Of course -if they build a second tunnel, it’ll just get full of cars. We already have a bus tunnel – the only one in NZ? So should we just leave the cars to rot in peace?

Smart card ticketing please! Tap-on, tap-off, as in Singapore/Hong Kong/etc. Completely remove the transaction with the driver and thus dwell times. Even a flat charge (with no change given) system such as in the US dramatically reduces dwell times. In Seattle during peak hours you pay as you get off, not 100% sure, but I assumed that was a creative method to reduce dwell times in the CBD.

I actually thought this must be on its way but haven’t heard anything. I’ve noticed a lot of busses have had little posts and sockets installed by the doors that look like they’re just waiting for the card readers to be plugged in.

This system only really makes sense if you restrict the use of the cash register though (e.g. only allow cash payment when not at main stops with ticketing machines).

Instead of tap-on/tap-off, another option is just to read the RFID tags as you step in and out of the doors even if it’s in your pocket. This might be useful for example on the trains since we don’t have turnstyles here. You’ll always get cheats, but thats life.

- Should we continue/increase/stop PT subsidies?

Half of me thinks it’d be nice if the true full costs of all systems should be born by the users. But the reality is that would probably be stupid and risky and seriously impact far too many people. (Though it’d probably be good for filling up the cycle lanes when people realise the true cost of transport.)

This question is really about the strategy for the city, what is the objective? How do we reach that objective? The study hasn’t identified any objectives really, it’s all just an assortment of policy statements that can mostly be read as per your ideology (typical political documents). The study should’ve properly identified the end state up front, then looked at how to achieve it. E.g. what is the desired density in the particular regions, where should employment be concentrated, what is the preferred mode split, what level of traffic is acceptable where, etc. Only then can you answer questions like how much subsidies/priority you should give to PT.

- Are these changes really radical enough to move public opinion/habits massively towards PT?

Most people simply like what they’re used to. Habits are hard to change and people are rarely happy to change them. Thats why in car oriented cities like Wellington people expect to be able to drive anywhere, and doing anything else is going to be utterly horribly upsetting to many of them. Whereas in cities where people have always used PT at high levels (e.g. New York) they like using it, and can’t imagine lazy bastards that refuse to walk a couple of kilometers or think they have a right to drive everywhere. So perhaps changing these opinions might take a generation. (That said, if you look at mode share by age group, younger people use PT far more than older people already.)

On tolls you would need a cordon of sorts with the motorway and bypass being the boundary, operating peak times only in the peak direction of flow (with some selected residents’ discounts for those caught in some locations). It would need to have shoulder periods. You would need stated preference surveys and modelling to establish the appropriate charge, based on partially recovering marginal congestion costs. The proceeds should be used to offset rates spending on roads, but you don’t need much effort on staggered starting times. Just get central government to do it, that will be plenty.

It would be a gradual process, would need to be linked to increasing PT fares at a slower pace (after all the problem is peak demand) and it would also significantly enhance cycling and walking.

Reducing peak time traffic via tolls.

- To be placed just before entering the city from the motorway – or a more widespread application?
- What sort of price point will be needed to cause a significant change in habits?
- What will be done with the proceeds? Should we reduce overall rates, or use them to specifically fund carbon-neutrality/transit projects?
- Can we expect business’s to implement wide spread adoption of staggered/flexible starting times. Are incentives needed, and viable?

Increasing public transport use/quality.

- It is clear that we need to create an easier ticket processes, add bus tracking and follow through (completely) on the new bus lane development.
- If tolls were implimented, will major upgrades be needed to address the increased demand (LRT? bus lanes?)
- Should we continue/increase/stop PT subsidies?
- Are these changes really radical enough to move public opinion/habits massively towards PT?

Interesting, not sure where all the information is sourced from.

Anyone know of a simple centralised (and honest/accurate!) source of information about what has been spent where, and when, and in what year’s dollar value by region? For roads, or even just for general allocation of tax funds for all capex, it’d be nice to see.

Agreed. History shows that at some stage, an oil replacement will be invented and will be better and cheaper than oil. (And also that the price of oil will then crash, so that it will be available for ever AND be extremely cheap because no one wants or needs it). I can’t see any viable replacement taking away people’s flexibility and freedom, so it is likely that in 50 years time there will be far more cars around.

As a cyclist who crosses the CBD to work every day, the transport improvement I’d like to see is a proper motorway from the Terrace tunnels to Mt Vic and beyond. That would allow cars to drive on a road that was designed for and dedicated to them, rather than one that they need to share with pedestrians and cyclists. Most of my commute is spent sitting at lights… it’d be nice if some of them weren’t needed. (And I’d get rid of some of them already… I’ve never seen enough traffic on Molesworth St to warrant lights at Hill St).