NZTA and the Council have decided the Old Mangere Bridge needs to be replaced and there is public consultation on the options now open for feedback. More detail here:
Project purpose
Recent reports indicate that the bridge has a five to ten year lifespan so it’s important the bridge is replaced as soon as possible. The bridge is also very costly to maintain so replacement sooner rather than later is going to be the most cost effective, long-term solution.
BenefitsThe bridge forms a vital part of the Regional Cycling Network and we are committed to retaining the current walking and cycling connection that the bridge provides. We are also committed to retaining the bridge’s current access for fishing.
Features
In collaboration with key stakeholders, including community representatives, some broad design elements have been set to help guide the consultation process:
The new bridge will:
- be approximately six metres wide to accommodate pedestrians, cyclists and fishing activity
- have safe entry and exit points for cyclists and other users
- include sufficient lighting
- have clear sight lines so people can easily see what is around and in front of them as they cross the bridge
- be in the same general location as the current bridge
- be at a safe distance from the Port of Onehunga
- retain the old bridge’s navigational aids for boats
- allow for boat access underneath it.
The old bridge is actually fairly well used by pedestrians, cyclists and for those fishing (although I don’t know how keen I’d be to eat something caught in that part of the Manukau Harbour!) It’s a shame that the structure itself will need replacing as we lose much of its heritage, but I guess pieces of infrastructure like that do eventually wear out.
Send in your feedback so NZTA can better understand how the community currently uses the Old Mangere Bridge, and how the community would like to use the replacement bridge in the future. There are also open days on August 11 and 12.
Processing...
While I also appreciate the old bridge, this demolition actually creates a huge opportunity for AC/AT to create something special to improve connections between the communities of Mangere East and Onehunga and stimulate urban development (especially in the latter). Look forward to seeing what they come up with …
What do you mean by reconnect? I thought it was already connected.
Typo: Meant to say “improve connections” – the current pedestrian linkages seem pretty average to me, especially at on Onehunga side.
It is Mangere Bridge, not Mangere East.
Typo 😉 – nah thanks for correction.
Why on earth did they not add a ped link onto MHX? It has only just been built!
Because the old brdge does a much better job being closer to where the people are much more pleasant to be on.
Yes, but it only has a 5-10 year lifespan. It wont be doing a very good job after that.
There’s already a walkway under the “new” bridge, and has been ever since the old Mangere Bridge’s replacement was opened. It’s very nasty, and it’s also a big detour away from the primary roadway – Coronation Road – that leads to the harbour. Plus it’s not useful for fishing because it’s so far off the water.
there is one, under the ’83 bridge, its pretty bleak though compared to the open ‘old bridge’
There already is a ped underpass on the motorway bridge. It’s dark, dingy, covered with broken glass and smells of urine. Actual residents never use it for that reason, preferring the old bridge.
The walkway under the motorway bridge is absolutely genius. It’s not really pedestrian, as it is a massive (on foot) detour from Coronation road, but it has two observation platforms, it’s sheltered from the elements, and it has the most amazing vies on Manukau harbour. It is also very clean now, and there is no broken glass. Obviously if you were a cowboy and didn’t want to get ambushed by Indians, you wouldn’t cross it. But it really is kind of Science Fiction urbanity – if you can get into it…Well done whoever designed it.
I’ve been up there in some of the worst storms, when the rain would literally sting your face on the old bridge, and up under the motorway it is dry. Amazing. Those two bridges really are amazing.
Underbridge ped links are very dark and dingy or take huge amounts of Maintenance, from memory MHX – Manukau Harbour Crossing offered to build a brand new bridge there, but the Onehunga community didn’t want it and complained so it never went ahead, they instead just tidied up the footpath on the Mangere Bridge side.
I would rather they concentrate on and spend the money on the city rail link.
The CRL does precisely nothing to maintain the cycling network, Warren. The loss of this bridge would force cyclists to use a very dingy walkway under the motorway bridge, a walkway that, as others have said, is distinctly nasty. This bridge is very heavily used for recreational fishing, for bicycling, and as a transit point for people using non-automobile transport between Mangere Bridge and Onehunga. The CRL won’t help any of those things, and AT’s mandate is much bigger than just looking after the railway network. Plus, this project will be a few million dollars, not billions. The money is easily found, and using the CRL as a way of diverting attention from this would rightly give rise to calls that the very poor residents of Mangere Bridge (one of the lowest-income suburbs in the city) are being ignored in favour of the CBD and the rail corridor.
These things should not be seen as either-or propositions. They’re totally different beasts.
There should be a speed restriction on cyclists over this bridge. Some go too fast.
My guess is that results from the walkway on the other motorway bridge were less then encouraging. I used to cycle commute from Kingsland to Mahunga Drive daily, for about three months in 2008, and I don’t think I used that underslung walk/cycleway twice in that time – too dark, too much glass, just generally felt too risky compared to the old bridge.
While I believe the first and foremose it should be designed for pedestrians, cyclists and people fishing, I wonder if some consideration should be given to designing the bridge to allow for some limited amounts of local traffic to use it. I am particularly thinking of things like mopeds that are often not able to use the motorway due to their small engines but as they are motorised are also not able to use cylcleways. It was pretty clear from the post linked to below that the bridge is carrying a lot of local traffic due to how much heavier traffic volumes are on it compared to the motorway either side.
http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2012/07/23/visualising-the-amount-of-traffic-on-the-motorway-network/
It would make it quite significantly more expensive, but I agree that there’s a place here for a light-vehicle-only route that isn’t the motorway. As things stand mopeds do use the current bridge because it’s wide enough for them to do so safely.
I actually am not convinced that six metres is of sufficient width to allow safety cyclists, pedestrians and fishers to share all at the same time. As a cyclist I sometimes get quite nervous about passing through when there are large numbers of people fishing because they often aren’t paying much attention to where their rods are going. Narrow the bridge to less than half its current width (Google Maps has the existing bridge at over 14m wide) and the opportunities for conflict increase significantly.
I agree, and that will be one of the key comments from CAA and cyclists in our submission. Depending on design, there may be an ability to separate fishers and moving traffic a bit more strongly, though. Maybe with internal railing separating the two zones, for example? Might still need more width than 6m in that case, though, as the fishing people will want to use both sides, depending on tide etc…
Don’t forget that the fishing activity is tidal, as it were. They switch sides depending on the direction and state of the tide. It’s impossible to designate one side or t’other for fishing without making it effectively useless for half the day because when the tide is flowing in the opposite direction it’ll just drag lines under the bridge and get them tangled in the pilings.
Oh, and if I’d read right to the end I’d have seen you mentioned that. I think I need more coffee.
Max, please no railings, as a cyclist I don’t want my own little motorway here, but am happy to slow down and mix with other humans. Much better if it remains a shared space but we are sure that it’s wide enough for a full range of users at once. What is the current width? Is it sufficient?
And Warren this is an important piece of local amenity and shouldn’t be sacrificed for any big intergenerational project no matter how important. These are separate issues.
Matt L, wouldn’t want this space to get much motorised traffic, it’s a real haven in a fairly auto ravaged part of town. Need to keep the balance on the slow side I reckon.
I do get your point, Patrick, but what if the width ISN’T sufficient. Ideas for how to untangle the two uses would be useful in that case. I don’t envy anyone having to cycle through a narrow left-over section in the middle if the fishing use gets too much for a 6m width…
Maybe one could but the two uses on slightly different levels? Like a central “boardwalk” with slightly lower sides on each? Maybe 3m centre, and 2-3m sides? Needs 8-9 m width though, not 6. Maybe one could have lots of platforms that are wider, but the main bridge isn’t wider?
The current width is more than sufficient, but cutting it down by over half is an entirely different story. Every time I cycle through there I’m worried I’m going to end up catching an errant fish-hook. The central surface is of abysmal quality, barely better than a lot of the stretches of Tamaki Drive’s footpath, so where possible I avoid it in favour of the new concrete path that runs up the inland side of the bridge. If I want to give the fishing folk a wide berth I’m at least three metres out from the railing, probably more like four. That doesn’t leave very much space at all on a six metre bridge if others are also wanting to use it.
Max, nice; different levels would be good, until the health and safety morons get involved then we’ll be getting railings anyway…. decent width is the thing 9 to 12. 6 just isn’t enough.
Looking at your data there Matt L it seems they shouldn’t have duplicated the motorway at Mangere at all. Rather they should have simply rebuilt the low level bridge as a local arterial for Mangere residents to access the Onehunga area. That could have come at a fraction of the cost, and included good provision for walking, cycling and fishing.
Sad how a ten lane motorway is the best answer to a very localised traffic issue.
Fair point, but how would they then justify the huge interchange proposed in the volcanic crater to marry one huge motorway now built into one motorway yet to be built (the Onehunga-AMETI ladder)?
If there’s any hope of rail to the airport, there was going to have to be some quite expensive construction undertaken in the area. The new bridge pilings have that utility in mind
Do they? Are you sure? I heard it was “future-proofed” for rail but supposedly single track @ 25 km/hr. That does not sound very futuristic to me, in fact it’s very much like Auckland’s current network.
It’s better than nothing, surely. If true, though, maybe the replacement old bridge could be constructed to be a proper rail bridge for rail at transit speeds in addition to having amenity uses.
Ah Nick where were you 6 years ago? CBT fought this one tooth and nail for that very reason.
Mopeds currently use the current bridge with no problem, it should be designed so this can continue.
Related article on linking the area with the biggest employer – Aiport Rail, anyone?
http://www.theaucklander.co.nz/news/mangere-otahuhu-bus-service-slated/1480708/
Geez, that Aucklander story is depressing:
I would have thought that there is easy low hanging fruit there, but the response from Auckland Transport is classic cut and paste:
Mangere has long suffered from poor political representation at a local level I think. Arthur Anae and Alf Filipaina are missing in action on this issue.
It is “cut and paste” – possibly from a report that I wrote :). If you read Mike Lee’s letter (linked to in the more recent post) it provides more substantive detail on what’s coming in terms of PT for the south, i.e. they may get the new network before anyone else does (Mike indicates as early as 2014). So I think AT are being genuine here when they say “yup, we’re working on it.”
It would be quite ironic if we had a new low level bridge at Mangere. The reason the new Manukau Harbour Crossing soars so high was so that it looked ok next to the existing harbour crossing, and that in turn was built so high just in case there was future demand for bigger ships to move up the harbour. So I wonder if NZTA are proposing a draw bridge to be consistent?
Yes, the piles of the new bridge are supposed to be “future proofed” for rail, but I have no idea what that means. Through the Environment Court, CBT secured a possible future rail corridor to the west of the motorway at Mangere, but only as far south as Walmsley Rd. If rail to the airport via Onehunga is ever going to be a reality, this corridor will need to be preserved.
I doubt we’d ever have a canal between the harbours.
The rail under SH20 Mangere bridges would be low level.
Has anybody priced a single track extension from Onehunga to Mangere Bridge? (As part of staged construction toward the airport)
Might the rail route also work as a cycleway route?
Unfortunately the Manukau Harbour crossing is the single most expensive bit of the Airport rail line. The duplication of the road bridge cost $230 million so can’t see rail costing too much less than that. Importantly need to future proof corridor in the Walmsley Road area as thats where development is ongoing, especially if this intersection is grade separated. Several new massive Warehouse developments in the area such as the Mainfreight one have narrowed the corridor here, and may need to be demolished to build the rail line.
Yes another fine example of the old Manukau City Council doing their hardest to make the provision of transport by any means other than the private car as hard as possible for ever and ever…. visionaries with a monomodal monomania.
A rail crossing shouldn’t cost anything like that…. it won’t be anywhere near the scale of that overbuilt monstrosity…. in fact it should go some way towards justifying its scale if the ‘futureproofing for rail’ is real.
future proofing is real, however that only means that the bridge has been built to take the loads required. Full attachment construction needs to be implemented and tunnel will need to be built to take rail from new bridge to the other-side of the motorway.
So although Future Proofed, still a lot of work. However it should be a dramatically lowered cost as a result.
Wouldn’t the rail lines travel under the road carriage? That is the grade it is already at and this would also cross it to the western side of the road. You’re not thinking it somehow goes up with the traffic on the new bridge are you?
I’m thinking it would be easiest and cheapest to build a simple straight low level rail bridge on the west side of the motorway, basically running directly north south. Swinging under the new motorway then back out again is probably more trouble than it saves.
But Nick to get the railline for where it is now to the west side means crossing the motorway. Going under the bridge and attaching the structures if the road bridge really is able to handle that is surely the way to achieve that?
I guess the issue is we need to ensure this pedestrian bridge doesn’t limit future options for the rail bridge. I wish that silly South-Western multi modal study would hurry up so we can get on with designating the rail corridor before anything else gets in the way. Are there any advantages to building the pedestrian and rail bridge as one, or will this detract from amenity of pedestrian bridge too much?
I had assume any rail line would be on the east side of the motorway, because there corridor is wider on that side and has more space for stations.
When they rebuilt the railway line to Onehunga I posted on thye CBT forum that it shoiuld be built down to the Wharf with a station down there not that anyone took any notice though. The other thing is the cycleway around the Harbour to Southdown if it could be extended across the railway to the platform at Westfield station that would be cool. It would really connect Onehunga to Otahuhu and points southcycle and pedestrian wise.
A station down at the wharf would serve almost nobody residentially and precious few commercially. There’s just no catchment in that area. Putting the station where it is allowed them to use only the existing rail corridor (which curves around and stops at Neilson St) and keep it near enough to the major catchment of the commercial strip on the Mall and the surrounding houses.
The reason nobody followed your suggestion is that it would’ve required a lot more work, a lot more cost, and served far, far fewer people.
Plenty of people walk across the bridge from Mangere bridge that is the catchment. Anyway doesnt matter now. No need to go over the placement of the Onehunga station again except how is going to connect to the proposed airport line not that that is ever likely to happen anyway.
It’s 850m from the closest point on the rail line to the closest house across the old bridge. You’d be lucky to get more than a dozen or so homes within one kilometre of such a station.
I don’t understand why people are so negative on the prospect for rail to the airport. It’s got very broad support within Auckland – even more support than the CRL – and that makes it very politically easy for the Council to make it happen. The challenge right now is that we have a government of dinosaurs, but that’s not an eternal constant.
True.
I think it’s actually a point that Council isn’t making strong enough. No CRL – no airport rail. One needs the other to happen first, or we could only ever get a once-hourly airport service.
Maybe they are scared that mentioning this will open them up to being accused of not only wanting to spend up billions, but immediately follow it with some MORE bilions on rail (which of course they SHOULD do, but hey, even logical transport funding priorities aren’t immune to rabid criticism).
As Patrick said – True! Although even more so true there Ingolfson
However, the could start slicing the salami so to speak. Say an extension of the Onehunga branch to Mangere Bridge, then Mangere Town Centre. It would be limited to something like 30 minute headways at best without both the CRL for cityside capacity and double tracking the OBL, but that would do in the short term to build demand to help progress those projects.
Given that the EMUs would be fully in service before such a plan could be completed, half-hourly services would probably not take much longer from Mangere Bridge to Britomart than Onehunga to Britomart takes at present.
I suspect, though, that there would be issues getting consent from NZTA to allow construction of the necessary bridge using their infrastructure. Again, a government of dinosaurs. Plus, the project would be, at the best, tens-of-millions of dollars, and that’s not the kind of money AT has just lying about. Even the Council would have a big intake of breath if asked to stump up that kind of money for a single project. Which means that we’re back to needing either an additional funding mechanism (not happening before 2014) or government funding (also not happening before 2014).
Would a purely rail bridge have anything to do with NZTA. I mean an entirely new bridge on the right alignment, not swinging it around to use the piers of the motorway.
Oh, if you went that way, probably not. But that would add significantly to the cost since it would require complete sets of geotechnical analysis, all the piling work, and all the other stuff required to complete a from-scratch construction project that carries heavy vehicles. The “affordable” option would need to take advantage of the existing crossing.
I’m not convinced there would be any savings by trying to tack on to a motorway bridge’s piers, that would require geotech and additional pilings too.
The new bridge has at least some capacity for carrying a rail link, though, Nick. That work has already been done.
Yes, the piers were build slightly stronger to take a larger load should a rail bridge be tacked on at some point. From what I understand very little work went into it, for example I have heard they based the ‘future proofing’ on a single track link with a maximum 25km/h speed.
I think you are right Nick. I spoke to a Beca engineer I know while they were building the bridge / motorway rebuild and he indicated very little effort had been spent on the rail bridge.