By John McDonald (CityWatch NZ Editor and 2024 Hamilton East Ward By-election Candidate)
With the renewed promotion of congestion charges and other road pricing schemes, it is important to look at the slippery slope argument.
Often a slippery slope argument is dismissed as a fallacy, some kind of simple, flawed, low-evidence argument that “if you give them an inch, they will take a mile”. In the case of road pricing schemes the authorities are planning to charge you for each mile, charge you extra if that mile is on a busy road, then add on extra penalties if you are driving that mile during rush hour.
“These schemes employ various means of tracking motorists’ use of designated (or all) roads and charging them accordingly – for example, via blunt tools such as total kilometres travelled, or via more precise methods such as transponders, which allow for time-of-day charging, and for applying different fees for use of different roads.”
Page 102 of Bridging the Infrastructure Gap, a HCF & WSP report, 26 June 2024
Stopping these schemes before they gain even a small foothold in society is critical. Containing and removing these schemes once they are established is still possible and a worthwhile effort. However, reversing a physically-established scheme is the more expensive option when compared to simply stopping the policy agenda while it is still just a dream of the bureaucrats.
Although a proposed congestion charge scheme might start with a small central city “cordon”, there will often be an agenda to expand the scheme. Establishing a perimeter around the CBD with automatic number plate recognition cameras is just an early stage of the agenda. Sometimes the expansion will simply be a spread to more areas of the city as the scheme grows like a tumour. This expansion can be seen in a proposal for Auckland’s future in the 2020 Congestion Question Technical Report. A similar growth pattern can be seen in diagrams of the ULEZ scheme operating in London’s recent past. Future expansions can also take the form of a scheme becoming more complex, more invasive, and more expensive.
Diagram from Page 130 of the 2020 Congestion Question Technical Report
A slippery slope argument is not a fallacy when clear evidence exists of plans to expand the schemes after the initial version is implemented. It is also reasonable to use the slippery slope argument when those promoting the schemes have a history of encouraging incrementalism and gradualism as strategies. Incrementalism and gradualism are used to manage public resistance to change. Unpopular changes are implemented in small and undramatic steps to minimise public awareness of the negative implications of the scheme. If too many people are aware of the extent and impacts of the plan to transform their society, they might just organise some effective opposition.
The “professional services” firm WSP was open in providing strategies to manage public opposition in their WSP Future Ready® 20-min city in Aotearoa report. The report included the “mitigation strategy” of a “…staged, gradual model that makes it increasingly difficult to drive or get around by car, with strong alternatives in place”. Where the “20-minute city” concept is mostly ‘the carrot’ used in promotional documents, the road pricing schemes are unmistakably ‘the stick’.
“Often the loudest voices are those of extreme supporters and opponents, and this is played out through traditional and social media platforms. Changes to infrastructure are highly political, and negative public opinion can significantly impact success.
Starting early with the community and taking them on the journey with the project is key to reducing the opposition to change. People become outraged when they feel coerced, it’s unfamiliar, they don’t have control on the future and lack trust in the decision makers.
As such we need to keep the community at the heart of change having clear rationale and the story about ‘why’. Engaging with the loud voices early and seeking to deeply understand their opposition will help development of a robust engagement strategy.”
Page 14 of WSP Future Ready® 20-min city in Aotearoa
WSP has partnered with The Helen Clark Foundation (HCF) to produce reports which outline how they might use and expand road pricing schemes. Behavioural change, managing public opinion, cross-subsidising public transport, and “equity” feature prominently in the following quotes from those reports.
“Equity considerations should be paramount in decisions about how and where Auckland’s congestion pricing scheme will operate, as well as in future proposals to develop similar schemes in other cities”
Page 48 of Te Ara Matatika | The Fair Path, a HCF & WSP report, November 2020
“We recommend that Cabinet… Ensure that forthcoming legislation to enable congestion pricing schemes in all Aotearoa New Zealand cities emphasises the need for these schemes to maximise equity by redirecting revenue into more efficient, frequent, direct public transport services, beginning with low-income communities.”
Page 66 of Te Ara Matatika | The Fair Path, a HCF & WSP report, November 2020
“Any congestion charging scheme should be piloted or rolled out in a relatively small area to begin with, before being expanded. Public opinion on congestion charging often improves dramatically after being piloted or implemented. The quicker and safer trips, as well as the charges often being less expensive than first thought, means people tend to adapt and accept the policy relatively quickly. A shorter implementation time also gives less time for misinformation to spread, which can derail proposed schemes. A smaller area and a ‘quicker to install’ scheme can help build public confidence in the policy, rather than a full-scale rollout that would take longer. It also gives officials time to monitor the equity impacts and adjust the design or improve mitigation before a larger rollout.”
Page 49 of Te Ara Matatika | A Fair Charge for Better Cities, a HCF & WSP report, May 2022
“Finally, a comprehensive funding model for road transport should not solely consider how to pay for roads. It should also incorporate a coordinated and dynamic set of levers that can incentivise or discourage certain behaviours for the public good. Examples are tolls that manage congestion at certain times of day (e.g., time of use charging as proposed by Auckland Transport), or increased road user charges for high-emitting vehicles.”
Page 103 of Bridging the Infrastructure Gap, a HCF & WSP report, 26 June 2024
A recent NZ Automobile Association article covered the topic of proposed congestion charges for Auckland and Tauranga. It features comments from Tauranga City Council Commissioner Stephen Selwood. As the article shifts focus from benefits of congestion charging to the equity concerns, it reports that “Stephen Selwood says number plate recognition technology could be used to provide dispensation – this could be based on age, income-level or occupation”. Whether this was a genuine proposal from the Commissioner or just a token gesture to appease the political left is unclear. Both possibilities are concerning in my opinion.
When comparing reports from the different think tanks, it is clear that the New Zealand Initiative (considered to be politically right-leaning) puts less value on equity than the Helen Clark Foundation (considered to be politically left-leaning). However, both think tanks are promoting incrementalism and gradualism. We are being taken on a “journey” towards a society with more surveillance and more taxes. The recent New Zealand Initiative report on road pricing is definitely supportive of using a series of incremental and gradual changes to ease the public into a scheme that will eventually become more complex and comprehensive. The following quote is loaded with phrases that indicate more attempts to mitigate public opposition. These phrases include “designed to build public trust and support over time”, “politically sustainable transition”, and “incremental, adaptive approach that responds to public feedback”.
“But perhaps most importantly, the report offers a pragmatic, staged approach to implementation designed to build public trust and support over time. By starting with modest charges, investing the revenues in visible transport improvements and gradually phasing in more sophisticated pricing over time, Matthew argues that New Zealand can achieve a smooth, politically sustainable transition to a comprehensive road pricing system.
As someone who has long championed road pricing, I find this approach both compelling and refreshing. Too often, the perfect has been the enemy of the good when it comes to transport reform. By embracing an incremental, adaptive approach that responds to public feedback and builds on success, Matthew Birchall offers a realistic roadmap for change that policymakers would be wise to follow.”
Dr Oliver Hartwich (Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative) in the foreword to DRIVING CHANGE How Road Pricing Can Improve Our Roads, The New Zealand Initiative, July 2024
Regardless of whether the think tank is politically left-leaning or politically right-leaning, I suspect that calls for “community engagement” or “public feedback” are not genuine. The agenda is to expand these schemes across the country, monitor and manage peoples travel behaviour, normalise a digital version of a ‘papers please’ permission-to-travel system, and extract large amounts of revenue. Like many public consultation exercises, the final destination appears to be predetermined. The ‘change managers’ are unlikely to appreciate the general public showing some self-determination and deciding on a completely different destination in terms of their society’s future. Instead, we can expect token gestures to get the public on board with “the journey”. This could involve some superficial changes to improve the scheme’s public relations, some subsidies for special interest groups or identity groups (often called “equity”), low initial charges to help people acclimate to the new normal, and sometimes a slower implementation speed which will help with accusing the scheme’s opponents of ‘scaremongering’.
The New Zealand Initiative report proposes a gradual change from a simple scheme, similar to current road user charges (RUC), to a complex scheme with dynamic price changes and other “Smart” features designed to micromanage your travel behaviour. Unlike the WSP & HCF reports that mainly promote urban congestion charges in the major cities, the New Zealand Initiative report is aiming for an ambitious nationwide scheme which will likely involve GPS tracking of all vehicle travel on all the public roads.
“Under the Smart RUC system, RUC rates would initially be determined in the same way as they are now. Charges would vary based on a variety of factors such as vehicle type, axle configuration, weight and emissions profile. By building on the existing system, we can keep implementation costs low and maintain continuity. As the Smart RUC system matures, control over rates would ideally transfer from the Minister of Transport to independent road managers, operating under appropriate regulatory oversight. An independent rate-setting process would promote long-term stability and efficiency in the transport funding system.
RUC rates for light vehicles would be set based on the vehicle’s weight and emissions characteristics. Vehicles would be classed into weight bands, with heavier vehicles paying higher per-kilometre rates to reflect their greater impact on road wear and tear. Similarly, vehicles with higher emissions (based on engine type, fuel efficiency and pollutant profile) would be charged higher rates to account for their environmental impact.”
RUC rates for heavy vehicles, meanwhile, would continue to be based on weight, axle configuration and distance travelled. However, the Smart RUC model would allow for more granular and dynamic charging, with rates potentially varying based on factors such as road type, time of day and real-time traffic conditions.”
Page 29 of DRIVING CHANGE How Road Pricing Can Improve Our Roads, Dr Matthew Birchall, The New Zealand Initiative, July 2024
To be fair, a staged implementation plan might not just be cunning strategy to reduce popular resistance. There are technical reasons for rolling out an ambitious nationwide scheme in smaller stages. New Zealand has a history of expensive and problem-ridden attempts to implement large, nationwide IT systems.Notorious examples include the Novapay payroll system for teachers (originally expected to cost over $182 million) and the “Incis” computer system for police (reported to cost over $107 million). The New Zealand Initiative report gives the example of the German “Toll Collect” scheme to GPS track and bill the trucks using Germany’s roads in the mid-2000s. The scheme was reported to be a huge technical and political failure which was estimated to “cost the government more than $10 billion in lost revenue”.
Many documents promoting road pricing schemes show an awareness that public resistance is expected to be high. The term “social licence” is used to acknowledge that community acceptance is needed to progress these schemes. As the bureaucrats of the professional managerial class get closer to implementing these schemes, we can expect to see more campaigns to manipulate public opinion.
“The need for a social licence to essentially change the country’s tax system shouldn’t be underestimated. Especially considering the feedback Tauranga City Council received on its congestion charging Long-Term Plan 2024-34 proposal and recent findings from Te Waihanga on people’s willingness to pay for infrastructure investment.
While the GPS might be the first step in articulating the story, government should have a plan for change that takes people with them on this journey. This plan must include a communications and engagement strategy. Simply receiving a report from the Ministry of Transport and NZTA will not be enough.”
Page 4 of the Draft Government Policy Statement on land transport 2024-34 submission of Taituarā to the Ministry of Transport
I argue that we need to prevent these schemes before they are legalised and implemented. Once the authorities install the cameras and setup the digital charging system, they are going to want to recover those installation costs and expand the schemes. Any simple and modest charges used in the beginning to win public support are likely to evolve into a daunting set of complex and expensive charges once the schemes are well-established. Stopping these schemes early is the responsible course of action and will help society avoid the ‘sunk cost fallacy’.
When the people of Manchester stopped the authorities’ latest scheme to track and charge road users, the UK government had already wasted £60 million on the setup costs and the local council was left complaining about the loss of all that camera-derived revenue they were expecting.
There are many other reason to oppose these road pricing schemes and I will cover these in future opinion pieces. This article focuses on the manipulative strategies of gradualism and incrementalism.
So when politicians, think tanks, PR consultants, and managers start telling you a “story” and are about to take you on a “journey”, keep asking questions about the final destination before you decide to reject their proposals.
[The content of any Opinion pieces represents the views of the author and the accuracy of any content in a post labelled Opinion is the responsibility of the author. Posting of this Opinion content on the CityWatch NZ website does not necessarily constitute endorsement of those views by CityWatch NZ or its editors. CityWatch NZ functions to provide information and a range of different perspectives on New Zealand’s cities and local councils. If you disagree with or dispute the content, CityWatch NZ can pass that feedback on to the author. Send an email to feedback@citywatchnz.org and clearly identify the content and the issue.]
Further reading on this issue
RNZ articles on congestion charging and time-of-use charging (July-August 2024)
New Zealand Initiative Report: Driving Change – How road pricing can improve our roads
