Everyone knows that the price tag for a future harbour crossing is eye-watering. For a tunnel option (which really is the only option in my opinion) we’re looking at something north of $5 billion – which is significantly more expensive than any other project we’ve ever seriously considered (over twice the price of the City Rail Link, for example). Normal funding mechanisms won’t come close to paying for the additional crossing – so different options will need to be looked at. My suggestion is to simply not build another crossing, of course.
One funding option that seems to have found a bit of limelight in recent days is the suggestion that the crossing could be tolled – but not only the new crossing, also the existing harbour bridge. The NZ Herald reported on this yesterday:
The spectre of tolls on the Auckland Harbour Bridge to help to pay for a new traffic crossing has re-emerged in a council report, days before the election.
Auckland Council staff say, in a report prepared for a transport committee meeting tomorrow, that a proposed law change would allow an application for a toll on the existing bridge as well as a new harbour crossing to be considered by the Government.
Legislation prohibits tolling existing infrastructure unless it is near or integral to a proposed new road.
Neither can a new toll road be built unless a feasible alternative route is available to those who cannot or do not want to pay extra for trips.
Somewhat unsurprisingly North Shore politicians are jumping up and down, yelling and screaming:
The suggestion that tolls may be reintroduced to the existing bridge to raise money for a new harbour crossing expected to cost up to $5.3 billion within the next 20 years raised hackles yesterday among North Shore members of the Auckland Council.
Ann Hartley, a former Labour MP and Deputy Speaker of Parliament, said she could not understand why tolls were being contemplated for certain sections of Auckland’s transport network rather than more widespread and fairer revenue streams.
Fellow North Shore councillor George Wood said he did not see why Aucklanders should have to pay for a new harbour crossing when the Transport Agency was about to spend up to $3 billion on completing the western ring route, including the Waterview motorway.
But Steven Joyce says that this simply isn’t the case – and the “toll free alternative” (which obviously wouldn’t exist if both crossings were tolled) will remain in legislation:
But Transport Minister Steven Joyce said last night that proposed changes to the Land Transport Management Act would not alter the legal test of whether a toll could be charged for using an existing road.
He said the council was “completely wrong” to say legislative changes were needed to enable him to consider an application to impose tolls on the harbour bridge.
A Cabinet paper covering various other changes to transport legislation included an agreement to retain current tolling requirements, including that tolls could be charged on an existing road only if it was near and integral to a new road.
A toll-free alternative route must also still be available.
So what does the Council report actually say on the matter:
The immediately adjacent road issue seems to have popped up a bit out of nowhere, as the Question and Answer section on the Ministry of Transport website about the LTMA changes seems fairly concrete about the requirement for a toll-free alternative route.
I’m not opposed to tolls in principle, just as I think that congestion charging is – in principle – a good idea. Tolling has a few issues though, including distorting traffic patterns away from the tolled route and towards the untolled one, unless there’s a pretty compelling reason to pay for the tolled route. This would make it difficult to only toll the new crossing, as you may struggle to attract enough traffic to the new crossing (away from the old harbour bridge) for the project to be worth it.
But in my opinion, that more calls into question the economics of the new crossing rather than making a case for tolling both the new and the existing routes. In the end, tolling arises as a necessity because the whole crossing project is something we really can’t afford – and perhaps we’re better off simply realising that and looking for cheaper alternatives.
Processing...
Yes it is quite banal to only toll a new crossing that is parallel to the existing one.
The obvious reason being that a new crossing benefits users of the existing crossing directly and considerably, so it is only reasonable to toll both. Indeed, my view would be that you only build a new crossing if the revenues from tolls on both (including higher peak tolls) plus any surplus from RUC/fuel tax generated from using the routes (once maintenance is deducted) is sufficient to pay for it.
It is not fair that a huge amount of money is spent disproportionally to benefit a small portion of the population (North Shore transport & property values).
A rush hour toll or congestion charge needs to be introduced on the bridge well before any additional crossing is built.
The toll free route is SH16 & SH18. There was some talk about these being redesignated as SH1.
I think only a rail tunnel is needed. A lot of people would use rail and therefore reduce the number of cars crossing the harbour. What is the cost saving only building rail?
It is eye wateringly expensive. My eyes must have a lower threshold as I fell the same about $2.4b. Anyhow, the study indicated the by tolling at a price sufficient to increase the BCR to 1 (I think) demand would be crimped to the point of not justifying another crossing. So it’s all a bit moot. Anyhow the should toll the bridge, along with the rest of the road network. The government should aim to get a reasonable return on capital for all it’s assets.
What is the cost as a percentage of GDP and how does it compare to the cost of the original Harbour Bridge as a percentage of then GDP? It would be very strange if we could afford a harbour crossing in the 1950s, but not in the 2020s with about four times the population in Auckland, double the population in NZ, and a GDP per capita that is much higher per person.
The original bridge cost around $50 million. Not sure what that would be inflation adjusted, but I suspect not 100 times the price.
A quick hunt around the web suggests that house prices have increased by a non-inflation adjusted factor of around 70 since 1960. So 100 times isn’t too unreasonable.
Also found while Googling… In real US dollar terms our GDP per capita is double what it was in 1960. Couple that with a doubling population and we earn as a country, in real terms, about four times what we did in 1960. If our parents and grandparents could build a harbour crossing, then we should be able to duplicate it since we’re four times as wealthy as they were.
I don’t think there is any doubt we could afford to build it, and pay for it with tolls, like we did last time. The question is whether it is worth it. Law of diminishing returns would apply I think – we already have 8 lanes largely in balance with approach roads. An additional 6-8 lanes is not going to have anywhere near the benefit of the original bridge which opened up the entire north shore to development.
Inflation adjusted $50m in 1959 is $2.1b in 2011
Although the cost of the bridge was actually about £6m which works out at just over $250m today
The original bridge and approaches cost £7,515,840 in 1959 ($316 million today adjusted for inflation)
The Clipons cost $7.4 million in 1969 to build and install ($113 million today). Not sure if this includes the cost of widening the motorway north and south of the bridge or not.
So far we are looking at $429 million, but this of course doesn’t include the costs of the motoway up the Shore, the cost of the Victoria viaduct or building they motorway through to the central motorway junction.
I’m pretty sure we could build a simple eight lane bridge across the harbour for $429 million, but the real expense comes from the connections at either end. The original bridge was built pretty simply by knocking down a few houses on Northcote point and reclaiming land through St Marys Bay to Fanshawe St and along the mangroves to Takapuna for the approach roads. The new bridge/tunnel proposals include an elaborate series of linkages to, in and around the existing motorways, feeder tunnels under the city and Victoria Park, huge new interchange ramps at Akoranga and Onewa, etc.
Also we have to account for the fact the most recent proposals have included several arguably gold plated extras such as a duplicate Victoria Park tunnel from the existing bridge lanes to Cook St to carry six lanes in total (maybe another $400 million right there?), a busway extension from Akoranga including flyovers near the bridge, plus tunnelled linkages between the existing bridge busway lanes and the Cook St tunnels.
The scope of this second crossing is much larger, plus it has to be built through developed city and around an existing motorway. No wonder it is a hell of a price!
I’d like to see some pricing for an ‘austerity’ tunnel consisting of a pair of tubes bored between Onewa and the CMJ south of Wellington St, leaving the existing bridge and St Mary’s alone, operating the busway on existing lanes and using only the existing Vic Park tunnel to access Cook St. Wouldn’t be surprised if that shaved a billion or two off the price.
We don’t need it. especially not another road crossing. Allow whatever restriction there is help grow the North Shore’s own economy… this is what happened in Sydney, and grow the uptake of buses and ferries and the upper harbour bridge and ring route.
The world will look very different even in the short to medium term and this absurdly useless spend will be shown to have really have very little benefit for its enormous outlay.
Great to see it’s not even on Joyce’s fantasy list, shame on the AK council that they seem to have buckled to the road on this right now.
@Nick R – Adjusting the cost of historic projects is more complex exercise than just simply adjusting for monetary inflation as there are many more associated costs with modern projects.
Back in the 50’s when the current AHB was constructed the relative cost of materials (steel, concrete etc) were cheaper, labour was cheaper, both in wages paid and workplace safety standards, consultation was minimal, environmental and social mitigation was virtually non-existent, land was relatively cheaper, and, as you say, not a lot of thought was necessarily given to network integration, which can add a lot of cost. These factors and others tremendously impact the price of a given project.
Off the top of my planning/engineering head, I’d say you would be looking at a least $1.5 billion to construct the AHB and the approaches, as constructed in 1959 (4 lanes), now in 2011, maybe more. One of the biggest cost influencers for new structure is the height required for vessels passing underneath. If a new AHB could theoretically be built at, say the height of the new Kopu bridge, then it would be far, far cheaper.
In terms of expensive historic NZ roading projects, the one to remember is the re-alignment of SH8 in Central Otago, needed as part of the “Think Big” Clyde Dam project. $330 million (in 1982 dollars) for 50km of two lane State Highway built to a 100km/h standard in difficult geological terrain. Original budget was $55 million. Still probably the most expensive roading project in NZ, and one that went massively over budget. I’d say to do this now it would be around 10 times the 1982 cost. Reason I bring this up? I see the Puhoi-Wellford motorway proposal as very similar.
Any chance of reusing the TBM for the Inner City Loop on going under the harbour while you’re at it?
I think the CRL is inevitable if not initially than within say five years, govt probably a little hesitant looking at state of global economy.
Presumably the same 7m tube diameters would be equally fine for a harbour rail tunnel as a city rail tunnel, but it would be far too small to use for the road links.
Bring back Car-less days and trucks over a certain weight only travel between 8 pm and 5 am