As someone notes in the responses:
"Congestion pricing is such a good idea everywhere there is rock solid public transit alternatives. Where there’s not, it just becomes a tax on the poor."
If most of the poorer and working class road users cannot shift their transport times (and typically they can't) and then you don't have good and affordable public transport options for them to take instead then it effectively becomes a charge that the people who can't avoid it pay so that those with flexible lives can enjoy a smoother commute.
Which is to say that it might well reduce congestion but the cost of doing so is lumped on those that can least afford it, rather than those that can. As with most things its a choice of who pays for what to reach the aim. I would prefer that we increase taxes on wealthier people and fund expanded and free(er) public transport with a huge increase in safe cycling routes.
I think it could be argued that Auckland and Wellington have decent public transport options, and they would be the most likely place to implement congestion charges.
I wonder if you could reduce the cost of public transport using the funds raised, as an attempt to balance it.
Free public transport would be great, better if they removed the requirement to outsource and let councils or some new government entity control it.
Auckland's PT is excellent getting in and out of and through the CDB, which is where the the congestion charges would apply.
Reducing congestion makes everyone who actually needs to drive a vehicle to/from/for work lives' easier.
It's still regressive, like any flat tax, in that the charge will impact lower incomes more. That can be alleviated by moving marginal tax rates to compensate.
I've not used Auckland PT, but Wellington's is definitely decent, probably depending on where you live. I think the trains would work better if they were faster, and thus more frequent - its probably difficult to make them much bigger given the platform lengths.
Some areas the bus services are a bit borderline, but would work better with less private vehicles to contend with. And to make PT even better some smaller busses with dynamic routing (like is trialled in Heretaunga-Hawkes Bay) could be the missing link that makes cross network travel much better.
The only thing is the routing algorithm would need work because up here what's tended to happen is that they've kinda just become large subsidised taxis for individual or groups going point to point rather than a vehicle travelling across the network picking up & dropping off along the way.
It will also become a tradie tax, in my view. A fair chunk of the traffic going in and out of our big cities is commercial vehicles.
Which then gets passed on to consumers in the form of increased prices. It is always you and I who pay for these things, no matter how they're structured.
Do people think we're all on the road, at the same time, going to the same place, just to be annoying?
Also, if they do try this, trade and service vehicles should be exempt, otherwise it will be just another cost to pass on to the client.
Add an exception for people carpooling and require that funds raised by the congestion toll support public transit options.
otherwise it will be just another cost to pass on to the client.
There's literally nothing wrong with this - just pass it on.
You'll make it out ahead on the time savings alone, which you as someone who necessarily must travel by car will stand to gain the most from.
As someone who was just in Jersey and NYC a few months ago, allow me to tell you that it didn't fix shit. Traffic is still gawd awful. I don't consider the government fining people for going to work a positive thing either. FYI, this is why all the major corporations are pushing for a return to the office. The government gives them big tax breaks for maintaining a minimum occupancy, and then the government make a bunch of money on tolls, traffic tickets, sales tax, parking, etc. The corporations and the government make lots of money, and it all comes out of our pockets. Neat! Right?
Hell no, this has failed in every place it has been implemented. It doesnt stop people who need to drive at that time from driving it just makes it harder for poor people to get to work.
Contrary to what this poster is claiming, it's been a raging success in every place it's been implemented, as can be seen in the meta-analyses of studies on the policy.
But don't believe me nor the poster, read the meta-analyses yourself so that you come away truly informed.
Do you have a link to the meta analysis so that I can read?
Just a small reduction in traffic can have a huge impact on congestion. Yes, it will always have some side effects, everything has in politics. The solution is not to not use traffic reduction inventives, the solution is to raise minimum wage/organize.
Any increase to minimum wage at least close to inflation is at least 2 years off in New Zealand so in at least the short term there would be pain to those that are already pay cheque to pay cheque.
