Unsurprisingly, although perhaps a little disappointingly, Auckland City Council will support the new alignment of the Waterview Connection, as proposed by NZTA in May. I did about a million posts on the topic at the time (and ended up rather sick to death with the whole issue to be honest), but it is interesting to see how things have progressed since the first days of shock when it was announced that we wouldn’t be getting the full tunnel option, but rather a half-tunnel, half-surface option. Auckland City Council’s transport committee have finalised their submission on the proposal, which is summarised below:
As I said above, it’s not surprising that Auckland City Council have simply accepted NZTA’s change of heart. They’re a pretty gutless bunch to be honest when it comes to standing up to the government (just look at the Council’s submission on the Super City as clear evidence of that). However, I could have expected them to do a bit more questioning of whether the costs saved in not building the full tunnel option were really worth the additional social and environmental effects, or indeed whether the benefits promised by the proposal were all that realistic. These were some of the issues that I have posed to NZTA in my submission on the proposal.
On a brighter note, having bus lanes and cycle lanes along Great North Road is a good outcome, while is also seems that council is aware of the potential for negative effects from the motorway on the remaining areas of open space around the Oakley Creek catchment (like Allan Wood reserve for example). The issues of handling emissions from the tunnel will also be an interesting one, as there’s a conflict between capping a section between the two proposed tunnels to instead make one long tunnel (which has significant urban design benefits) and the need for probably another emissions stack if that proposal goes ahead (which has significant negative urban design effects).
The bigger question of “is the motorway actually necessary?” seems to have been avoided yet again, which is frustrating. Furthermore, to my knowledge there has been no recalculation of the project’s cost-benefit ratio, taking into account this option’s cheaper price but larger environmental and social costs, released to the public. I imagine that time-savings benefits still make up the bulk of the justification for the project – even though most people travel on their time and not their company’s time (and hey, if saving personal time was so important the government would buy everyone a dishwasher!) And a final annoyance: we still haven’t been given the opportunity to compare the Waterview Connection with the CBD Rail Loop to decide which project is more deserving of that $1.5 billion.
Processing...
You forgot to mention whether it can be done for $1.5 billion… Dubious…
I also like how on the the NZTA website it says NZTA’s preferred option….now….. Maybe that should read Steven Joyce’s preferred option..?
It’s NZTA’s preferred option within the funding constraints set by Steven Joyce, LOL.
I must admit I’m kind of divided over whether I would rather have this option or the full tunnel option, in that a full tunnel option would mean potentially nearly twice as much money being spent on a road rather than more sustainable transport options.
Who will be paying for the rebuidling of Great North road? The sudden drop in costings makes me think NZTA will be shifting costs such as this onto the local council/super city. Anyone shed light on who usually shoulders these costs of local-road recnstruction?
That’s an interesting question Luke. NZTA will probably be keen to only restore the road to its current state, with Auckland City (or its successor) having to pick up the rest of the cost. However, Auckland City could argue that rebuilding Great North Road as a boulevard could be considered compensation for the years of disruption through the construction process.
I think Auckland City would have a good argument in that case. Great North Road will be a mess for years while this thing is being built, so it’s only fair that NZTA compensate that mess.
And with regard to your comment ‘do we need it?’, there was another article in the Herald today forecasting the impending Peak oil and suggesting the need to look for alternative forms of transport sooner than later.
Thanks for the reminder on that Mark. I’ve posted the article in full.
I guess the only thing that might stop the Waterview Connection is if we see petrol prices spike to $3 a litre next year.
I prefer the option that is proposed for two main options, It’s cheaper and it can be expanded easier. The fact of the matter is we will always need roads, and to get one to enable motorist to avoid going through the CBD is only going to be benefical. Keeping in mind that this should of been completed years ago as it is part of the orginal motorway plan completed by an american consultancy about 100years ago. And with regard to peak oil (which is of a real concern) there are already plans for alternative personal transport…electric cars. Although I agree we need to see more investment put towards the city rail loop, which was also proposed by an american consultancy 100years or so ago, and rejected by the auckland city council and government.
I don’t think the point that “it was proposed ages ago” really has much merit. So was the Eastern Motorway, while the CBD rail tunnel was even proposed in the 1920s – decades before any motorway.
Of course there will be significant benefit resulting from building the Waterview Connection, I just wish we had the ability to compare that benefit with the benefit of the CBD Rail Tunnel.
And regarding the ability to expand the Waterview Connection to 6 lanes – why is that relevant. 6 lanes for Waterview means we would need to widen SH16 from 8 lanes to 10 lanes (widening to 8 lanes will be necessary when the Waterview Connection is built) out to Te Atatu, widening from 6 lanes (proposed anyway) to 8 lanes from Te Atatu to Westgate, then we’d need to widen the Hobsonville deviation that isn’t even built yet. On the other side we’d need to widen the Mt Roskill extension, then the motorway through Onehunga… then… then….. do you see the problem?
The only positive benefit I can see from the whole mess that is the Waterview connection is that, as you point out, Great North Road is going to be chaotic for the next decade or so. Combined with higher oil prices, integrated ticketing and an improved (ie double-tracked) Western Line with 15-10 minute frequencies you may well see Western commuters finally turning to PT in order to circumvent the chaos. Mind you, the same effect could be achieved without building the Waterview connection if we started charging motorists for the real cost of their addiction.
I see what you were saying, my veiw would be seeing a simular situation as we have on the Northern motorway with a buslane come railway (preferably a rail way built beside the motorway) therefore utilizing the same route to provide a extention of the PT system.
One of the great ironies of the Waterview Connection project is that because there will be no central interchange, the motorway won’t actually reduce traffic along the Waterview stretch of Great North Road at all.
You mean no central interchange between GNR and the connection..?
I think the damn think has to be built, if you take into account the money spent on SH20, SH16 and SH18 thus far we’re talking about the equalivalent of billions and billions of taxpayer’s money, leaving a 4.5 km gap in a 48 kilometre section of motorway would be just stupid given the previous investment and the economic benefits the completed motorway would have…
I then find myself wondering what option I’d prefer, the full tunnel option I think wouldn’t be that much more expensive than what’s proposed… VPT is almost $1 million a kilometre for cut and cover, while they completed that 6 kilometre tunnel using a TBM at Manapouri Power Station for $200 – 300 million in 2002… Also I don’t think in a few years time people will care what it cost, do you care what the Harbour Bridge cost..? The full tunnel option has environmental and community benefits…
While the current proposal is cheaper (I think we shouldn’t get excited that they are spending less here because the money will just be plumbed into the State Highway budget elsewhere), I didn’t think of the increase disruption that may lead to increased PT use, I wonder if this disruption was factored into the new “cost” of the current option as Jarbury points out they are big into “time savings”…
It just a big quagmire really… Considering everything I think I favour getting two TBM’s busy and presto 6 years later, 3 billion disappears and a new motorway magically appears…
Jezza, I mean no interchange between Maioro Street and either St Lukes (if you’re heading citybound) or Rosebank Road (if you’re heading westbound).
I guess the issue with the full tunnel option is “where does the money come from?” Labour were (quite rightly) lowering the propotion of the national land transport fund that would be spent on new state highways, so there wouldn’t have been the required funds in that to pay for a $2.2 billion tunnel (tunnel plus SH16 upgrades). That’s why money needed to be borrowed, that’s why the cost ended up close to $2.8 billion.
Yes it is going to be a very useful link in the motorway system. However, the cost of this 4.5km stretch of motorway is so significant we really have to look at how much we need it. Given my suspicion of time savings benefits, if the proposal doesn’t stack up then is it worth it?
New TBMs cost more than $US 100 million to buy – so I don’t think you’d really want to have to buy two of them. The current proposal uses a much cheaper “road-header” tunnelling system – cheaper, but much slower (and therefore no use for tunnels longer than 1-2km).
Your talking about how there is no proposed exits or entrances for the full 4.5 kms apart from either end..? Central interchange gets me thinking of the CMJ..!
Where is the $10.7 billion dollars for SH’s over the next 10 years going to come from..? NZ is borrowing between $9 – $12 billion a year over the next few years according to budget documents so why are we making the distinction that foreign banks aren’t i.e. the final destination of the money..?
I’d counter that argument by saying you have to take into account the previous SH16, 18 and 20 investments before deciding whether the project should go ahead… We both agree the “time saving” reasoning is flawed… But would you be in favour of the building a rail line from Manukau through the Eastern Suburbs to Farm Cove but not then building a causeway over the Tamaki river to Glen Innes by saying that section of the track was too expensive..?
I know TBM’s are usually one-use-wonders but if they have to be used for the second harbour crossing I envisage them being bought and used for Waterview and then either driving the harbour tunnels or being stored till required…
It’s going to come from the national land transport fund – ie. petrol taxes and road-user charges. The government’s changes to how the NLTF is distributed have taken away hundreds of millions of dollars from PT funding, road maintenance and so forth – so it can all be ploughed into new motorways.
Fair point, and probably the strongest argument for the Waterview Connection. Although one could make the same argument for the CBD Rail Tunnel – in the the rest of the system is not nearly as good without it.
Hmmm, it seems I need to do a bit more study and discussion on how transport funding works in NZ… I am learning a lot since joining the various transport sites…
Well that would seem like your suggesting if you support the CBD rail tunnel you must support the waterview connection for the same reasons… I’d argue that because the CBD Rail Tunnel increases the capacity of the rail system from 16 million p.a. to 50 million p.a. it effectively triples the value of the money spent on the existing rail network thus making it much more valueable then waterview…
Exactly Jezza. They are similar projects in a number of ways – similar cost, they both “open up” the potential of the rest of their respective networks and so on. I just wish we were able to do a comparative analysis of the two and decide which one is more worthy of this $1.5 billion at this stage.
Eventually both need to be built, I agree.
Regarding transport funding – I’m still trying to figure it out.
Yes, why doesn’t the CBT have a CBD rail tunnel campaign yet..? I sent that CBD rail tunnel article off to the herald last night, hopefully they print it…
Jezza, I think the idea is to focus on things one at a time. The planning work for the CBD Rail Tunnel is being undertaken at the moment, so things are moving forward – if at glacial pace.
Once the work for electrification is REALLY up and going, and we start to see petrol prices increasing as the global economy recovers (if the global economy recovers?) then I think CBT will start to focus on that project. In many ways it will be the ultimate campaign.
Yeah that makes sense… But Auckland’s been at the planning stage for the CBD tunnel before under a National Government hasn’t it..? A big early push might’nt be such a bad idea…
Planning and design. For such a big project this can take a few years. But yes, it would be nice to give them a bit of a prod!