By Timothy Welch*
New Zealand is a small country that suddenly has big ideas about public transportation projects for its largest city. In February, the physical work began for a partially tunnelled light rail line under the Auckland CBD that will eventually connect to the airport. The project could ultimately have a price tag nearing NZ$30 billion.
Things went big again with the release of five options for a second harbour crossing. Four of the five will cost at least $20 billion and involve building another bridge and one or more tunnels for light rail and cars.
While the project is said to be on the fast track, with construction to begin in six years, Aucklanders would be forgiven if they didn’t buy into this timeline. The new options are just the latest in a long line of proposals that date back at least 35 years.
It’s worth reviewing the long and tumultuous history of second Auckland harbour crossing proposals. In the process, we might ask whether a sixth option might, in fact, be the best: apply congestion charging to the Auckland CBD, and give public transport, walking and cycling better access to the existing bridge.
Bridges and tunnels
The Auckland Harbour Bridge officially opened on May 30 1959. Construction took four years and cost nearly $250 million (in today’s money), but the structure was already too narrow for traffic volumes. Within a decade, extra lanes built in Japan were bolted to the bridge – the so called “Nippon clip-ons”.
From 1988 until 2010, various second crossing options were studied and presented, including:
-
1988: a plan was developed for either tunnelled public transport or a second bridge
-
1997: 11 options for a second crossing were studied and sent out for public consultation, including different tunnel or bridge alignments, with the most expensive option being a tunnel at roughly $2.6 billion in today’s dollars
-
2003: a follow-up to the 1997 study suggested a combination of a second bridge and a tunnel, costed at around $4.5 billion in today’s dollars
-
2008: a study of 159 crossing options was narrowed to three options, included either a new bridge or two possibilities for tunnels
-
2010: a business case was developed for three crossing options, including a second bridge, tunnelled heavy rail, and a tunnelled road, with the highest cost estimate just under $6 billion.
The announcement construction of a second harbour crossing will begin this decade - rather than the 2040s - has been warmly welcomed.
— RNZ (@radionz) March 30, 2023
But the five proposed options have split opinion, and there are concerns a 2029 start is out of reach. https://t.co/gmhbj6wHzS
Walking and cycling
The original plans for the bridge had also included tolled cycle lanes, but these were eventually rejected for cost. In 2011, the idea was revived, with the New Zealand Transport Agency (now Waka Kotahi) announcing a “SkyPath” plan to add walking and cycling lanes to the clip-ons. This was added to Auckland Transport’s strategic priority list the same year.
Resource consent for the SkyPath was lodged in 2015 and approved in 2016. The new Labour-led government in 2017 said it would fund the project, with a revised design for the path to sit on its own piers revealed in 2019.
In 2021 Waka Kotahi pulled the plug on the SkyPath plan, citing engineering complexity. The same year, a $685 million standalone cycling and walking bridge was announced. The cost estimate quickly rose to $785 million before it was cancelled just four months later – but not before the government spent $51 million on designs, consultants and engineering plan fees.
Since then, it has been a tale of stop-start (but mostly stop) initiatives, including:
November 2021: Waka Kotahi decided against a cycling and walking “trial” across the bridge but endorsed a series of events for cyclists and walkers in December.
August 2022: Waka Kotahi announced a planned $700,000 one-day trial for walking and cycling would be scrapped, primarily citing concerns about the 6% bridge gradient allowing cyclists to reach speeds of 60km per hour and the potential for pedestrian collisions. (Ironically, one of the new cycling bridge options “would be of a similar gradient” to the current bridge.)
December 2022: Waka Kotahi announced a series of “Walk it, Wheel it” events for three Sundays in March for up to 60,000 Aucklanders to cross the bridge on foot or bike. But this was postponed in early 2023, with no future date announced.
Back to the future
The five new harbour crossing options are now out for public consultation, with a decision due by mid-year and construction to begin in 2029. But given the long history of studying, gathering feedback and then doing nothing about a second crossing (or improving public and active transport options on the existing bridge), some scepticism is warranted.
With projected finish dates ranging from 2039 to 2044, and costs up to $25 billion (assuming no delays or budget blowouts), the options also create more vehicle lanes just a few years before the Emission Reduction Plan’s 2050 target for net zero emissions.
Surely a more sustainable solution would be to institute the long-discussed Auckland CBD congestion charge and reallocate a few lanes on the existing bridge for public transport, cycling and walking.
This would reduce the number of CBD car trips and contribute to meeting those climate goals. If a second crossing is still needed, taking this more immediate action would at least offer additional – and more climate-friendly – travel options in the meantime.
Future-proofing part of Auckland’s transportation network may not require billions of dollars and decades of planning and construction. It could simply mean finally embracing a version of what was planned for the Auckland Harbour Bridge almost 65 years ago.
*Timothy Welch, Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning, University of Auckland. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
34 Comments
It's certainly doable!
And I would add in some chain ferries at a few points to cross the harbour.
The problem with both these approaches is that I don't think the transport mandarins in government departments would be involved in either of these projects so their noses would be seriously out of joint!
I'm a big fan of Taleb's theory of " anti-fragile " ; so , more of the same , bridges etc , seems to be a risky strategy ... we need to mix it up , gondola , high speed ferries , hovercraft ... let's brainstorm ...
... it needn't be a clunky old bridge with light rail : $ 30 billion plus ...
Actually , I'd run a series of gondolas with linked interchanges all over Auckland ...
Great idea...was thinking the same thing
https://www.simagazin.com/en/si-urban-en/topics-urban/urban/seilbahnen-…
Makes a lot more sense than some of the other proposals as the network is so much easier and cheaper to install and is a lot less sensitive to terrain than most other solutions - and it's also an approach used in other places.
But what are the odds of us actually doing something innovative and robust that steps away from doctrine and doesn't involve some mega-project for politicians to cut opening ribbons on?
Cable car. Works well in those cities which are cramped for room and difficult. Which is Auckland.
Very fast in practice as they are above (pun yes) all the ground based complications.
There was a recent design and build proposal from Doppermayr $200mil. Didn't fly (yes again) probably because the consultants and ministries would miss out on at least that much to just think about it.
I would expand their proposal with various branches and perhaps a second cross harbour.
They're very speedy nowadays. Journey's would be 5 minutes or less.
And don't think just one! There are multiple points across the harbour where they could be built ... Devonport to Britomart, adjacent to the existing harbour bridge with one on each side, Chelsea to Westmere, etc.
Wholeheartedly agree!
Being presented with 5 massively expensive options isn't any choice at all!
An option for a new bridge with a upper, single rail line (scheduling so only one train is on it at a time) and an lower lane for active transports modes. Trains go only from Akl to the Akoranga station to start with. KISS always wins the day. (And Yes - nothing more for cars!)
And before we start ... How about showing us where all the vehicles going over the bridge start and end their journeys!
Once done - we can all start arguing where the tunnels will go.
An option for a new bridge with a upper, single rail line (scheduling so only one train is on it at a time) and an lower lane for active transports modes
Trainlines are meaningless without a network. In the late 00s, I would commute from Osaka to Kobe (bike / train / train) for work in about 50 mins. The feasibility of the distance and integration would be impossible in Auckland. Probably more like half a day.
Adapted for cycling is a good things, but is it really that practical for "communting"? What kind of distances are these people covering on a daily basis? It's great for the Grey Lynn / Ponsonby set going to their CBD or central jobs, but someone cycling from Glenfield to Mt Wgtn seems like a stretch to me.
NZ is not Japan. Never will be. Maybe time to face reality.
A more simple solution would be to build the new bridge beside the current structure. There is room either side of the existing bridge structure for roads to split off to Bayswater/Belmont and to Takapuna/Hillcrest but some areas on the marina may need to be utilized.
The new bridge could be physically attached to the existing bridge, and thus support the clip-on on the eastern side. This eastern clip-on could be used at night as a conduit to help build the new bridge, this should speed up delivery of the finished new bridge, and possibly keep costs down.
The new bridge is for electric buses electric track less trams, large freight trucks, a cycle and pedestrian way. A toll is paid to use by all.
Cars and light trucks use the existing bridge. Not having large freight trucks on the old bridge will lengthen the life span of the old bridge.
Should either bridge have lanes closed due to an accident or repairs being required, then the electric buses and electric track less trams can still utilize the alternative bridge. It would be relatively easy to re-direct this public transport.
Note, these electric trackless trams are being used overseas, they do not require tracks to be laid in our roads. So why not use these in other areas such as Dominion Rd, Sandringham rd, Great North and New North Rds, as well as Remuera Rd, and Great South Rd.
Is this worth considering??
I quite like the can kicking approach suggested by the article. Getting by with difficulty aligns with the general drop in living standards we are now forced to live with. Let's see how the flocks of black swans shape the world before we borrow and spend vast amounts. If a bing bong strangles most of our fuel supply, too many cars on the bridge will not be a problem, and we will be in much worse shape for other reasons.
I almost agree.
But I'd like to see some very low options, e.g. cable ferries, for active transport modes ASAP! Auckland harbour is sufficiently sheltered that we could have many cable ferries between various points and create a pretty useful network of them. Great tourist attraction too.
So why do you not use the cycle bridge in Greenhithe across and then the sheltered cycle way into the city that already exists instead of claiming there is no cycle harbour crossing. There is; it is just no one wants to actually cycle across the habour in large numbers. The idea is always one that is for elitist able bodied users with more social mobility than most of the population living and working in Auckland.
Forget about the bridge, go to Tesla or Uber and offer Auckland as a trial city for driverless cars. With ACC mitigating their legal liabilities they would jump at the chance to install all the necessary infrastructure for a fleet or on demand vehicles.
Before a new bridge is even off the drawing board the efficiency across the existing bridge could be such that a second crossing isn't needed.
Or we might end up with drones ferrying us across on demand so no need for a bridge at all.
With the speed of technological advancement these long term projects need to consider what might be possible.
The problem is not the bridge, with 8 lanes it has a lot of capacity, the problem is the congestion elsewhere in the network. Building another road bridge will just increase traffic and congestion at peak times.
If you compare to America, the Bay Bridge between San Francisco and Oakland is 10 lanes, only 2 lanes wider, but connects much larger population centres, and the detours to avoid the bridge are much longer than what it is in Auckland. Same as here the issue is congestion elsewhere in the network, through San Francisco in particular.
What they do have, and we should be building is a train tunnel. It won't add to vehicle congestion, it will in fact reduce it unlike adding another bridge or tunnel for cars.
Would it be better to build a few smaller highly efficient cities around the north and partially depopulate Auckland so that it fits it's infrastructure? These cities could be planed to incorporate all the best environment and people friendly services without the enormous cost and complication of adding, at best, not optimal services to Auckland.
This may be a whole lot simpler, cheaper and produce a result that is far better for people and the environment. It may also be a lot better for the people who remain in Auckland. It used to be a lovely place when the population was about 500,000 less.
In Comparison to what they achieving in Europe, we are totally incompetent.
https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/fehmarnbelt-longest-immersed-tun…
The 11 km tunnel between Germany to Denmark under the North sea is budgeted to cost US$7.1 Billion or NZ$ 11.5 Billion.
Note that the system that they are using involves prefabricating the tunnel sections in a dry dock, then floating them to site. They are then dropped into a trench dug in the sea floor. This is the method that they very successfully used in the tunnel section of the Oresund bridge/tunnel. Maybe we should look into this method.
https://www.vinci-construction-projets.com/en/realisations/oresund-tunn…
This project was completed in 2000 and cost approx US$13-14 Billion in today's money.
Finally one of my favorites. The Milau viaduct
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millau_Viaduct
2.5 km long 336, meters high? completed 2004
Total cost $US 424 million dollars of the time???
We should not be allowed to build anything and waste any more tax payers money until we sort out our crazy incompetent construction costs for public projects.
It would be smart to more evenly distribute our population across the country, particular in regions that have some degree of underutilised (already paid for) infrastructure or at least the capacity to expand without requiring $30 billion dollar rail systems and $25 billion bridges. That would make us more resilient and the trans global debt merchants a little poorer.
As a small and insignificant country we need to be smart to compete on the global stage. Grand vote buying projects that we can't afford are the opposite of smart, much like any politician who would rather get re-elected than do what’s right for the country.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.