A few weeks back I highlighted something that did appear to be relatively hidden away in the Unitary Plan documentation – a possible connection between Karaka and Weymouth, including a rather long bridge. While this project isn’t in the Council’s 30 year Auckland Plan, nor in Auckland Transport’s 30 year Integrated Transport Programme, the sheer scale of sprawl proposed by the Council in the south of Auckland sounds like it might make this project something of an inevitability. Here’s a reminder of the route: 
By the sound of things, there have been a few public meetings where the bridge has been raised as a significant issue. It has also been picked up by a few of the local newspapers. Here’s an article from a few days back in the Manukau Courier:
A sleepy coastal community will be ripped in two if a proposed bridge across the Manukau Harbour goes ahead, residents say. The bridge would start at the tip of Weymouth Peninsula and cross the Pahurehure Inlet to Karaka. It would then allow for a four-to-six lane transport corridor linking the Southwestern Motorway to Karaka via Roscommon and Weymouth Roads. The bridge was pencilled in as an addendum to the Unitary Plan after a collective of Karaka landowners approached Auckland Council regarding extending the Rural Urban Boundary. The landowners want to develop new housing and communities on their side of the harbour. But Weymouth residents are against the bridge idea, saying it would turn their sleepy community into a thoroughfare and split the peninsula through the middle. They’re worried about the impact it would have on their lives, the harbour and the health of those living closest to the proposed highway.
I’m glad that Council included mention of the bridge in the Unitary Plan material (along with a major additional wastewater treatment plant that will discharge somewhere into the Manukau Harbour) to ensure that the public was made aware of the implications of having so much sprawl in the south. The Council’s approach to sprawl recently has been pretty reckless, bandying about numbers like “70/30”, “60/40” and even “70/40” without much discussion of the potential infrastructure implications of that much growth outside the current urban area. It’s excellent that we’re finally having such a discussion – even if it is just about one particular project. At a meeting last week a bit of clarification was provided by Council staff about the bridge, in particular the issue of whether it’s the location of the Rural Urban Boundary or the sheer amount of sprawl proposed, which leads to the bridge being necessary. This from the same Manukau Courier article:
Council transport strategy manager Kevin Wright says no decision has been made on whether a Karaka to Weymouth bridge is required. Transport studies have been done to look at how to cope with more housing and the bridge is just one option. Early modelling work indicates reliance on existing transport routes could mean the possibility of overloading State Highway 1, Mr Wright says. And it might take decades of growth before the council can justify installing a bridge. “That is why there is a dotted line on the map shown in the addendum about the different rural urban boundary options. “This is to let people know there is a possibility that there could be a Karaka to Weymouth bridge,” Mr Wright says. “We need to get feedback about how the rural urban boundary options impact so that some decisions can be made about the rural urban boundary,” he says. The sheer scale of growth in the southern area is likely to increase the demand fo movement and the Karaka to Weymouth bridge is a potential option, Mr Wright says. “But in no way are we in a position to say ‘yeah, that’s proposed’ or ‘that’s the best solution’.”
Another article in the Papakura Courier highlights – quite importantly – that there are a lot of people in Karaka who don’t like the idea of the bridge either. It seems to me that the fundamental issue is the extent of sprawl proposed in the south – it’s just too much for the transport network to cope with (even with high levels of use of the trains, a lot of local employment, widening of SH1 and so forth). However, the Rural Urban Boundary options also seem pretty important in deciding whether it will be possible to avoid having to build the bridge. If Karaka West (and perhaps even Karaka North) ends up inside the RUB then that will effectively make the decision over whether the bridge happens – as the area is incredibly isolated without the bridge in place. If development happens in the other proposed areas then perhaps that leaves open more options for avoiding the bridge and at the very least is likely to delay the need for the connection to much later in the 30 year period of development the Unitary Plan is intended to provide for. But ultimately it seems like the only way to ensure the bridge doesn’t happen is for the amount of sprawl in the south to be reduced. The big question is: “by how much?”
Processing...
Having been to the Weymouth and Karaka Public Meetings (and seeing Mr Arbury a few times too along the way at these meetings) where THAT Bridge gets mentioned causing angst with both residents and Councillors alike – I have seen first hand what the feelings have been like over here at Weymouth and Karaka. Also having been in constant communication with residents and Councillors; the message being put out there to the people down here in the South is to:
1) Consider the RUB options carefully
2) Write your submissions carefully (one of the councillors gave a great tip on how)
Still, got a long way to go with this with efforts being sort on how best to get the RUB in such a way to stave off that bridge with Greenfield development going to happen down here.
Next meeting that will have the Bridge brought up should be next Tuesday as Papakura has its UP meetings on the RUB
It’s great to see that the sprawl option now has some political pain.
Until now sprawl has been politically pain-free, because farmers could sell out to a higher bidder, and the existing fringe communities didn’t get upset at the extra traffic because only a few years earlier they had done the same thing to next community further in.
Malcolm I think the real reason that communities haven’t objected so in the past to becoming the through-route for the next sprawl-burb is not so much a ‘fair’s-fair’ attitude about the negative impacts that they’ve caused themselves but because it generally has happened slowly and by increment.
People are generally not good at picturing change and tend to swing wildly between complacency and panic: Blissfully over-confident that nothing will change much, or angry as a cut snake and assuming their world’s about to end. A little road widening, a few more houses down the line tends to produce more of the former reaction, while someone on the other side of town living in an apartment the later.
Here, interestingly the road industry can’t just sneak up on this community with a gradual upscaling, so the process has been laid bare and the type two reaction is in full swing. And I agree with people on both sides of this inlet; there is no need to expensively, 1 billion+!, destroy either place, and especially not just for the enrichment of a few land owners. Karaka should remain rural and Auckland can expand up and out elsewhere.
Yep, this bridge, and the sprawl it is designed to deal with have come almost as an all or nothing approach that is helping to highlight the impacts of decisions to sprawl.
@Patrick, Out where?, More into the North Shore?, towards Kumeu?
First; more infill and up and less out than the MP for Nelson wants. Second; look at the map above; down the rail line.
Anyone else notice they put Karaka in the wrong location on the map?
I asked Kevin Wright at the meeting in Weymouth about other options besides a bridge. He replied that a bridge was the only option that had been identified. Auckland Council has not been straight with Weymouth residents. Penny Hulse came to our 2nd meeting saying ‘ There is no plan for a bridge, and no justification for a bridge.’ Either she was badly advised or ?? Council has certainly been less than transparent about the future they envision for Weymouth. For those who have accused Weymouth of being Auckland sprawl: Weymouth Village was surveyed in 1857, with Blanes Road as the boundary. The original streets from the end of Weymouth Road to Blanes Road are still the same as on a early 1860’s map.
Brigid I think Penny is right. This project has come from nowhere. Most likely the land bankers in Karaka. It isn’t on any other plans. My view is that it can’t be justified. It amounts to an enormous subsidy by the people of Auckland for the enrichment of a few landholders in Karaka, and while that isn’t any different to what usually goes on in the ‘free market’, in this case it is too blatant and too extreme and expensive to actually happen. And unnecessary. Especially as there are are so many other road projects that are on the Council’s lists that shouldn’t happen either.
The idea that this bridge isn’t on any plans needs clarification. In April 2010 the Auckland Regional Council released a document titled FUTURE LAND USE AND TRANSPORT PLANNING PROJECT. In there they said ““7) Karaka Ramarama – This large development area stretches from Waiau Pa in the west to State Highway 1 in the east. It makes the most of its northerly Manukau Harbour coastal aspect. It is expected that this area will be serviced by metropolitan water and a new southern sewage treatment plant. Capacity exists for an additional 37,000 dwellings and 12,000 ECs in this growth area. This area will require significant roading improvements including a Weymouth to Karaka Bridge connection and upgrades of roading to enable a connection between SH20 and SH22.” – Page 18 para 7.
This document carried forward to Auckland Council when it was launched in Nov of the same year.
OK it was mentioned three years ago by the ARC but it still isn’t included in the IPT, the RLTP, or the Auckland Plan. It has essentially become a live issue because of the directive to sprawl more as your quote above shows.
The bridge is a sprawl subsidy and a very bad one at that.
Sorry Patrick… I’m not wishing to be difficult, it’s just that this document carries a lot of useful information in it relating to a potential bridge. For instance, it mentions that there is a Maori urupa in the path of the bridge, important archaeological sites, wahi tapu, increased potential for flooding and of course wading birds would abandon the area (despite the importance of the habitat to them). There are also significant wetlands that are threatened by any bridge proposal.
In support of your point, the 2007 Independent Inquiry into Local Government Rates said of Councils that “They cannot be permitted to disregard affordability issues, which are intrinsic to the promotion of community well-being as required by the Local Government Act 2002.”
Oh I don’t think you’re being difficult at all, more information is always helpful. And yes there are multiple levels on which this bridge is a bad idea, including no doubt yet more poor outcomes for the natural environment of our ‘other’ harbour. It is a big shame that the hand ringers of the Herald won’t come out to the edge of town and do some decent investigative journalism on the outcomes of sprawl as well as all the panic they wish to induce in the minds comfortable occupants of big detached houses in established suburbs.
That bridge would create a fantastic cycling loop!
I saw those articles ………..I note the group pushing for it (and even those objecting to it) did not suggest public transport development in that area as alternatives – I have found many of the new areas around south that have developed have lagged a lot in terms of developing public transport links.
I actually asked an real estate agent about it once about that once – in respects to the gardens suburb- saying I found I would not choose to live their due to lack of public transport options – the response was honey the people here don’t want the sort of people that need public transport – theres been lots of resistance to developing a bus route. I know now that it does have a bus route and has for a number of years ( my converstation was a few years before that – about 10 years ago when we first brought out here) – so I guess attitudes have changed ?
There will be great need for new transport alternatives around that area though – and in the new golf course development near wattle downs – its already a frustrating bottle neck in that area for commuters -there will need to be road modification (well there already has been Karaka residents are in the process of currently getting their own on/off ramp I believe) I do hope however they put in the public transport infrastructure as future proofing – even it the current demand does not lie in that direction
Well Weymouth should have a good bus connection to Manurewa and Manukau. It is certainly on the Frequent bus route on the new maps which means a service of at least every 15mins connecting to these two Train stations with services every 10 minutes post electrification and every 5 after the CRL opens.
Further South Papakura will be a great connecting point getting these same frequencies which surely will also be extended to Pukekohe. New station between Papakura and Pukekohe will most likely be optimised for park ‘n’ riders too.
See below:
Jjay-Weymouth is not a recent suburb like The Gardens. Its existed for a long time (a school opened in 1891) and one of Weymouth’s early residents, after whom Evans Rd , in the heart of Weymouth Village, is named for, ran a bus service between Weymouth and Manurewa. I’ve lived in Weymouth for 27 yrs and even back then there was an hourly bus to South Mall, Manurewa. Heaps of people of all ages catch the bus. There are 2 school buses to the 2 local High Schools. Socio-economically we are very different from areas in Manurewa likeThe Gardens and Wattle Downs. The Gardens school is Decile 10 (the highest) Weymouth Primary is Decile 2 and Weymouth Intermediate is Decile 1.
Brigid – I was not talking about Weymouth – sorry my comment must have been unclear but what I was talking about was the new developments
around Karaka and also the one that will go into the golf course at wattle downs – alternative to the needed bridge for karaka could include awesome public transport options.
After all the bridge is not avocated as being for Weymouth but just through Weymouth for Karaka residents from what I understand ?
As a by the by I too used to live in Weymouth – I used to use the old blue busses to get to my connecting busses to head to Uni many years ago now – while my siblings went to the
primary there 🙂 The blue busses were decommissioned during the time I was there – and I note became school busses after that – that bus run was taken over by what was then stagecoach
My comment was about the fact it took the Gardens a long time to get regular busses – and the comment the real estate agent gave me when I mentioned that –
The blue buses had a couple of drivers who were always very kind to me as a mum with a baby/preschooler.
There was an article in Manukau Courier 19/4 where SeaLink was promoting the idea of ferry services on the Manukau. Onehunga via Weymouth, Clark’s Beach and Laingholm. Do you think a Manukau Harbour ferry service would work?
I purchased my property in Weymouth last year and i am disgustedvthatcwhen i asked the cuncil town planner about likely developments in the area, this was not flagged. I also agree that Weymuth is an old established area that has pioneering history. The Gibbons were one ofvthe families who landed there by boat, in the nineteenth century. Why is the council destroying the heritage of South Auckland. It is a disgrace what has been done to that side of town. No care is given to the natural features of places like Wiri, noe historic features of places like Weymouth. Disgusting.
yes I agree it will turn Weymouth into a motorway and spoil thequiet village it is
Look guys, the bridge was deemed as being essential in 1856 and has been a hot topic ever since, now look at the population expansion since. That the bridge would cost close to billion dollars is arrant nonsense, used by those with their heads in the sand and not wanting further development at any cost. Growth is natural and to try to dam it up is pointless, those who are against the bridge should don their rabbit skins and live in a cave, or maybe under a bridge
I think it’s interesting that it’s never mentioned that those proposed links always show the bridge landing on the Karaka side either on or right next to one of last pieces of Maori freehold land, whose owners have opposed a bridge construction.