Some exciting news in today’s NZ Herald that there is a financial backer for the plans to construct a pedestrian/cycleway on the Auckland Harbour Bridge:
Campaigners for a tolled pedestrian and cycle path across Auckland Harbour Bridge have attracted a leading coastal development company to build and operate it as a joint venture.
Orewa-based Hopper Developments – with pioneering projects such as canal housing and marina schemes at Pauanui, Whitianga and Marsden Pt under its belt – has signed a heads of agreement to work with a walking and cycling charitable trust on a $16 million pathway over the bridge.
Architects and structural engineers have already produced a concept design for a shared pathway beneath the bridge’s southbound clip-on, which the Getacross Campaign presented last week to the Transport Agency as custodians of Auckland’s 51-year-old transport lifeline.
The concept differs from a proposal by Transport Agency consultants, rejected by the agency’s board in 2008, which was for separate paths to be cantilevered at road level off each edge of the bridge for up to $43 million.
It envisages cantilevering a single 4.8m-wide pathway off the base of the deep box girder which supports the southbound clip-on’s two traffic lanes, offering partial shelter to its users without having to reduce the width of the lanes above or to build barriers to separate them from motor vehicles.
The campaigners are proposing a toll of $1.95c each way for holders of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority’s proposed integrated transport smartcard, and of $5 for casual users, expected to be mainly tourists.
They say the tolls will cover security, lighting and harbour viewing platforms, among other things…
Here’s an image of the proposal:
I still think it’s a pity that NZTA didn’t come to the party here and offer up what is actually a fairly small amount of cash compared to what they’re throwing at other projects. A full business case analysis would have been quite interesting, particularly when you look at the wider economic tourist benefits of the proposal. Given NZTA’s frustrating attitude to the whole idea, I think that its proponents have done exceedingly well to get things this far, and I hugely look forward to seeing where it goes next.
A pity this project won’t be done for the Rugby World Cup. I guess we only worry about building stuff for all those tourists who’ll be bringing their cars on the plane with them.
Processing...
Yeah, it’s great. I’ve been saying for years that this will be the “Britomart” of cycling in Auckland: Long ridiculed, cancelled, changed or “dead” several times, but ultimately a flagship project for a transformation!
Will tourists actually walk or cycle across? It doesn’t seem that there’s anything much of interest close to the North Shore end of the bridge, not really even a place to view the harbour or bridge from. Perhaps a walkway/cycleway could extend around the foreshore to get to Takapuna/Devonport. Having walked and cycled across the Golden Gate bridge, there is at least a viewing area at the far end, even if it is rather difficult to walk from there down to Sausalito – perhaps Americans don’t think of people actually walking to get somewhere!
At the city end, coming around the marina to the Viaduct Harbour seems ok, although it would be great to be able to get up to Pt Erin park and Ponsonby
I agree. Britomart’s value was as much in saying “hey this city cares about rail, we’re going to rejuvenate our system” as it was about the practical benefits of the station. Every other improvement that has happened to the rail system since Britomart was dependent on that massive first step…. and as you say the same might happen for cycling with this link.
A cycleway up the Northern Motorway (either on the busway side or the other side) would be a great next step. The scenic value of the ride between Esmonde and Onewa would be amazing.
Greg, the harbour bridge has sweeping views over the inner harbour and the Auckland skyline, from a vista which is otherwise not easily or “publicly” available for tourists except from maybe Devonport.
(meaning that there are pretty much no “destination stops” that tourists would go to to get the same vista).
Places like the Tank Farm with its much worse (due to lack of height) vista already attract truckloads of tourists for a cheap viewing stopover. Admittedly, the same groups would have to pay to get the view from the bridge, but well, have your cake and eat it too and all that…
I think it will be a relatively cheap, nice item in any tourist’s Auckland itinary, whether backpacker, coach tour customer or couple with a rental car. Agreed that work on the connections to and from needs to be done – but one thing after another!
I think the walk would be more for the sake of it and for the view rather than to get anywhere for a lot of people. Though Northcote point has nice little commercial area with several eating and drinking spots and even a movie theatre. On the Auckland side, you are pretty close to Herne Bay/Three lamps which are both worthy destinations….
I’ve always thought the lack of bike access on the bridge is the worst thing about cycling in Auckland. While many of the roads are full of cars and it can be a bit hairy sometimes, at least you pretty much ride where you want. But the harbour presents an impassable barrier, requiring an hour plus detour to cycle around to the upper harbour bridge. Even for a hardy cyclist like me, that is often too much. So this sounds great, even if $2 a crossing would be a little annoying. Who knows, maybe the new transport authority will find a few extra dollars lying around once this thing actually looks like it is going to happen (which is not quite yet, I’d say).
David, the whole point of the proposal is that the NZTA will NOT have to chip in.
But yeah, it would work well – and if Auckland City (well, Auckland) goes ahead with the fancy plans for a rejuvenation of Westhaven Marina, that would make the walking and cycling links from the bridge to the city much more pleasant as well.
As for the $2 being annoying – well, it compares well to a ferry ticket, and is more direct and useful for cyclists. It is notable that Fullers Ferries are strongly supportive of the project – they clearly see that tourism benefits (direct to them, for example one-way trips to Northcote or back – or indirect by making Auckland more attractive) are worth more than the odd current cyclist who wouldn’t use the ferry anymore.
It seems like a good idea, even better seeing as the public won’t have to pay for it. I do wonder though, if it is built, how long it it will be before people are calling for it to be free and using the line of “its unfair that we have to pay to cross the bridge when cars can use it for free”
Looking at the figures it would require quite a lot of usage just to pay for itself and even then that is over a long time frame, perhaps this company is going to do it with the expectation that the council or government will eventually buy it off them?
I realise they aren’t relying on central funding here. My point is there were a change of heart within local or central govt, it would be good if they could buy this out and make it a public project (as Matt suggests).
It’ll be interesting to see how the proposed toll will be policed — it’s a $2 toll on the northern motorway extension and I remember reading that about $1.20 of that goes in paying for the tolling system (this may have come down now).
Cars should pay the toll not pedestrians, $5 is too expensive I think.
Matt, the calculations are that it will pay for itself over a 12 year timeframe, with a 15 year toll period (the three years give you a bit of grace if the numbers are lower). The calculation include significant amounts (30%, I believe) for construction contingencies on the cost side, and allow for about $100,000 (again based on my faulty memory) of maintenance & collection costs a year (above installing the payment system – which will use the Integrated Ticketing smartcard system of NZTA to cut down on fixed costs compared to systems like the Puhoi motorway).
They assume about 2000 trips a day (again, very roughly, from memory). My own perception of their calculations was that they were slightly overestimating the cyclist trips (at least in the short term – we ARE talking about a 15 year timeframe after all) but under-estimating the tourist / walking trips.
NZTA – especially under this government – will NOT let this go ahead if they feel that the toll cannot pay for the bridge. In any case, the persons who would be out of the pocket if the numbers aren’t reached would be the private investors, NOT the public. So it is up to GetAcross to concince the investor, primarily.
Bill, car drivers historically DID pay tolls. And $5 is only for the one-off people, tourists or locals out on a fun trip – so I see no reason why this would be expensive. Entry to the Sky Tower is what – 60 or 70 dollars?
My understanding was they wanted to have this done for the RWC – is that no longer the case?
One would assume that any bridge path would include improvements in the connection to Northcote Point, and you would hope Transit or North Shore City would come to the party and build a cycleway up to the Takapuna area and connect to the Lake Rd cycle lanes. I could see a loop across the bridge up to Nortcote and Takapuna, down the Devonport peninsula and a ferry back to town being a very popular cycle. Eventually a cycleway up to Albany a la the Northwestern Cycleway would have to happen, giving a nice ’round the harbour’ ride in conjunction with the upper harbour cycleway.
To be honest I think that once the bridge extension was built and proved popular, they would drop the tolls pretty rapidly. One wonders how they would actually go about collecting the tolls, and if most of the toll wouldn’t be absorbed by collection costs. $16 million over ten years would be around $1.20 a year per ratepayer if my calculations are correct.
Nick R – please. There IS no intention to get any ratepayers to pay for it. Please stop bringing this up, the GetAcross people have been battered with the “not with our money!” argument for years.
If this goes ahead, it will be funded with PRIVATE money. Even if not a single person ever rides across it, the damage would be on the part of the investor, not the public. This is not one of the “luxury” PPP schemes where government takes the risk and private people get the benefit. That would be nice for walkers & cyclists, because it would make it easier to get an investor – but government isn’t willing to put money behind this, or back any loans – so the idea depends solely on convincing someone like an investment fund or large-scale charity to front up the money after convincing them that it can be paid back.
ingolfson, I didn’t say there was an intention to get ratepayers to pay for it (and I have never ‘brought this up’ before).
I said that once it was up and running and proved popular there would be demand from the people and government of Auckland to scrap the tolls. I.e. once people saw how good it was it would be a case of “yes with our money”.
“My understanding was they wanted to have this done for the RWC – is that no longer the case?”
To my (relatively close to the project) understanding, there was never any intention or relation to the RWC. I could make some snarky comment seeing all the other transport projects that are NEEDED for the RWC and therefore get funded, but… oh, dang, already did.
Ingolfson – I realise this is privately funded and good on this company for looking at doing this, I wish them luck and hope it goes ahead asap. I personally have no problem with tolling it and think tying it in with integrated ticketing is a great idea, it makes collection easy. My point was more around the fact there are certain factions of society that think these sorts of things should be free.
I just hope it doesn’t encourage vandals, the main thing with the toll is it would discourage them I would hope, I understand why NZTA are not wanting to commit to such a project, the main thing is funding, but other factors such as another harbour crossing which is on the books, would see the top of the bridge gain pedestrian and cycle access, which is in their long term goals. Also security, NZTA have built cycle/walk-ways under bridges before, and the security environment has not been great. The Manukau Harbour Crossing branching Mangere and Onehunga is a prime example, where luckily they maintained the old crossing. The Underpass is filled with graffiti and has become dark and dingy, it’s bad enough walking through there during the day yet alone night.
Therefore I hold my reservations about such a project, the main difference that will make this project work is the fact it will be tolled, and therefore the people paying for its use will demand it’s maintained, if it were to be free of use, I could see it quickly being neglected graffiti filled, and a very unsafe environment.
It’s outrageous that you can’t walk or cycle across the bridge at the moment. I think it should be a service provided for free. But…
Sydney Harbour Bridge terminates right in the city. On the northern end is an area with a fairly high density of apartments and (in North Sydney) commercial development. This makes a lot of walking trips feasible, including the city to my sister’s place which is absolutely brilliant on a sunny evening.
By contrast, the southern end of the Auckland Harbour Bridge is a reasonable haul from the CBD. I don’t think that pedestrians are going to want to stroll out of the city center to the bridge, and it isn’t a viable distance for most foot commuters. The northern end of the bridge is a bit of a no where place with sprawling motorways, low density suburbs, and not much else to either attract people over from the city or to provide a population of pedestrian commuters. I’m sure that there will be plenty of cyclists and cycle commuters using the proposed link, especially over the summer. But I don’t see many pedestrians using it.
I don’t see many pedestrian commuters using it. However, I do see plenty of recreational walkers parking around Pt Erin and walking over the bridge & back.
This would be awesome. Despite my natural antipathy towards the shore ( i was raised in howick) – this has got me seriously considering it as an option on my move back. This would bring heaps of the shore within an easy 15km cycle to the CBD. And what a luxury to have that amazing harbour CBD view as my daily commute.
Good on someone seemingly finally able to come up with the money.
However it still pisses me off that unless I want to go all the way around through Upper Harbour Dr that as like now I essentially have to pay a toll (and yes I consider having to pay for the ferry a “toll” as if the walk/cycleway was built as originally planned I wouldn’t have to use the ferry) to cross the harbour when motorists have had it for free since 1984.
Regardless, the problem is still with the douchebags at NZTA doing pretty much all they possibly can to avoid having to do a thing about it.
“there are certain factions of society that think these sorts of things should be free.”
Well, yes, so do I – but that idea has been squashed quite thoroughly, and is unlikely to change under this government. All I was trying to make clear is that this concept neither officially or inofficially demands any form of taxpayer subsidy. And the toll is intended to cease after 15 years.
“I understand why NZTA are not wanting to commit to such a project,”
I don’t.
“I could see it quickly being neglected graffiti filled, and a very unsafe environment.”
It will not, as the intention is to have 1-2 security guards on bicycles on the bridge, in addition to cameras. That running cost has been allowed for the financial calculations as well.
“But I don’t see many pedestrians using it.”
Obi, the walking numbers in the toll calculations ARE low. About 100,000 trips / year (again, from memory of the project document which I skimmed some days ago), which I think about 25% of Sydney’s walking volumes.
A few points:
– Hopper is only providing a limited amount of funding to develop the idea and find a financial backer, not full funding
– The project will be developed as a 50%/50% PPP between a trust (yet to be formed) and Hoppers
– Yearly maintanance costs are $800,000 a year not $100,000
A went to a presentation on Wednesday (or Thursday) night and took some detailed notes so I shall post a bit more on this in a few days…
Ingolfson, do they plan to have that level of security all day and night? Indeed, is it going to be open at all hours? It sounds like security overkill to me — none of the Manhattan bridges (all of which are walkable) have any special security setups on the walkways. Also, are they planning on a big turnstile or something to police the toll?
The manner of toll collection is yet to be decided…
“Ingolfson, do they plan to have that level of security all day and night? Indeed, is it going to be open at all hours? It sounds like security overkill to me — none of the Manhattan bridges (all of which are walkable) have any special security setups on the walkways.”
To my understanding, the bridge is to be closed during night hours (midnight to 6am would make sense to me) to reduce costs of security and management.
As for overkill – well, as has been pointed out, the underslung option isn’t the ideal one in terms of security compared to the pricier one of having it visible on the road deck – so some extra measures are needed, if only to convince the scared people (be they among those wanting to get across, or among the decision-makers).
I imagine there would be quite an imbalance between cyclists and pedestrians, i.e. it would be popular with cyclists at all times but I imagine pedestrian patronage would be limited to sunny weekends. So it’s probably good to have all the people on one wide route for safety and security reasons. In that way this proposal might be better than previous proposals to have separate pedestrian and cycle paths on either side of the bridge.
I think the critical thing is to just get it in place, and then I can definitely see its popularity (both in terms of user numbers and also in terms of how much we like it) meaning that it may not always stay tolled.
If they close it “late”, it immediately becomes far less useful to me. I can’t understand that type of thinking at all — maybe take the security away, and open it up to be free, but what is the point of closing it? No roads close after midnight, why should footpaths or cycleways?
Sure, get it built, and hope for the best. But the thing is that it’s not that easy to see how the toll concept could be curtailed if it goes ahead. If it is popular, the people charging the toll will want to keep the toll in place. If it is not popular, why would anyone want to pay public money toward it?
I agree that it needs to be open 24/7.
David, what do you suggest? NOT closing it at night means that you need at least 1 extra staff member full time for security. And as you know – there just isn’t gobs of money available. At the same time, the night time loss of patronage probably makes up about 5% of the whole patronage only, even though it closes 30% of the 24 hours or so. That said, the closure needs not be a given, time and success will tell.
“But the thing is that it’s not that easy to see how the toll concept could be curtailed if it goes ahead.”
I don’t get your comment. Meh, it is a toll bridge. Auckland’s and New Zealand’s politicians have effectively ENSURED that this was the only way it could happen.
“If it is popular, the people charging the toll will want to keep the toll in place.”
Of course the tolls will stay until they are paid off. After they are paid off, but before 15 years, the intention is to split the money 50/50 between the investors (or between Hopper Developments, not sure) as their financial gain on their risk – and the other half goes towards the charitable trust set up for the pathway. Which will then spend the money on cycling and walking projects around Auckland – that is the intention.
After 15 years, the pathway passes into public ownership, and the tolls cease.
Ingolfson, I suggest that instead of closing it, they leave it open and unattended. Depending on how they collect tolls, they might have to make it free so no-one gets locked in. They could put a big sign up saying “Cycleway and walkway. Use at your own risk.”
Your point about patronage being low at that time just shows how poorly commercial thinking serves transport projects — it’s like needing to run buses at off-peak hours when they are losing money. When I was regularly going to the shore, I would have used it every week or two late at night if available. Being open late or not would make the difference for me between considering living on the shore or not.
And yes, I understand it is a toll road and there is no plan for public funding. The thing is, politicians change and may be more open to funding it in the future. That is the eventuality I am talking about. If it were a public toll road, they could decide to stop charging at any point given the political will. The commercial setup would probably prevent that, whether it is a commercial success or not. Just saying. So great that it might be built, I hope there is some flexibility and a considerable dose of public thinking in its running.
Ingolfson
“I don’t” – explain, my reasoning is double handling, and priorities.
“It will not, as the intention is to have 1-2 security guards on bicycles on the bridge, in addition to cameras. That running cost has been allowed for the financial calculations as well.” – you say that it’ll be closed off at night, will there be security guards on the entrances to stop vandals at this time, and if so there will have to be two security guards operating for safety reasons, not allowed to work alone at nights.
“To my understanding, the bridge is to be closed during night hours (midnight to 6am would make sense to me) to reduce costs of security and management.” – 6am, glad I don’t live on the shore, and not about to move there, If I were to commute from the shore to work, I would bike across, catch the train to onehunga, then bike across mangere bridge, however I would certainly be wanting to leave before 6am, how stupid opening so late, recreational runners who may want to use it would want to before they go to work as well.
Rudman had a shocker of an editorial today… He is pretty good on some things and so daft on others…
“you say that it’ll be closed off at night, will there be security guards on the entrances”
“however I would certainly be wanting to leave before 6am, how stupid opening so late”
Folks, I may be the closest to the GetAcross team currently commenting here – but I am not part of the team*. So please don’t take my words as if they will just materialise into reality, or are GetAcross’ iron-cast intentions. ESPECIALLY where I do things like clearly state that this was just my personal take on possible opening hours issues.
*(I am not a part of the inner team ANYMORE, at least – though I am still working on cycle advocacy, and there was no split or disagreement with them – I am just concentrating on different cycling work these days)
Rudman did. Then again he’s been railing against pedestrian/cycling access to the bridge for a long time finding any excuse possible to exclude it.
Ingolfson, thanks for the sharing what you know. Some way across will be better than no way across, even at a small price.
I cycle to work daily, I enjoy leisure walks around Auckland. I simple cannot see why anyone would choose to pay for a potentially unattractive underpass route which is not dissimilar to the pathway attached to the SH20 bridge at Mangere, especially when the competing ferries cost around $5 each way. I have big reservations about what the NZTA would inherit in terms of maintenance costs and vandalism risks once the lease period is over, even if the proposition makes money as a commercial venture.
I do think that this obsession with cycling over the harbour bridge is unhelpful. If we really want to encourage more cycling around the Auckland harbour then one option would be to make ferry travel free for cyclists (and no, I’m not connected with Fullers!). I suggest this would achieve more in terms of getting people pedalling in the CBD than any harbour bridge route. The Britomart model is a poor comparison – trains need big CBD stations and heavy duty infrastructure, cycles need lots of relatively low cost, small infrastructure improvements over a distributed network to make them attractive to the general population.
Overall this idea smacks of an expensive white elephant
Tim, regarding your concerns about long-term maintenance costs – gee, if suddenly nobody likes using it anymore after it becomes free (why?), they can close it down (and see if people care – literally!).
Seriously, some of these concerns here sound amazingly petty* – this is conceived as a gift to the public of a 10-plus million dollar facility, and you are concerned about maintenance costs that won’t even kick in until 15 years? When by that time, the maintenance costs of the main bridge itself will probably tally in the many millions each year (if they don’t already)?
Wonder if the ARC said “no” to those people who gifted them parkland (“Really, just think of what it’s going to COST to keep up…)
*Though I may also be a bit pissed off after the Rudman editorial today.
As for this being an “obsession”? Well, first of, it is not – there is a lot of other cycling work and advocacy going on in Auckland, such as the work I am doing (and which keeps me busy enough not to do much work with the GetAcross folks at the moment). It is an obsession only to those like Rudman who feel that they need to keep people from achieving things, even when no one is proposing to use their money (even though billions of their money is being used to build motorways 5 km away).
In a less grumpy vein – Tim, I know it is not going to convince you until it is built, but the SH20 underslung cycleway is well known to all people involved, and the design will ensure that it is a lot more pleasant. Ever tried tagging a perforated metal screen, for example? (think of something like this, just with more and smaller holes:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:O14_010.jpg ).
I am not saying that this will be what is used – as I noted, I am not on the design / steering team (though I think perforated screens would be a good medium, giving some sun and weather protection as well as tagging resistance). What I AM saying is that these things (vandalism, security etc…) are being thought about, and will be covered in the proposal.
What’s up with Rudman and his bizarre hatred of cyclists? I would have thought this ws the kind of project he’d be right behind.
Some more thoughts on the “obsession” thing: Well, big projects need determination that can seem to be an obsession from the outside. Even good projects have to take hurdles – and if you win, the adjectives suddenly get changed (then it becomes “persistence” and “determination” – some of the most positive ones humanity knows).
I have seen Bevan Woodward (the guy leading GetAcross) go through a lot of ups and downs on this. Once, back in 2008, he was willing to literally give up. An important Auckland City Council meeting was coming up, and it was becoming clear that they wouldn’t vote for it. Bevan was so downhearted on it all at that stage, he told us on the speakerphone (he lives up north, and didn’t make that particular meeting of the steering group in person) that he wouldn’t even come down for the Council meeting the next day to speak. I guess that was close to his lowest point.
Well, this story is long from finished, and I agree that it is far from certain that the current proposal will go ahead. But the point is that when several thousand people turned up last year, and marched over the bridge, it gave Bevan – and the project – such a boost that they are carrying on, buyoed by the knowledge that there is a huge level of public support.
Obsession? I know better words for it.
That day marching across the bridge was one of my absolute highlights of last year.
http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2009/05/24/our-bridge/
hi people who are aginst the walk and cycle way can you give me your viewpoint and opinions as i need them for a school project!! thanks
@ Sophie
Btw I support the pedestrian/cycle way.
The second harbor crossing will include a provision for walking and cycling (either as part of the new crossing or space will be re-allocated from traffic lanes to walk/bike ways on the current bridge – most likely the later as they are looking at tunnel designs and tunnels suck for pedestrians).
Basically the current harbor bridge clipons are stuffed… they were built super light so at the main bridge foundations were never designed for there weight. This means that a second harbor crossing will be required in the next 10-20 years. Due to the clipons structural condition they are likely to be closed to cars at this time, freeing them up for (small numbers) pedestrians and bikes. I say small numbers because the ak harbour bridge northbound suffered from pedestrian lock in during the 2004 Foreshore & Seabed Hikoi (this is well beyond school level).
Essentially this means any crossing built now will be redundant in 10-20 years.
Basically it has been decided by the NZTA that the money can be better spent elsewhere.
Other issues:
-Any addition of weight attached to the clip on will decrease there lifespan
-NZ police want the walk/cycle way at main bridge deck level to make emergency response to a medical issue easier and to reduce crime risk. The above plan does not achieve this. The original getacross plan did achieve this but required narrowing the traffic lanes slightly and a “clipon to the clipon”. Motorists don’t like there lanes being narrowed.
– It is difficult to predict how many people would use it. Some people think it would be un-popular.
Basically, some people (like Brian Rudman, a very anti-cycling columnist of the New Zealand Herald) just think that cycling is an outmoded form of transport, and that people will never go back to cycling in any numbers. Therefore, people like him feel that it would be wasted money because few people would use it.
Of course I and many other believe that people do not cycle in Auckland because there are so few places to cycle (safely)! So Rudman’s preferred course of action is a classical circular argument. You don’t need to do anything for cycling because nobody cycles, and nobody cycles because nobody does anything for cycling.
Overseas (like in Sydney) the bridge is well-used by cyclists. And some cities have tons and tons of cyclists – because they built cycleways.