussels implemented SmartMove it would have granted Brussels residents a significant cut in vehicle registration fees in exchange for paying the charge.  However, owners of vehicles registered in Wallonia or Flanders that commute into Brussels would face the charge, without any such reduction. After all, the other states would not get any revenue from it, so it would effectively be a charge on non-residents driving into Brussels. Legally, Brussels was required to implement it on a co-operative approach with the other states, and it was likely that had it proceeded it would face a legal challenge, constitutionally, due to their opposition. 

However, it was opposition in Brussels that saw the programme fail, and the main reason was that it was seen as being anti-car, anti-motorist and was (wrongly) interpreted as being alongside a whole package of other measures (called GoodMove) which were designed to make driving slower (for safety), more difficult (by reallocating road space to other modes and reducing on street parking), and less attractive. 

The changes to the Brussels Government, following the June 2024 election and over 600 days of coalition negotiations, were the death knell of the project. The coalition government is now led by the Reformist movement - the centre right liberal French-speaking party, in coalition with five others. The length of those negotiations indicated how fraught they were, and anti-car measures have been cancelled as a result.

On top of making driving slower and more difficult, there was opposition to the cost, and with the possibly of legal challenges from the other states, it was easy to cancel. Furthermore, actual support for the proposal was muted. A key reason for this was the emphasis on implement road pricing to reduce emissions and encourage changes in behaviour, rather than seeing it as a measure to reform the taxation of motor vehicles in a way that would reduce congestion.

Motorists are more likely to support congestion pricing if other charges are cut, and if it can be proven to reduce congestion.  They are less likely to do so if it is seen as a tool to "correct" them, as if they are themselves failing by how they choose to get around, and they are especially less likely to do so if it is just seen as a new tax, with little benefit (unless you stop driving). 

That’s unfortunate, because it could have been recast as a project to make driving more accessible and efficient with lower fixed fees, but better mobility at peak times. By primarily being a redesign of the tax system around motor vehicles, it could have been seen as improving fairness. Poorer people, single parents or pensioners who use cars to access employment on the urban periphery, or social services, or visit family and friends could have had lower costs of travel with lower registration fees.

What can be learned?

Leaving aside the constitutional issues, as it was bold to even think it could have been plausible to tax motorists from outside Brussels, while only compensating those within, the main mistake in Brussels was seeking to do too much in one step and to not sell it as being primarily about making motoring taxes fairer.

It is always a big deal to convince people that paying more to drive reduces congestion, but to do so without being able to convince people they would also save a lot of money from owning a car was difficult. Emission reductions are good of course, as is making public transport (especially buses) move more freely and improving the urban environment altogether, but it needs to be about the people most directly affected - the motorists. While there were some efforts made to sell congestion reduction benefits to business, these were overwhelmed by concern about the cost.

The app concept was a challenge, as it presented the risk that if you forgot your phone or it did not work, you would be fined for not paying. That should not have been the only way to interact with the system as it risked mistakes being punished.

Options of paying a flat fee for driving per day would have been easier to understand, and not hard to implement without it being punitive. The app could have been one option alongside a more blunt ANPR based scheme. 

So there was a failure in policy, driven in part by technologists wanting their solution to be all encompassing. Most of all there is a failure to communicate enough to motorists and design a policy that can be acceptable to them. Furthermore to do this alongside a whole host of other measures to make driving more difficult makes the main objective look like it is anti-car.  Despite the best efforts of some transport planners and politicians, perhaps the biggest lesson in the past few years politically is that the public don't like being told that what they do is wrong and they need to be corrected.

Other jurisdictions have proven that distance based road user charging can be implemented for private car owners and be acceptable, as long as it replaces another tax very clearly and transparently. Others have proven that congestion pricing can be implemented if it makes driving for those paying easier, more reliable and faster.

Unfortunately, the Brussels Government and the SmartMove programme can join the list of cities that nearly implemented congestion pricing, and help inform those who might actually do it.

Auckland Council to consult on congestion pricing

Long time readers will know I have followed (and worked) on Auckland congestion pricing studies for some time.  Most recently two big steps have been taken to advance the idea, noting it is labelled "Time of Use" road charging in New Zealand (just to add to the colourful vernacular in road pricing):

• New Zealand passed a law authorising the introduction of Time of Use road charging, enabling local authorities to develop proposals to work with central government;
• Auckland Transport commissioned study on more detailed options for Time of Use road charging

Incredibly, the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill was passed unanimously in the New Zealand Parliament, by all six parties. 

Auckland Council has voted to proceed with consultation on three time-of-use road pricing (congestion pricing) options for Auckland City later this year. 

There was extensive debate about whether to include in consultation an option of the public being able to reject road pricing altogether, but the amendment to do this did not proceed, so the consultation is not the end of the process.  Curiously, long standing City Councillor, Maurice Williamson (who was a Minister of Transport in the 1990s and a long advocate of road pricing) wanted the option of the public to say "no" because he said he had a record of pushing through unpopular policies before.  However, the consultation will simply focus on what the public thinks of the three options.  The process is depicted below. As you can say, once feedback is received on the options, Council will vote on which, if any, of the three options, it will support through to Scheme Initiation.

Scheme Initiation requires a Scheme Board to be set up jointly with central government, which will then commission the more detailed work.  That Board will finalise the detailed proposal, obtain public input and require approval of Council and then the Transport Minister to be proceed. The current schedule assumes approval will be finalised in mid 2028, with implementation no earlier than 2030.  That means there is plenty of work yet to do.

The options are:

• City centre cordon

• City centre and fringe cordon

• Core motorways with cordon (either 1A or 1C)

The common elements to all proposals are:

• AM peak charges in one direction, PM peak charges in the other direction
• Shoulder charges so that rates rise and decline either side of the peak
• No interpeak charges

City centre cordon

The city centre cordon concept sees an AM peak charge of NZ$3-NZ$4 and PM charge of NZ$2-$3. It would charge around 3.1% of all morning peak car trips, but 23% of trips would see some saving in time. It would reduce car trips by 0.8% and speeds increased by 1.0-2.4% region wide on average (although clearly it would be much higher closer to the cordon and lower in outer suburbs), with a reduction in region wide congestion of 2-4%.  The estimate is that those paying will save four minutes on average. 

It has the following key advantages:

• Most passenger (unlike freight) trips are modally substitutable either by PT or active modes

• Exclusion of the hospital (and Port)

• Through trips are excluded (which are much less easily substitutable by PT).

However, it has very limited impact. Beyond approach routes into the city centre, it is unlikely that there would be much effect noticed on congestion. While there may be some easing of congestion through the Central Motorway Junction, it is unclear how sustainable that would be as it may attract more through traffic through the centre. It would also encourage some degree of “park and ride” or “park and walk” activity near its fringe, making car parking in Newmarket and Ponsonby significantly more valuable simple because of where the cordon is drawn.

Even those who pay may not notice much improvement, because so much congestion is on motorway and arterial routes far from the downtown cordon, so the benefits of paying to drive in the peaks might be perceived as poor value. The benefits at the city end would be noticeable, but if drivers remain on largely slow roads such as Onewa Road or the Northwestern Motorway for long periods, it may suffer from perceptions of whether it was worth it.

Maybe it is good as a first step, to demonstrate it has some impact, but it is hardly worth being the major scheme.

City centre and fringe cordon

The city centre and fringe cordon has more merit as it captures more trips, including Newmarket, Newtown, Ponsonby and Parnell (there is ambiguity about this). This is likely to have more notable impacts on trips on all arterials and motorways approaching the city.  It might be somewhat trivial, but as the “middle” option, I am betting this is the one most likely to be advanced. It moves the “park and ride” issue further out, more into suburban areas (so there will be a need for more residents’ parking or on-road parking restrictions in neighbouring suburbs).  

It is notable that this proposal has much higher charges in the AM peak ($5-$6), with $2-$3 in the PM peak, so it is unclear how much of the higher benefits is a function of price, not scheme design.  It sees 5.1% of AM peak car traffic charged, with a 1.4% reduction in region wide car traffic. The effect is a 1.0-4.1% increase in region wide traffic speeds (again it seems the averaging will see little impact beyond the Isthmus approach corridors). This represents a 3-6% reduction in congestion across the region.  Those paying are estimated to save five minutes on average.

A big issue is inclusion of the hospital, which either can be ignored (as peak only charges do not affect many users), or some discount or subsidy can be offered to vulnerable users with appointments. That would add some costs and require careful design (I recall designing and modelling such an option for Manchester). 

Overall, it would demonstrate noticeable benefits for the inner isthmus and even roads approaching the Northern Motorway from the lower North Shore but could only be seen as a first step.  The inner motorways would benefit with the reduction in trips using them, but it seems likely this would not be sustainable, as the Central Motorway Junction would gain an uplift in level of service compared to the Western Ring Road, which may attract a transfer of vehicles to take advantage of the (uncharged) time saving. 

Core motorways with cordon

Core motorways with cordon is easily the most superior option from the perspective of congestion reduction. Noting it could be included with either of the cordon options above. 

The charge would indicatively cover the Northern Motorway (SH1) from the Harbour Bridge south along the Southern Motorway to the Mt Wellington Interchange, and along the Northwestern Motorway (SH16) to the Waterview Interchange, alongside a cordon.  The proposal is for peak direction charging on the motorways, although this could be bi-directional.  $5 is proposed for the AM peak to access the motorway and the cordon. 

The effect is to target 6.9% of car trips in Auckland, reducing car trips by 2% (it is notable that this isn’t a significant increase on the city centre and fringe cordon). It increases regionwide speeds by 4-6%, reducing congestion by 13%. There would be a 9-12 minute time saving on motorways, with a 5 minute saving crossing the cordon (it is not clear if the savings accumulate for those driving on the motorway to cross the cordon). This is significant, but indicates that this option crosses the tipping point where traffic conditions break down, and relieves traffic volumes enough to allow a much more efficient flow of traffic. While 93% of car trips across the region in the peak are not charged, 31% are expected to benefit. Unfortunately, because the option includes no options to prevent rat-running off the motorways, it also predicts 12% would experience minor delays due to diversion.

That point is worth noting only because the option has been developed rather simplistically, when it is technically possible to capture rat running with appropriate sets of number plate camera (ANPR) to deter drivers from leaving the motorway to avoid the charge then using local roads to go past a motorway offramp point. Detailed traffic modelling should be used to ensure this can be addressed.

However, it is clear this option is the one with the most merit in transport policy terms. It has the attraction of being able to be tailored more finely for the conditions on each of the three motorways. It shouldn’t be the same fee on each route in each direction, and at a later stage there are merits in extending charge times on corridors that have enduring congestion – notably the Southern Motorway between Greenlane and Mt Wellington. 

Are there better options?

This will be a source of some debate.  

Double cordon?

One considered was a double cordon on the Isthmus, which is a bad idea.  The proposal below was sourced from the Options Assessment and Policy Framework report (PDF)

Besides the downtown, it added an inner cordon, which would still exempt through trips on the motorway, but charge anyone entering either of the cordons in peak times (so those within the outer cordon would still be charged to enter the inner one). Although it has some positive impacts, this is offset by the blunt impact of having a cordon cutting through residential areas, separating homes from schools, parks, shops and other local amenities for no other reason that the convenience of a traffic engineer drawing the line. It is quite unlike the city centre, which is bounded by the Central Motorway Junction, Grafton Gully and the harbour. 

Cordons are effective and avoid serious distortions if there are natural geographic or large scale artificial boundaries which a cordon can be placed onto. Stockholm has much of this, London not so much, but the very low proportion of car trips taken in inner London saw the distortions being very minor indeed.  Cordons are for the sake of simplicity and ease of understanding. However, cordons through suburban residential areas have considerable scope to create distortions. Gothenburg experienced this in the northern suburb of Backa, where the cordon literally splits the suburb in two.  This meant that local residents, notably elderly ones, driving from their homes to local amenities faced the same fee as those driving into the central city. Technology has been implemented so that only people driving from outside Gothenburg are charged when passing the cordon that runs through Backa (the Backa exemption). The scale of Auckland, which is much larger than Gothenburg, means that a cordon beyond the city centre would mean residents literally charged for taking cars one block, or charged to take children to one school but not another nearby.  

I am pleased this option has been rejected, and I fear the city centre and fringe cordon might present some similar issues, but this is about as far as any cordon should go in Auckland

Motorway hotspots

Another option that was rejected was pricing targeted motorway hotspots. 

The concept was to price the most congested parts of the network, effectively creating a pilot scheme that could demonstrate the benefits of time-of-use pricing before a wider rollout. While it was never intended as the end-state for Auckland, it could have delivered valuable evidence and public familiarity with road pricing. Unfortunately, I think the option was short-changed by the way it was designed and assessed.

First, no effort was made to mitigate rat-running around charging points. ANPR systems can identify vehicles that leave a motorway immediately before a charging point and rejoin shortly afterwards. Charges can then be applied only to those passing both camera locations, while legitimate exiting traffic remains exempt. The Backa exemption in Gothenburg demonstrates that this is both feasible and established practice. Ruling out motorway hotspot charging partly because of diversion impacts, without incorporating available mitigation measures, risks understating its potential benefits.

Second, modelling behavioural responses remains inherently crude. This is not a criticism of the modellers; it reflects the difficulty of estimating how many people might:

• travel four rather than five days a week;
• shift travel by an hour or two; or
• combine trips more efficiently.

Motorway hotspot charging is likely to rely more on changes in travel timing and frequency than on mode shift, although expanding alternative transport options remains important. The most obvious gap is the absence of the Northwestern Busway, although the corridor already benefits from bus lanes and could support significantly enhanced services.

Finally, the assessment framework appears to favour options with the largest region-wide impacts. That is understandable, but smaller-scale interventions will inevitably produce more localised benefits. Singapore's Electronic Road Pricing system evolved through precisely this approach, targeting specific congestion points and expanding over time. Rather than attempting to solve congestion everywhere simultaneously, it focused on maintaining traffic flow where congestion was most severe.

Too often in the report materials Singapore is depicted more as the Area Licensing Scheme from 1975 (which was a small cordon with manual enforcement of paper based permits) rather than the Electronic Road Pricing system which evolved from 1995 onwards.

Singapore ERP charging points

Auckland could trial a small number of motorway segments with simple, targeted pricing designed to improve traffic flow on those corridors. Such an approach would not transform the entire network, but it might deliver visible results and prove easier to gain public acceptance for than a larger and more comprehensive scheme.

Distance based option

20 years ago, the UK Department for Transport was funding local authorities to develop congestion pricing schemes that would leap ahead of the level of sophistication of the London Congestion Charge (which wouldn't be hard). One way it was going to do this was to fund piloting an option for motorists to pay by distance, time of day and location, rather than just time of day and location, by allowing those who want to, to use in-vehicle technology to measure distance at peak times only, on specific roads identified beyond specific boundaries.

In the New Zealand context this could mean that subscribers to any of the three existing electronic road user charging (eRUC) providers could be charged directly, not based on entering a cordon or a motorway as a flat fee, but by kilometre and have that be at a much lower rate until the fee accumulated to the full charge. The ability to do this has not been explored at all to date, but once the Land Transport (Revenue) Amendment Bill passes, there may be more scope for new entrants into the eRUC market to offer an option to customers to not just pay RUC automatically, but to pay on a different basis to the blunt single charge approach anticipated.

I don't expect either time or budget permitted exploring this further, but it is definitely something that should be considered not just for commercial vehicle users, but any private motorists who wish to do so. e.g. it may be much cheaper to pay for a few kms of driving on a charged motorway in the AM peak than a single flat charge, and also more directly discourage rat running. 

Next steps

As public discussion expands, resistance is inevitable.

The Council debate revealed a vocal minority opposed to road pricing in principle, alongside a group of sceptics who remain open to persuasion. Those concerns are understandable. Road pricing is a new charge, and net revenues are expected to be reinvested in the transport system. Questions about whether that spending represents value for money, and whether those paying directly benefit, are legitimate and deserve answers.

What has been largely absent from the debate, however, is a clear discussion about the cost of congestion itself on a personal level, rather than the multi-billion dollar aggregate which most people cannot get their heads around.

No major city has successfully eliminated congestion by building its way out of the problem, whether through road expansion or investment in alternative modes alone. Managing demand is an essential part of the solution.

For Aucklanders, congestion means waking earlier, arriving home later, spending less time with family and leisure activities, and consuming more fuel or electricity. For businesses, it means fewer deliveries, fewer service calls, fewer meetings and lower productivity. Congestion makes the city less efficient, less prosperous and less liveable.

None of the options under consideration will eliminate congestion. They can, however, make the network function more efficiently, improve travel time reliability, encourage better use of alternative modes, and spread demand more evenly across the day.

That alone would be a worthwhile outcome.

Most importantly, momentum must not be lost. Progress to date has been slow, perhaps reflecting the complexity of joint decision-making between central and local government. If the proposals pass the next stage, careful public communication will be critical. The detailed design process must address genuine concerns while avoiding the misunderstandings that so often dominate debates about road pricing.

I look forward to the consultation beginning in November 2026.

What to do?

Clearly those who have strong views on congestion pricing in Auckland should participate in the consultation, but they should all read the documentation provided along with earlier reports (links above).  The likelihood that there will be a lot of public opposition is fairly reasonable and understandable, but what would be most productive is to get some indication of the options people dislike and like the most, and why. Besides helping to select the best option, it would also help to refine options and indicate concerns that perhaps haven't been explored sufficiently. There is also merit in understanding whether opponents will be affected directly or not, as well as those who will benefit.  What is almost invisible is that bus users at peak times are likely to benefit noticeably with less congestion, as long as buses are not overcrowded as well.

I'm a firm believer that pricing can be designed in a way that has significantly positive outcomes with negative outcomes that can be mitigated, with major city shaping effects. It is particularly important for those who see road pricing as a great tool to punish driving and treat motorists as "car fascists" (as a politician once quipped a few years ago) to end that sort of talk. Nothing will kill off road pricing more than it being dominated by people who want to treat driving as a malignant activity, and by default treat people's choices around where they live, work and play as needing "correction". That's not what the intention of the legislation is, and it is notable that a centre-right government in New Zealand has advanced this policy with the primary objective of easing gridlock, not raising money and not punishing driving.  If you can't convince the people that will have to pay that they can be better off from this, it isn't going to proceed, and if you seek to design it so they are not, then it definitely won't.

New Zealand Transport Minister recognises road pricing as a tool to defer new road capacity

It’s extraordinarily rare for politicians leading transport policy to understand road pricing beyond one dimension. Either they think it is a great way of raising money they can spend on projects that they can sell to the public, or it is a great way of reducing traffic, it’s rare to see an understanding of economics.

In New Zealand it is seen with the current Minister of Transport, Hon. Chris Bishop.  For context, New Zealand has recently passed legislation to allow for time-of-use road charging, the term used in New Zealand for congestion pricing. It will allow local authorities, in partnership with central government, to set up road pricing schemes specifically targeted to reduce congestion. Auckland is already some way ahead in developing recommendations for congestion pricing and is expected to advance proposals in the coming year.

The primary purpose of congestion pricing in New Zealand will be to reduce congestion, noting that such pricing will also generate net revenues, which will be used subject to agreement between central and local government. This will likely see net revenues directed towards a range of transport projects in the city or district where the pricing scheme operates.  

However, there is another feature that road pricing enables, beyond raising money and getting better use of existing road infrastructure, which is to provide information on where better to direct future road capital spending.

Bishop hinted at this in February 2026 when the National Infrastructure Plan was released by the Infrastructure Commission. It noted that road pricing could “defer the need for expensive capacity expansions”.

Radio New Zealand reported on 18 February 2026:

Asked whether time of use charging should be used first before committing funds to two tunnels, Bishop said it was an option under consideration and he would have more to say soon.

"I'm not cancelling the tunnel, but we are giving active consideration to what time-of-use pricing might do to our transport projects. You have to factor these things in, because thay are a mechanism for demand management and making more efficient use of our infrastructure, which is exactly what the commission says."

The project referred to is to duplicate two tunnels in Wellington city (known as the SH1 Wellington Improvements project), both of which are subject to significant congestion at peak times (and frequently off-peak times). It's a project primarily about congestion, but also resilience (the Terrace Tunnel has one-lane southbound, and Mt Victoria Tunnel is 95 years old with only one-lane in each direction) and helping to move traffic from the waterfront highway (which acts as a backup to the network, but separates the waterfront from the central business district). 

Wellington State Highway 1 network issues

Proposed second Wellington Terrace Tunnel (northern end)

Proposed second Mt Victoria Tunnel (western end)

Both tunnels are part of State Highway 1, which is the main highway into the city, but also bypassing the city centre towards the airport, eastern and southern suburbs. Congestion pricing would be likely to reduce traffic on this route, particular traffic using the tunnels to drive into the central city.

The current New Zealand Government went to the previous election promising to build the project. That may still happen. Finance Minister, the Hon. Nicola Willis, has said it will proceed. 

Of course the simplest, and possibly least controversial option, would be to proceed with the project, and introduce time of use road charging to help pay for it, but also manage demand from the additional capacity, by placing a cordon within the boundaries of State Highway 1. This would mitigate fears that the new capacity would induce demand away from public transport for trips into the central city, ensure that the new capacity worked efficiently.

Yet the most economically efficient option is to introduce pricing in advance, to determine if it would sufficiently reduce demand to defer the need for the new tunnel capacity.  That is certainly worth investigating.  There are two key elements to this approach:

• What sort of road pricing scheme should be proposed in Wellington, that would optimise network use?
• Can that proposed be sufficiently publicly acceptable to proceed?

I've doodled on a map of Wellington suggest a basic cordon concept that might work (inbound AM peak, outbound PM peak) that puts most of the central city behind it, which is also the area with the most intense public transport service (and is accessible on foot and cycle for inner city suburbs as well). 

Wellington Time of Use Road Charging cordon concept

Leaving aside a lot of details (e.g. keeping Oriental Bay and Mt Victoria outside the cordon, where to draw the line in Te Aro), the idea is the through route of SH1 isn't priced, because use of it is much less amenable to modal shift, so the first priority should be to encourage modal and time of use travel shift to and from the central city, with a second priority being to encourage time of use shifting predominantly through traffic (see below with lines on the main routes towards the central city from the north and the east).  Again the details on whether someone pays twice or just once, whether it be through the cordon or on State Highway 1 is a moot point, and the timing of operation might vary to manage demand, but this is only conceptual at this stage.

Second stage Wellington time of use road pricing, tunnels in addition to cordon

What matters more fundamentally is that a Transport Minister is talking about it.  Demand and traffic assignment modelling would identify whether a reasonable price for a downtown cordon would sufficiently reduce traffic numbers to relieve congestion at the two tunnels, or whether by pricing the waterfront route, the 15-20% of traffic on that route that is bypassing the city relocates onto the unpriced tunnels, effectively leaving congestion at those tunnels where it was before.  Although some routes into the city would be relieved, and traffic flow within the city would improve, if it meant no net improvement to traffic along the route the SH1 Wellington Improvements project was intended to fix, then it would be likely to generate some public and political opposition. Moreover, it would not dissipate calls to build the highway improvements.

However, if pricing was also placed on the tunnels, as well as the downtown, then it might make a difference if there was sufficient traffic with enough demand elasticity to be priced away from driving in the peaks.  

What next?

The New Zealand Government has a fiscal problem, in that it (like so many governments) has ambitions for capital spending on transport projects that it is struggling to fund. The temptation to delay or defer a project like the SH1 Wellington Improvements project is significant.  I expect there to be considerable analysis on the potential for tolling the project (as is the policy of the government), but just tolling the tunnels is problematic, as there are alternative routes (which are inferior, and which analysis has indicated it is preferable to attract traffic from as it is an urban setting, rather than encourage traffic onto). I very much doubt tolling is suitable for this project given tolls are likely to worse congestion on key bus routes rather than improve them.

Time of use road pricing in Wellington is likely to have merit regardless of the SH1 Wellington Improvements project, so should proceed, but there will be a political debate about use of the net revenues. I expect the Mayor and City Council to want to use net revenues to further their preferred projects, but the Minister will likely prefer supporting the tunnels project.

One option could be to use pricing to phase the SH1 Wellington Improvements project, so that the elements with the highest net benefit are advanced first (e.g. around the Basin Reserve, which is a troublesome bottleneck only partly related to tunnel capacity), and tunnels are built in a sequence reflecting demand impacts from pricing.  

Whatever happens, it's a great illustration of the key benefit that road pricing can bring, which is a reassessment of the merits of transport capital projects in the light of pricing. For example, it is also possible that road pricing could improve traffic flow for buses, that the need for additional bus priority measures erodes. That has its own political implications for those advocating taking road space from general traffic to give to other modes. It makes it easier to do it, but also reduces the case to do it.  What helps is there is the political will to be rational about this, hopefully this will persist regardless of the outcome of the New Zealand General Election later this year.

For the sake of my many overseas readers, some might note that Bishop is from the centre-right National Party, which is in coalition with the free-market liberal ACT Party and the nationalist-conservative NZ First Party. New Zealand's Parliament passed the  Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill unanimously, including the three opposition parties.  I am unaware of any national Parliament anywhere in the world which showed unanimous support for enabling road pricing by time of use.

New Zealand's Parliament passes legislation to enable congestion pricing - unanimously (but the details will come later)

In a possibly unprecedented step, the New Zealand Parliament has voted - unanimously - to pass legislation allowing for "Time of Use road pricing" to be enabled, based on proposals from local road controlling authorities in partnership with the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) (the central government transport funding and regulatory agency, which is also the State Highway manager).  

The Bill was introduced into Parliament by the three-party centre-right coalition government, and at the end was backed by the three leftwing Opposition parties as well.  I believe this is the first time anywhere in the world that congestion pricing has received unanimous political support at a national level.

According to the press release from Transport Minister, the Hon. Chris Bishop:

Sitting in traffic wastes time, costs money, and drags down productivity,” 

“Travel times in our major cities are up to 30 per cent longer than in comparable Australian cities, with Auckland congestion alone estimated to cost up to $2.6 billion by next year.

“Time-of-use charging is a common-sense tool that encourages people to travel at off-peak times or by other modes. It’s about keeping our cities moving - whether you’re a parent on the school run, a tradie heading to a job, or a truckie delivering exports to port.

“Time of use charging has been talked about in New Zealand for years and now we’re getting on with it. I am really pleased that the legislation to allow the establishment of time-of-use charging schemes passed Parliament unanimously. After years of discussion, it is great to see that all of Parliament is up for reducing congestion and improving productivity.

Ironically, there is next to no political appetite for such a policy in Australia in the near future, in any State or Territory.

Of course the legislation itself does not actually implement road pricing, but it does provide a framework for time of use pricing proposals to be generated, as a local-central government partnership, for approval by the Minister.  The details as to what it will mean, in practice, will only come once the Minister of Transport has approved a road pricing scheme, following a proposal submitted by local and central government authorities.

Objective

Unlike some congestion charging schemes implemented elsewhere, the primary purpose of any proposals in New Zealand must be to relieve congestion, not raise revenue (although it is acknowledged that revenue will be generated). It is not designed to reduce emissions, but it is acknowledged that this is likely to be a benefit from it.  It is fundamentally not intended to punish driving, but to reduce driving on specific roads at specific times so that traffic can flow more freely.  It more closely resembles the objectives of the Singapore Electronic Road Pricing policy, than say New York or London.

This is not surprising, as New Zealand is one of the most car-oriented countries in the world.  Auckland, which has 1.7 million people and has made the greatest progress in developing options for road pricing, may be the first to implement it. However, Auckland has highly dispersed travel patterns with around 80% of trips in Auckland undertaken by car (either as driver or passengers), with 18% by walking or cycling (and the remainder by public transport).  

Timing

The legislation does not come into force for a year after Royal assent, and subsequent to that, the Minister can receive proposals for approval, amendment or refusal. Given the next New Zealand General Election must happen before the end of 2026, it seems unlikely that the Minister will receive a proposal in advance of that. 

What's next?

Auckland Transport and subsequent to that Auckland Council are expected to make decisions on what sort of Time of Use road pricing scheme it wants to implement, with NZTA, and a proposal will need to be developed for acceptance by NZTA and then submitted to the Minister.  Before that happens, there will need to be public consultation on the proposal, and at that point the pressure will be highest on local politicians as to whether they want to advance any proposal for implementation.

Other cities can submit their own proposals too. Wellington, Christchurch, Queenstown and Tauranga have all been mooted in recent years for congestion pricing on some scale, so it will be interesting to see which, if any, look to advance work on concepts for pricing in the coming year. Although much smaller cities and towns than Auckland, all have some congestion at peak times which can be severe for their size, and could benefit from road pricing. 

Of course nothing is guaranteed.

The UK has had legislation enabling congestion charging by local authorities for around 24 years, and only Durham and Nottingham (the latter being a workplace parking levy) have implemented schemes under that legislation (London happened under specific legislation setting up Transport for London).  New Zealand will not be quite the same, as the UK has generally enabling legislation (not requiring central government support), whereas New Zealand will see proposals go to the Minister for approval and will need to be a central-local government partnership. However, I would wager that it is more likely New Zealand will have a congestion pricing system operating sooner than any other UK cities will implement it.

New Zealand, appears on the face of it, to have a rather unique set of political willingness to enable congestion pricing, which is unseen elsewhere, but the reality of what any proposal will actually mean for motorists will come later.

Let's hope whatever proposals advance, that they can bring enough political and public acceptability to enable them to be implemented.

The Bill (which won't be law until Royal Assent) is available here.

(meanwhile it would be nice if the NZ Ministry of Transport updated its website)

New York's Lower Manhattan toll has reduced congestion

New York's congestion charge is of course ground-breaking in the United States as the first application of congestion pricing to all lanes on an existing road (of course express lanes have offered the choice of priced lanes in many cities and on many routes, and there are toll roads with higher peak charges, but congestion pricing on previously untolled roads is new).

The scheme has been in place now since 5 January, so is well bedded in. It is timely to look at the results so far.  It is designed primarily to raise revenue, which is why charges apply 24/7 (albeit with a significant discount during 2100-0500 weekdays and 2100-0900 weekends), but that doesn't stop there being a noticeable demand impact.  It should encourage both mode shift and some trip consolidation (fewer motor vehicle trips), and also some time shift close to the 0500, 0900 and 2100 time period cutoffs. 

The conclusion after six months is that traffic flows better, transit patronage is up and there are considerable net revenues being generated from vehicles paying the charge (which unhelpfully is called a toll). 

The National Bureau of Economic Research Digest reports an 8% increase in the speed of car trips within the zone and to the zone, with a 2.5% increase in speeds from the zone. 

New York City traffic speeds

It also noted a 15% in average CBD speeds with a 20% increase in weekday afternoons (1300-1700) and 25% increase in weekend evenings (1500-2100). 

The MTA has published data about vehicle entries and bus travel times.  

In January, there was an 8% reduction in vehicles entering the charged zone compared to the baseline of the previous year. By June 2025 the reduction in vehicles entering the charged zone was at 14% compared to what was forecast had charging not been in place. It was down 10% in May, 12% in April and 13% in March. This is an ongoing trend, which should result in higher traffic speeds as well as improved air quality.

MTA also reports bus speeds. These indicate a modest increase overall compared to previous years, but the effects vary considerably when disaggregated to specific routes. Route B39 sees a 30% increase in speeds, M1 hardly any change, as it is obviously dependent on the impacts on specific routes. 

Route M1 average speeds by month

Route B39 average speeds by month

With a flat fee for all routes, it is obvious some routes will see significant improvements, while others will not (either because they are much less congested anyway, or demand elasticity is different for different origin-destination pairs).

Transit use has gone up. Subway patronage is up 6-8% per month. Long Island Railroad, Metro-North Railroad and bus patronage are also up by similar percentages.

The PATH (subway from New Jersey) has seen patronage increases in all but one month since January of 7-11% per month.

Congestion pricing tracker website is more informative, as you can compare the driving times for a wide range of routes into the zone by time of day and day pf the week.

The Lincoln Tunnel has clearly sees reduced travel times during the day, but the Queens-Midtown Tunnel (which was already tolled) has seen little impact. Arguably in the mornings, there has been an increase, because those paying for the toll of this (and multiple other crossings) have the toll as a credit towards the congestion charge. This suggests some shift in chosen crossing to the tunnel because it is not longer punitively priced compared to the other crossings.

Lincoln Tunnel travel times

                    Queens-Midtown Tunnel travel times

Some of the data shows time shift around peak/off peak charges, but largely involving a slight increase before and after the change in charging times. 

The website's conclusions so far are:

Overall, the policy has mostly reached its intended effects, at least directionally. 

Traffic delays have decreased significantly across the board within the congestion zone, on tunnels and bridges to the zone, and even in the surrounding boroughs. 

While time saved in traffic depends significantly on the route one takes, it has ranged from a few minutes shaved off an evening commute to a decrease of thirty minutes or more. Official MTA data shows tens of thousands fewer vehicles are entering the zone, resulting in reduced crashes and injuries.

Environmental effects have also been apparent: honking and noise complaints have more than halved in some areas of the Congestion Zone, and air quality has reportedly improved.

While long-term effects of Congestion Pricing will continue to evolve over the months and years to come and vary significantly based on individual experience, our current data paints an encouraging picture of the policy’s effectiveness.

Of course reduced travel times/ increased speeds are an obvious measure of success. Those paying are now getting a better experience, with improved journey times and less energy wasted (with lower emissions).  However there is a lot of additional data needed to form a complete picture of the impacts.  What I would hope to see by early 2026 is:

• Route by route average traffic speeds comparing free flow, pre-charging and post-charging 
• Data on what happened to the reduced traffic (mode shift, higher vehicle occupancy, reduced number of trips, diverted trips) based on surveys
• Compliance rates (proportion of vehicles paying the charge compared to those required to pay)
• Complaints rates (numbers of formal complaints about charges)
• Impacts on businesses located within the charging zone, including those relatively close to the 61st Street boundary (some may be winners, some losers if the charge deters some customers)
• Data comparing local air quality within and just outside the charging zone before and after the charge was introduced

Will this encourage more congestion pricing in the USA?

It's too early to tell, but clearly the sky didn't fall in NYC, and there are some measurable and noticeable improvements in travel times and changes in behaviour.  However, lower Manhattan is fairly unique in the United States. With the possible exception of downtown Washington DC, no other US city has a concentration of trips and employment so focused on its downtown that is responsible for much urban congestion (and lower Manhattan's geography lends itself to charging).  

The big mistake will be thinking that the answer for each city will be to implement a cordon as seen in New York, particularly one that runs 24/7. This is the sort of nonsense that was seen when London was introduced, as it was assumed by some that every city just needed an area charge, but no others have ever been implemented.  

New York is, so far, a success. It faces its charges being increased in future years to sustain those benefits, noting New York was introduced at a considerably lower rate schedule than was originally proposed as seen below.  In 2028, the rates are going up by around a third on average, and another 25% in 2030 to meet the revenue targets desired. The impacts of both of those increases will be interesting, because it is likely they will be much more modest than the initial impact, but they may also prove to be politically more difficult.

New York congestion charge rate schedule page 1

New York congestion charge rate schedule Page 2

US Federal Highways Administration terminates agreement authorising New York congestion charge

On 20 February 2025 the Executive Director of the US Federal Highways Administration wrote to the Commissioners of the New York State and City Departments of Transportation and the President of the MTA as follows, essentially requesting that the New York congestion charging scheme cease to operate from 21 March 2025 on "Federal aid highways":

Dear Commissioner Dominguez, Commissioner Rodriguez, and President Sheridan:

I am writing pursuant to Secretary Duffy’s February 19, 2025, letter terminating the November 21, 2024 Value Pricing Pilot Program (VPPP) Agreement under which the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has approved the implementation of tolls as part of the New York’s Central Business District Tolling Program (CBDTP). The Secretary’s letter stated that the FHWA will contact the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) and its project sponsors, Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (TBTA) and New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT), to discuss the orderly cessation of toll operations under the CBDTP.

In order to provide NYSDOT and its project sponsors time to terminate operations of this pilot project in an orderly manner, this rescission of approval and termination of the November 21, 2024 Agreement will be effective on March 21, 2025. Accordingly, NYSDOT and its project sponsors must cease the collection of tolls on Federal-aid highways in the CBDTP area by March 21, 2025. Please work with Rick Marquis, the FHWA’s New York Division Administrator, to provide the necessary details and updates regarding the cessation of toll operations.

A Federal aid highway covers all Interstates and the Primary road system (FAP) and Secondary road system (FAS), so does not cover all roads within the zone, but it does include some. 

This follows a letter to the Governor of New York from the Secretary of Transportation expressing concern about the scheme's burden upon people in New York and New Jersey:  

I share the President’s concerns about the impacts to working class Americans who now have an additional financial burden to account for in their daily lives.  Users of the highway network within the CBD tolling area have already financed the construction and improvement of these highways through the payment of gas taxes and other taxes.  The recent imposition of this CBDTP pilot project upon residents, businesses, and commuters left highway users without any free highway alternative on which to travel within the relevant area.  Moreover, the revenues generated under this pilot program are directed toward the transit system as opposed to the highways.  I do not believe that this is a fair deal.

The use of revenues is clearly a key issue, but the misconstruing of the need for a fee to enable people without a free alternative is unfortunate. 

I have concluded that the scope of this pilot project as approved exceeds the authority authorized by Congress under VPPP.

This is hotly debated.   The Secretary's claims are that the legislation enabling the scheme did not envisage cordon pricing, compared to conventional tolls.  The other key claim is that as the scheme is primarily designed to raise revenue, not reduce congestion, then it is outside the scope of the Value Pricing Pilot Program.  

By contrast, the Governor of New York, Kathy Hochul is pushing back. Here is her speech to the MTA Board. and her statement on receipt of the letter from the Secretary of Transportation.

Her main claim is that it is not for the Federal Government to stop New York from introducing pricing on its roads. She is litigating against the claim of the Secretary of Transportation. 

So the battle for New York congestion charging goes to the courts...

New York's congestion charge is live, but it started on a Sunday

Yes New York is different from the rest of the United States, and Lower Manhattan is different from the rest of New York.  Every statistic around housing density, car use, mode share and supply of public transport demonstrates that.  However, today New York is the first US city to implement any form of urban road pricing/congestion charging that applies to existing roads which varies by time of day.

An initial report is of no drama at all, it being a Sunday as the scheme launch date. The New York Times has been live blogging about it, and the only point of note is apparently slightly less traffic. Winnie Hu from New York Times reported:

Traffic already appeared to be lighter on Sunday morning in the congestion zone. The average travel speed was 15.1 miles per hour at 8 a.m., or about 3 percent faster than the 14.6 miles per hour recorded at the same time on the first Sunday in January 2024, according to real-time data from INRIX, a transportation analytics firm.

That's with a US$9 a day charge from 0900-2100 in weekends. It is the same charge weekdays from 0500-2100, with a US$2.25 charge at all other times (this is for cars). The price schedule is not that complex, with variations based on vehicle size (road space occupancy), type of account and timing. The full schedule is here.

The "New York Central Business District Tolling Program" as it is officially called, is primarily about raising a lot of money for public transport, especially for the subway.  So it is a revenue scheme first and foremost, but which also has some clear objectives around improving both road network performance and environmental outcomes. 

With the lower rates approved by the Governor just over a month ago, it is expected to raise US$500m per annum in the first three years, with an increase after that to take it to around US$700m. If it were not for that level of revenue, it would not have the political support it needed.

From a transport (and environmental) policy point of view it has other useful objectives, it should reduce traffic, improve speeds and reduce emissions.

The big test will be tomorrow of course.

New York congestion charging is back : 5 January 2025

In May 2024 I wrote on how the Governor of New York, Kathy Hochul had suspended what was then called the Central Business District Tolling Program.  It would have been the first proper congestion charge in the USA, in the sense that it applied a charge to driving on existing roads to manage demand, and generate revenue.

Hochul suspended it for multiple reasons, but a key one was to defer the risk of its introduction costing the Democratic Party support in the November Federal Election for the House of Representatives.

With that all over, and with the perceived risk that the forthcoming Trump Administration may cancel the program, it is all "go".

The New York scheme is now called the Congestion Relief Zone and it will be in operation on 5 January.

All of the equipment is in place, it is ready to go, and with the passage of the Federal election, the Congestion Relief Zone in New York will go live on 5 January.  It was suspended in June, purportedly for policy reasons, but primarily a mix of concern over lawsuits and the effect the charge would have had on the elections to the House of Representatives.

The main change to the suspended scheme is a reduction in the peak time price from US$15 to US$9.

It's not clear whether the daytime period remains as previously proposed (0500-2100 weekdays and 0900-2100 weekends), but it is clear that the daytime charges will range from  US$4.50 for motorcycles, US$9 for cars and up to US$21.60 for large trucks and sightseeing buses.  Commuter buses will be exempt.

A per-trip surcharge of US$0.75 applies to taxis and black cars, and US$1.50 for app-placed trips (e.g. Uber). 

The off-peak discount is apparently 75%, explicitly to encourage off-peak truck deliveries. Albeit, the case for having any charges between 2200 and 0500 appears to be low.

The price will not increase until 2028 when it can be raised to US$12 for cars (with proportion increases for other vehicle classes) through to 2030.  

The charge is expected to enable borrowing of around US$15b in bonds to support the capital program of the New York MTA including:

· Second Avenue Subway Phase 2 extension to East Harlem

· Replacing signaling on 6 lines

· Improving accessibility at 20 stations

· New electric buses

A range of other projects are listed, including renovating parks and greenspaces.

The scheme is forecast to reduce VMT in Manhattan by 5% and a 10% reduction in the number of vehicles entering lower Manhattan. The charge is also being accompanied by other measures to reduce congestion including:

· Expanding enforcement of intersection blocking also known as “blocking the box” violations

· Expanding use of weigh-in-motion technology to enforce weight limits of trucks

· Raising threshold value for removing abandoned vehicles

· Permitting the City to impose surcharges on permits for construction that remove traffic lanes.

What next?

New York has around six weeks before the Congestion Relief Zone comes into effect, but there is a lot to do. A campaign to inform motorists of the coming zone will be critical, and it will be essential for as many as possible to be informed of what they need to do to be compliant with it. As a majority of vehicles entering lower Manhattan already have toll tag accounts for the multiple New York and New Jersey toll roads and crossings (Lincoln and Holland Tunnels carry the traffic from New Jersey and both are tolled), this should be easy for them. The real cost will come from the tens of thousands of occasional visitors, particular from the remainder of Manhattan which don’t have toll tag accounts. 

Eyes will be on the impacts of the charge, the capacity of the bus, subway and rail networks to handle increases in demand, and the profile of demand on the road network, but I suspect the greatest impact will be in reducing frequency of trips. Irregular travel will reduce. There will be modest modal shift, but the real impact will be shifting of some commercial demand to the off-peak period and reduction in trip frequencies.

The press release from the Governor claims motorists will "save" US$1500 per annum, but this is comparing the price schedule now to the one previously proposed. It is being sold as being an improvement by being lower price, but it is still a new charge for driving into lower Manhattan.  This press release covers the positive comments from multiple state and city politicians supportive of the plan.

A lot of the details have not been announced, but I expect most of what was previously announced will continue.  These details will need to be confirmed in the coming weeks, but all going well, the New Year will see New York as the next city globally to introduce congestion charging, and the first in the USA.

Yes its primary focus is in raising money, it would not be happening if the pressure to raise revenue to fund public transport renewals and improvements were not so high, and it is a blunt scheme that will not do much to change time of travel.

As I wrote before, it almost certainly is not a model for the rest of the US to follow, but the principle should hopefully be a success. It should reduce congestion, it should raise a lot of money and enable the city to operate more efficiently.  Let's hope it proves to be a great success.