Stockholm’s congestion charging cut traffic 20% and queues by up to 50%. Photo / 123RF
Auckland has a congestion problem, and it is costing us up to $2.6 billion a year. Congested roads mean longer commutes, less time with family, and a significant drag on economic productivity. For decades, successive governments and councils have discussed time-of-use charging as a means of maximising the use of
our existing roads and driving behavioural change. Now, it’s finally on the horizon.
When something costs more, people use less of it. We saw this play out earlier this year when disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz pushed fuel prices above $3 a litre, and Aucklanders responded by getting out of their cars and onto buses in record numbers. Bus passenger numbers in Auckland hit a new monthly record, surpassing pre-Covid levels for the first time. Price is a powerful lever for changing behaviour. Time-of-use charging applies the same principle to road use. Drivers pay a charge to use certain roads at peak times, encouraging people to travel at quieter times, switch to public transport, take alternative routes, or skip the trip altogether. The objective is straightforward. Better traffic flow and more productive use of our existing road network.
Mayor Wayne Brown has made clear he wants congestion charging in Auckland “ASAP”. The enabling legislation, the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Act, was passed by Parliament unanimously last November and comes into force in November 2026. Under the new framework, local councils can propose time-of-use charging schemes in partnership with NZTA, subject to public consultation and final approval by the Transport Minister. Auckland is the first city expected to move. Council staff are already working through a range of scheme options, with the transport and infrastructure committee set to consider those options in the coming weeks. The political will exists at both the central and local government level. All that remains is settling on the right design and implementation.
Earlier this month, I travelled to Stockholm and Oslo as part of a delegation with Infrastructure New Zealand examining how the Nordics plan, fund, and deliver major infrastructure. In Stockholm, we took a deep dive into Sweden’s two decades of experience with congestion charging, first introduced there in 2006 and later in Gothenburg in 2013. The lessons for Auckland are clear.
When Stockholm introduced its scheme in 2006, the results were immediate. Traffic across the cordon dropped by 20% almost from day one, enough to effectively eliminate congestion, with time spent in queues falling by 30 to 50%. The scheme did not just nudge behaviour at the margins. It transformed the city’s roads.
What did Stockholm learn along the way? Several lessons stand out, each directly relevant to Auckland.
First, start with a trial. Stockholm ran a seven-month trial before making the scheme permanent, and it proved decisive. People experienced the benefits firsthand through shorter commutes and cleaner air. Public support followed. Yes, there is a cost to getting the enabling infrastructure in place for a trial. But a trial creates the flexibility to tweak the system if issues arise, and, critically, it builds social licence.
Social licence depends on visible results. If the impact on journey times is marginal, it is a much harder sell to the public. Stockholm’s sustained 20% congestion reduction and 30 to 50% improvement in queue times became an established part of city life, and by 2011, public approval had risen to over 70%. By contrast, the scheme in Gothenburg has been less popular as the impact on journey times is lower. The lesson is clear: a well-designed scheme that delivers real, tangible improvements earns its own support over time.
Design matters enormously. Charges only work if the system is well designed and placed in the right location. Get it wrong, and you risk pushing congestion onto other roads, creating new problems. Stockholm tested 18 different models before settling on the one with the fewest unintended consequences. The lesson: take the time to do the transport modelling properly and trust the data.
Be transparent about where the money goes. The purpose of the charge must be to reduce congestion, not to fill a revenue hole. There needs to be honesty and accountability about how the funds are spent, and clarity about who decides. In Stockholm, revenue is being used to fund a major tunnel bypass under the city, a clear, tangible project that people can point to. That visibility builds trust, and trust is sustains the scheme in the long term.
If Auckland could do one thing, it should be this: run a trial to test the design, build public confidence, and demonstrate, in real time on real roads, that congestion charging works. Stockholm showed that a well-designed charging system, built on rigorous modelling, transparent revenue use, and genuine public engagement, can transform a city’s roads. The momentum is there. Now it is about getting the design right.
Katrina Van Houtt is major projects and construction partner at Dentons
SaveShare this articleCopy LinkEmailFacebookTwitter/XLinkedInReddit