The government has announced the details of its transport plans for Auckland and other than the CRL, it is a massive road fest. Here is the press release.

PM signals next generation of Auckland transport projects
Prime Minister John Key today outlined the Government’s plan to kick-start the next generation of major Auckland transport projects, including the City Rail Link, and to accelerate a trio of State Highway projects.

Speaking at an Auckland Chamber of Commerce event today, Mr Key said the Government is backing Auckland to succeed by advancing crucial transport infrastructure projects.

“There is a next generation of major projects that is going to be required to develop and improve transport in Auckland for the benefit of the city and the country,” says Mr Key.

These are the combined Auckland Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative (AMETI) and East-West Link, the second Waitemata Harbour crossing, and the City Rail Link.

“These three projects are all identified as the highest transport priorities in the Council’s Auckland Plan,” says Mr Key. “They have a price tag of around $10 billion and they are projects that need to be planned for over a long period of time.”

On the City Rail Link, Mr Key says that as he indicated earlier this week, the Government is committing to a joint business plan for the City Rail Link with Auckland Council in 2017 and providing its share of funding for a construction start in 2020.

“We will consider an earlier start date if it becomes clear that Auckland’s CBD employment and rail patronage growth hit thresholds faster than current rates of growth suggest.

“I realise 2020 is not what the Council leadership is wanting, but while we may differ on timeframes, there is clear recognition by the Government that the project will be needed to address access to the Auckland CBD and improve the efficiency of rail,” says Mr Key.

On the second Waitemata Harbour Crossing, Mr Key says the New Zealand Transport Agency is moving to confirm the preferred alignment and protect the anticipated route by December this year.

“The Government agrees with the Auckland Council that the next crossing should be a tunnel,” says Mr Key. “A new harbour crossing is likely to be needed between 2025 and 2030.”

Mr Key says the Government wants to speed up the combined Auckland Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative (AMETI) and East-West Link project, and Transport Minister Gerry Brownlee would be getting advice on which elements can be accelerated and how funding can best be targeted.

“The area between Onehunga, Mt Wellington and East Tamaki is home to a number of industrial and logistics businesses that make a critical contribution to the Auckland and national economy.

“Many people are employed in the area and there’s considerable growth potential, but the transport links in and out are not up to the job,” says Mr Key.

Mr Key also signalled the Government intends to accelerate three other projects on the State Highway network in the Auckland region to address congestion, capitalise on the benefits of the Western Ring Route and improve access to the airport.

These projects are to complete a motorway-to-motorway link between the Upper Harbour Highway and the Northern Motorway at Constellation Drive, widen the Southern Motorway between Manukau and Papakura, and upgrade State Highway 20A link to the airport to motorway standard.

Under current funding assumptions, a start to construction on these projects may be up to 10 years away, but Mr Key says the Government is not prepared to wait that long.

“The NZ Transport Agency has been asked for advice on how to bring forward the construction start dates for these projects. The Government will be providing additional funding to enable this to happen,” says Mr Key.

“The Government’s direction on transport in Auckland is clear – we want to accelerate vitally-needed projects and get on with the job.”

And here is a map released (sorry I cut the bottom off it)

Govt Transport ProjectsI will try to update this post with more details as the day progresses.

Update 1: Here is a copy of the speech that the PM gave

And a PDF version of the map above.

Auckland Transport’s response.

Len Browns response.

Share this

188 comments

  1. The prioritisation of roads over rail. I knew the announcement of the CRL was too good to be true 🙁

    1. Nice response from the Mayor. I wonder where our opposition party is. What are our alternatives if Auckland changes it’s vote in the next election? This certainly seems to be a bob-each way plan.

      1. Well, LB isn’t being asked to pay for the extra state motorways. Those will come from taxes and asset sales. I am more disappointed by the lukewarm stuff from Labour. They should know better than to sell our power companies to build more motorways.

  2. Delaying the unneeded Greville Rd interchange alone would free up enough money to invest in a complete city wide cycle system (500million).

    Certainly doesn’t look like we are out of a role here at the blog any time soon. Key hasn’t really entered the 21st Century yet, just dipped his toe in.

    1. Actually, the 600m is for SH18 to Motorway and 2 interchanges. This intersection does need some work as the tail on the motorway is seriously dangerous, however this is serious overkill.

      1. When you say seriously dangerous what do you mean? Is it fatality or low spped nose to tail? and Why, from a roading sense, do you think it is dangerous? The hills? sunstrike?merging traffic? buses having their buslanes end?The different factors will influence the changes you make

        1. I mean the Northbound off ramp at SH18 is dangerous. The tail regularly backs up on to the motorway resulting in slow moving cars having conflicts with very fast moving cars. (Think a car ding 90 in lane 2 suddenly have the vehicle in front decide they need to merge into a stationary left lane.

        2. Is this the Northbound onto Albany Highway or onto Northern Motoway.
          Is the speed limit 50 from Upper harbour drive intersections with Paul Matthews Rd (where the traffic lights are) east

        3. Northbound OFF of the Northern motorway.

          And no it is 80 from the Northern motorway interchange right through to Albany Highway.

  3. Roadfest, yes, but also plenty of PT.

    Northern Busway
    AMETI Busway
    Harbour PT crossing future proofed
    The Onehunga Line falls into the East-west link study area
    and of course the CRL.

    1. What Northern Busway? From what I can see all that is happening is a minor improvement at the Greville Road intersection.

    2. The AMETI busway is already under attack. It’s unlikely to survive a concerted effort to reduce the project’s costs to fit inside the RONS-crazy budget profile.

        1. Puhoi-Wellsford. Transmission Gully. Roads of National Significance. Ringing any bells? Do you see why your question is so self-defeating? Sensible is utterly irrelevant to these clowns.

      1. Although I’m happy everyone is now supporting the CRL the announcement is an absolute farce. National said their announcement would be a step change. They then proceeded to commit to spending 8.5bn on new roads and while spending just a little of a billion on rail. At the same time they have promoted many of the roading projects ahead of the CRL.

    1. NZTA won’t pay any of CRL, or more precisely no funds will come from the National Land Transport Fund, because this gov has decreed it can’t be used to build train capital works [trains are not Land Transport then? Low flying planes, or what?]

      The government, ie taxpayers will pay 50%, Ak 50%. But then AK is 36% of the nation. So Ak will pay 36% of 50% + 50% = 68% of the CRL

      By contrast, the nation will pay 100% of the useless Transmission Gully project out of Wellington: AK will fund 36% of this, Welly <10%

      Go figure.

        1. @Geoff, you have a very biased view of funding mechanisms. NZTA could spend their entire budget on rail if the National budget allowed it.

    2. The idea is that the government pays for regional links and the city pays for the local links. The issue is that Aucklands so big that it has regions inside it.

      For the CRL it’s purely a local PT system and so fails the normal test even though it has quite good merit.

      1. That isn’t how they do it SF, it is an institutional mode bias; It is Gov policy that rail capex cannot be funded from the NLTF, opex yes but not capex. Daft.

        Pukekohe to Swanson is more trans-regional than most road projects.

      2. So trains from the City Centre to Manukau are a “purely local” system, while you argue that Auckland is so big that it has regions in it? Gosh, look a bit at the mode bias in your own words.

        1. Starnius, nobody is able to hope on their train in Tauranga, drive to Auckland and park their train somewhere in the CRL for 15mins while they get their lunch and then carry on driving out to visit their friend in helensville. The thing is that rail is very different from roads and so gets treated differently. Also state highway funding comes purely from roads, unlike rail that doesn’t get its funding purely from rail.

          That’s just the way it is and its nothing I can control or change.

        2. Actually regional trains also use the Auckland train network…there services will also take advantage of the increased speed, and can take advantage of adding extra services, so still cant see the difference.

        3. The only reason that no one from Tauranga would not do that is that there is such a poor service that it isn’t a viable option.

          If there were regular rail to National Park, and to the North Shore then I would regularly train into town, have my dinner and jump on a train to National Park to go for a ski. How is that any different to a regional road?

        4. I’m sorry if you can’t tell the difference between a road and a rail track Joshua. I don’t think I’ll be able to help you without making others upset so I’ll have to leave it for you to investigate. A large part of it us due to where the funds come from however.

          Can you confirm however that we are going to see freight trains going through the CRL. I was of the understanding it’s too steep for freight trains, it’s probably too steep for regional trains as well.

        5. There are probably fewer than 100 freight movement a day on Sunset road, yet NZTA paid for it to become an overpass because they realisd that it could allow regional links to be put to better use.

          By taking trains off of the Britomart throat it allows more freight movement, ergo higher freight capacity.

        6. We will see an increase use of freight trains that can use the network due to the increased capacity of the network as a whole. I think you are still in the mentality of the only benefit is 3km of track and three stations. What the link does is actually increase the capacity of the network as it will be at capacity once electrification goes live next year. The three city stations is a bonus that will deliver their own benefits.

          The question I ask is why is the CRL local but the East West link or the 20a extension regional? Both influence the regional connections while they are both mainly for local travel or (regions on their own right). They both go on land (hence land transport) and believe it or not neither of them fly. The CRL will actually improve road freight better than the roading projects by decreasing congestion, but have the added bonus of improving rail freight.

          So yea cant see the difference apart from some steel and asphalt.

        7. “By taking trains off of the Britomart throat it allows more freight movement”

          There are no freight trains through the Britomart throat now, and there won’t be any after the CRL is built either. It’s a passenger-only line.

        8. Fail to see how that is important. Trains have to wait for eachother nearby atm and that stops frieght, CRL will reduce susceptibility to cascading errors, allowing more frieght.

        9. There are no freight trains waiting for anything at the Britomart throat, or freight trains anywhere else affected by trains waiting at the Britomart throat. It’s a passenger-only line.

        10. You are deliberately misreading.

          The britomart throat (intersection of lines) often faces congestion and is heavily susceptible to cascading delay from a one train delay. This often results in trains on the Eastern line haveing to wait, or slow or be late.
          The CRL will reduce this threat allowing the possibility of running daytime freight trains with less chance of conflict.

    1. Bahahahaha. Which radical proposals, these are basically all Len’s ideas, just with some of the PT ones removed.

  4. I may not have read this properly, but where is all the money for these projects coming from?
    Does this mean the goverment will now allow the council to raise money via tolls/congestion charges and what not?

    1. At least they didn’t include mandatory humiliation of PT passengers. We should be thankful for that too!

  5. I was close, think I said SH18 to SH1, and Airport motorway, with a possible extension on the bus way.

    Very disappointed that East West is going ahead, at least it is investigative only though.

    Overall not too bad given where National were sat 6 weeks ago, but plenty of room for improvement.

  6. From Auckland Transport’s press release, Dr Levy: “It is not one or the other; public transport is the game changer as far as Auckland transport is concerned but it can only work if the roading and motorway networks are functioning effectively and efficiently as well” Wait, what? Surely what public transport requires is infrastructure dedicated to it, and also provisions for modes that complement it? e.g. Bus lanes, railways, cycle lanes… Rather than a wholesale approval of a motorway binge. This dead rat sure is hard to swallow.

    1. Don’t be stupid. National are in government.

      We should be building the rail alongside at the same ime, but it won’t happen.

  7. Scorecard-
    1- Greville Upper Harbour Highway. NOT REQUIRED
    2- Additional Harbour Crossing NOT REQUIRED
    3- CRL. REQUIRED
    4- AMETI NOT REQUIRED UNLESS YOU OWN A TRUCKING COMPANY
    5- Sh20A NOT REQUIRED UNLESS YOU OWN A TRUCKING COMPANY
    6- Sthn Mway. NOT REQUIRED UNLESS YOU OWN A TRUCKING COMPANY

    5/6 Not needed (or not needed for a long time). It’s a pretty shitty plan. Phil Twy and others would be wise to not take ownership of it I reckon. Truckies did well though…

    1. AMETI is a Busway and Ti Rikau upgrade……

      Constellation interchange is needed but overkill, much like Puford, and AWHC is required, but not with roads.

    2. If AMETI continues with the integrated bus corridor, it’s worth doing. Widening the Pakuranga Bridge so that it doesn’t have to run with tidal lanes is worth doing with or without the bus corridor. Pretty much everything else isn’t worth doing if there’s no commitment to high-quality bus priority.

  8. Looks good to me, not only will it be easier to get around but there is enough work here to keep me going through to retirement.

  9. Roads for buses, roads for buses. Buses go anywhere, trains, last time I checked, stuck to the tracks. Hill city = expensive tracks

    1. These roads are for cars and trucks. Buses for the most part don’t go on motorways. Buses also don’t go “anywhere” – they go along their scheduled routes, just like trains.

      AMETI is the only one of the road projects that will provide any benefit to PT, although potentially Greville/Upper Harbour could include Northern Busway improvements.

      1. Just picking up on that comment – “Buses also don’t go “anywhere” – they go along their scheduled routes, just like trains.”

        One of the reasons I like light rail is that trains really do stick to their tracks.

        We’ve just had an extended skirmish with NZ Bus over rogue (out-of-service) buses using our street as an ad-hoc cut-through.

        And some school buses put together their own routes as they wish – and change at the whim of the driver.

        Buses present myriad problems over light rail – this is just the tip of the iceberg.

        Also – for all those blogsters who are against a second harbour road crossing but pro-bus: more buses = more roads, so you’re getting what you wanted.

        1. “Also – for all those blogsters who are against a second harbour road crossing but pro-bus: more buses = more roads, so you’re getting what you wanted.”

          Not quite Ben: a big part of the reason for having buses is that they make better use of the road space available, so that you don’t need as much road space.

        2. Hahahahahaha – buses make better use of roadspace!! On what planet? Bus lanes cause more congestion based on some perverse notion that if you choke traffic you drive people onto buses. It’s utter nonsense. For many years I lived in Pt Chevalier, you could cruise down to the Chev at rush hour no problemo. Then the AT masterminds shoved in bus lanes – result is now a tail back at rush hour (heading West) over 2 kms long…. absurd.

        3. Planet earth. The busway moves 8000 people between constellation and sunnynook across the peak, also known as more than the motorway.

        4. Yeah Ben, exactly the same level of bus service that we have now on that route is obviously a win for bus advocates.

  10. So more tarmac. Sigh…..

    Let’s (try and) look on the brightside. The CRL is a definite and key says they’ll bring it forward if (among other things) rail numbers increase. Electrification and the new bus network should aid that, but I read that the magic number is 20% and that’s a big hike.

    The words “provision” for rail for the second crossing is a little scary, but I’d hope the bump in rail numbers for the above reasons makes it a no brainer by then.

    Sadly, cycling gets shafted again.

    Question: how close/distant is the route for the new motorway to the airport compared to the designation for rail from Onehunga?
    B

    1. There is no designation for that route. I don’t even think that there is a planned route at all.

      I don’t think 20% would be that hard, 2m a year or 5000 return journeys on an average work day.

      It would be nice to think Natioanl would at least put the tunnels in when the AWHC is built, so that all the council would need to do is to lay the tracks and wires.

      1. I thought rail numbers needed to increase 20% for Key to bring the CRL start date forward. Turns out they need 20m trips? What are we at now…11m?

        How come we didn’t need to double car traffic over the bridge first to justify a second one?

        1. That would be 50,000trips in the am peak assuming minimal weekend and off peak use. a 2 hour peak constraints britomart to 28000.

        2. From The Herald:

          Mr Key said construction of the City Rail Link would not begin until 2020 unless employment levels in the central city climbed by 25 per cent and annual rail trips hit 20 million a year.

          “We will consider an earlier start date if it becomes clear that Auckland’s CBD employment and rail patronage growth hit thresholds faster than current rates of growth suggest.

          Total rail trips are around 11 million a year.

          Well that would be a good place for the opposition to start in showing up why Key is making a mistake not starting the CRL ASAP. Talk about a competing with one hand tied behind your back….

        3. Double rail trips? Easy. New trains, fast all day frequencies, integrated fares and an integrated connective network that relies on bus to train connections. We’ll hit it by 2017.

        4. Maybe 20 m trips by 2017.. but the CBD jobs up by 25% metric looks tougher. Anyone know what the baseline is? i.e. what year?

          Stats NZ projects +40% in 25 years from 2006 for AK as a whole, which is 1.6% pa so if that’s representative of the CBD then the 25% target isn’t reached for 15 years. But, maybe the 2013 census will show the rate for the CBD is higher?

          Still, 2020 looks safe. Too bad!

          Besides, where are the AWHC metrics? What about +25% kms travelled or some number of HB plus WRR journeys? Or an update of the NZTA biz case? That would kill it stone dead.

        5. Nick R, you need to respond to my comment highlighting the impossibility of such a thing occuring if you claim it is easy.

          Also, Bigwheel, I heard that city employment growth was significantly higher than regional….

        6. TheBIgWheel – They’re not targets, they’re John Key’s excuses for causing extra delays and doing nothing.

          I wouldn’t take them or him seriously at all. Thinking him anything other than a joke is wrong.

        7. Yes, they are a complete joke.

          What problem does a road-only AWHC actually address? Let alone solve.

  11. So exactly what are they proposing at Greville Road? Are they going to put a proper busway in between there and Constellation so that the buses don’t get caught at the lights?

    1. No lights there. I would suggest that they will do a shoulder bus lane on the south bound of ramp and onramp with a physical barrier to remove merging conflicts, North bound the will probably add a bus lane on the flyover to the expressway which will link back to the motorway.

      I swear it would be easier to just build the busway though.

      1. Oh – I was thinking of the lights at Constellation – duh (very frustrating seeing your bus sitting there stuck at the lights!) Personally I would love to see the busway extended and if that is not included in this plan, it would be a wasted opportunity. Greville is a horrible interchange but I am unclear what exactly they are proposing to do there

        1. $500m sounds like a lot for one interchange. Hope the busway is considerably “enhanced” for that money!

        2. Patrick is being disingenuous, it is 2 interchanges and 1.5 km of motorway.

          Given that I saw 70m to do the busway to Albany, 500m is a bit steep though.

    2. For all the changes at Constellation Greville I dont see plans for extending from 2 to 3 lanes city bound from Constellation. If your are talking economic losses due to transport surely getting people to work is more important than getting them home. The current plan means spending 600 million so people make a trafic jam faster.

  12. Pete – so buses go anywhere do they? Next time you are on one, ask the driver if he’ll take a detour of his route to drop you off somewhere different. See how far that get’s you…

    And if you are so keen on buses, I presume you are keen on full separated busways from the NW, SE, SW and extension of the Northern Busway with dedicated lanes across the bridhe and down Fanshawe and Customs?

    1. Apparently you CAN ask the driver to drop you off a bit off the route on some late night bus services out West – night flexi-service or something like that. It must be a public safety service out in the wild West. It’s a good idea.

  13. Fairfax story: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8853330/Second-Auckland-harbour-crossing-confirmed

    – includes this gem:

    Key said the Auckland Harbour Bridge was one of the most critical transport links in the country, but growth forecasts showed that demand would soon exceed capacity.

    ”Despite recent strengthening, limits on the weight loading capacity of the clip-ons means heavy truck access may need to be increasingly managed from around 2021,” he said.

    ”Congestion on the bridge is already a problem in the peak periods.Traffic forecasts indicate that, as the Auckland economy grows, this will increasingly spread throughout the working day.”

      1. Or send heavy trucks the SH16-UHH way and the bridge will last 100 years…

        The entire package is “Well, our friends in the Roading Lobby say..” with a CRL (further future version) to annoy Len.

        I guess the Gummint know about a large oil/gold/rare earth metals resource located somewhere in NZ that we’re going to use to pay for this motor way fest.

  14. Is Auckland twin-citied with Houston? Hope so, we have more and more in common.

    I guess the one good thing is that stuff is happening – and the Government has decided to bask in the warm glow of ‘good’ old fashioned Think Big style projects.

    Reality is, there’s many slip twixt cup and lip, so I expect the shape of these projects will change in direct proportion to how far out they are on the timeline – especially if the lobbyists (inc this blog) keep floating better plans above the noise.

    1. The problem is that if National wins another election (quite possible, seeing Labour’s current troubles), a few of these will be too far along to be stopped. And if NZTA/Government actually DO run out of cash, we know where the savings knife will be wielded.

      This is a shocking retrograde plan, despite the CRL in it. At best reading, it contains barely 30% PT.

      That 30% could certainly be increased – if the Waitemata Crossing included a rail line, and the SH20a works included significant PT works and/or rail futureproofing works. But don’t bet on it. Roads, roads, roads. The leopard has not changed its spots.

      1. Yup, totes. Interestingly the UK has just announced a massive new rail programme – spending up to £30billion – the biggest investment in rail since the Victorians. Wake up NZ!

      2. If we lay rail alongside the SH20a extension at the same time then I will be happy to see it happen.

    1. We’ll be coughing up through taxes and rates. If the Nats got busy on the tax dodgers, the off shore tax shelters and the Aucklanders who flip property tax-free (and there are shedloads of them), they could pay for all this in a heartbeat with ZERO new levies.

  15. I wouldn’t be surprised if National intentionally leaked CRL approval before the announcement, as it softened up the public for what really is a policy of more roading. Had the leak not happened, the CRL project would’ve been swallowed up by the other projects announced today.

  16. SF Lauren: “Also state highway funding comes purely from roads, unlike rail that doesn’t get its funding purely from rail.”

    So state highways are funded and maintained 100% by road tax?

    1. Actually, yes. Local roads are partially funded by road tax, partially funded from rates, but state highways are entirely funded from fuel excise and RUC.

      1. How does that rule out funding rail from road based ‘income though’ If we can spend 2 billion to get 100,000 car trips off the roads a day then surely it is worth doing.

        1. Especially since all these improvements are supposed to decrease congestion on the roads, to help increase the productivity/economy of the country. I think our own busway on the North Shore has already proven that dedicated High Density PT routes do this best. We don’t even have to pick out the examples from overseas!

  17. How do I get my posts to be logged under the discussion I’m referring to, rather than just at the end of the comments thread? (so I don’t have to keep quoting people…)

    1. I found that I had to make sure pop ups werent blocked for the site.

      If that doesnt work, try and right click on the “Reply” link and then open in new tab/window. That seemed to work for me.

  18. Where are people seeing the the tunnel crossing will have provision for rail? I just looked through the transcript of Key’s speech and there is no reference to rail in relation to the tunnel.

  19. Generally the articles are referring to it, without a direct quote. This is one statement attributed to the mayor:

    “He said he was pleased that the Government backed the council’s proposal for a tunnel under the harbour, because it secured the option of rail to the North Shore.”

    But knowing this government, it might be worth getting clarification for certainty.

  20. Will be interesting to see how they prioritise these projects.ie which projects get built in what order.

  21. Has anyone added up the $8 billion from this to the $11 billion or so already earmarked for the RoNS?

    How is it all going to be funded? Many of us have seen our council rates go up already due to roads funding be diverted away from local councils. We don’t want income taxes to go up. Small businesses are still hurting from the last time National raised the GST and a lot of discretionary spending just disappeared then and it really hasn’t come back.

    The asset sales so far have been a bit of a failure, and how many more assets can we flog? Oil prices are going to go up (available oil to buy on the world market has gone down a million barrels a day per year for the last 7 years at the same time as developing nation demand has gone up) so fuel taxes aren’t going to be able to be raised easily on top of already rising petrol prices.

    We are seeing a deflation in our economy and our quality of life and they want to do unprecedented levels of reckless and unnecessary spending to provide capacity for which there may never be demand. Do we even have any macro-economic economists in Treasury? Why aren’t they doing their job? New Zealand is not a rich country, and this is only going to make us poorer.

  22. Well, unsurprisingly National has left me disappointed again after feeling reasonably happy earlier in the week. Interesting how the additional harbour crossing will be built in time for it to be needed, yet the CRL will only begin construction WHEN its needed. A slight double standard there. The conditions for advancing the start date of the CRL also seem slightly impossible, without first building the CRL. Thats unless electrification has a huge effect on patronage. So of the $10 billion investment, just $1 billion is directly on PT. Ridiculous. I thought they were listening to Aucklanders now? Who seemingly want better PT? Looks like you’re shit out of luck Aucklanders, more motorways for you.

    I’m going back to my position at the start of the week. And thats a hope for a Labour/Greens win next year. I think thats the only way the CRL will be built on time, if at all and there won’t be ridiculous wastage on more motorways, that will simply clog up a few years down the track. You can’t build your way out of congestion.

    I just hope Auckland voters arent fooled by this. A tiger doesn’t change his stripes.

    1. At 4 million people each NZer is paying $250 for CRL and $2,250 for Auckland roads
      At 50,000 people Invercagill is paying for $12.5 Million for the CRL and $112.5 million for Auckland Roads. (Actually just the new motorway bits actually)

      1. You are assuming that there zero spent on anything anywhere else in the country when you come up with those numbers. Remember that Invercargill is heavily supported by cheap electricity from Manapouri to run Tiwai Pt.

  23. National are pandering to their electorate. Middle-class middle-income office workers who live on the true blue North Shore and drive to work. We can’t have them resorting to icky public transport like people do in other cities all over the world.

    1. Fortunately there are a number of us on the Shore who see public transport as the best option. I am so incensed by the prospect of a second vehicle crossing that I have determined to be politically active again and will do everything that I can to ensure that it doesn’t happen, while at the same time arguing vigorously for the intensification of the inner north shore that will ensure the success of light metro.

      Part of the opposition to a second crossing should be an easy sell. I believe that the rest of NZ is not likely to embrace the project, particularly if there is huge scepticism from the people whom it is supposed to benefit.

      I am not convinced that there currently is a significant congestion problem on the bridge at the moment. I travel the route twice daily, during peak, on a bus. There are never delays in the morning and only minor delays in the evening. I spend a far greater amount of time grid locked on Albert St and Fanshawe.

      Sorry, I’ve just got it – your post was probably some sort of veiled attack on Iaam-Milford.

      1. Very thinly veiled too. I agree about the motorway and am frankly disgusted by the rest of the Shore embracing money being wasted ‘for us’ especially given the damage it will cause in Shoal Bay.

        1. I am not sure that is actually happening on the shore? I am a shoreite as well and actually hear very little about the need for a second harbour crossing. I suspect it is an atrempt to placate the shore but don’t know if it will work particularly as it is so far in the future.

        2. I don’t hear anyone talking about a need for it either but whenever it gets brought up the response seems to be ‘oh, thats good, traffic is getting pretty bad’.

  24. Well. That was weird. Since when was the east west link part of ameti? Does the east west link even exist as project? Are they going to turn Neilson St into a motorway? Elevated? Anyway all a bit – weird. No mention of road pricing that I saw.

      1. Thanks Luke I went back to take a look. So according to the PM, the east west link is so vitally important as to be fast tracked, even though we don’t know what it is, where it is, or even what we want it to do. Crikey, is that the way we do things now?

  25. I thought the same thing. How can you say they are a “joint” project? Thats just trying to fudge the east-west link (the new darling child of the chamber of commerce) into AMETI numbers.

  26. Smaller tunnel from bottom of Stanley St to Akoranga dedicated to buses and trucks, minivans only, linking in with busway and a on/off ramp to SH1 near Esmond Rd. South end could link Trucks to Port etc and onto Stanly St via cut’n’cover. Present Harbour bridge would certainly last much longer and have improved flows.

      1. buses and trucks can use the same infrastructure saving them congestion and easing the bridge, To me rail is way OTT and would surely only be worthwhile if replacing the entire busway and further north, which would add huge expense and surely wouldn’t be necessary for a few decades yet. At which time extra tunnels could be done then. That may coincide with the clip-ons retirement.

        1. 2 rail tracks = 12 motorway lanes. Cost effective, efficient, energy efficient, landuse efficient. better. Why else does every city in the world have them? With our road obsession; do we know something about cities that no one else in the world has thought of, or is it just that we aren’t really that used to the economics of cities yet?

          That’s right, it’s the latter.

        2. Why should trucks be able to use it? Why do buses need a new tunnel when 2 lanes on the old bridge would be enough?

  27. Auckland Transport’s chairperson Lester Levy expertly sells the value of public transport for car fans: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10893701

    “We need the whole public to change the way they think about this, because people are ground down by congestion.

    “But in the end, the person who loves being in their car the most is the person who should love public transport the most, because the only way the car journey is going to be pleasant is when we get a significant number of people using public transport.”

    Contrast with those who make money from building more motorways:
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/138836/auckland-transport-%27milestone%27-welcomed

    “Council for Infrastructure Development chief executive Stephen Selwood says the projects are a major milestone and will shape the city, determining how it will grow for the next 100 years.”

    Yes, yes they will. Where’s the coherent opposition to that sort of future?

  28. So nice to read that the Politicians all agree to a second harbour crossing. There is absolutely no doubt that we will need a second crossing on the basis of 1. growth and 2. deterioration of the existing bridge. There will never be a cheaper time to build the tunnel than now when borrowing money is cheap, the Kiwi dollar is high, and plenty of labour available. The socialists on this blog need to take a back seat and accept progress. Perhaps the biggest fear for many is not that they might actually have to pay a toll, but the fact these large projects will create employment and they may run out of excuses for not working!

    1. Great to see you back Phil! Have corrected your statement…

      There is absolutely no doubt that we will not need a second crossing on the basis of 1. falling traffic volumes and 2. that it will last another 100 years if we keep the super mega trucks off it.

      My pleasure…

    2. What I am vaguely curious about is where all the heavy, noisy, dirty construction equipment and associated workers will hang out while building this new crossing. Northcote Point would seem an obvious location….

    3. You guys are too harsh on Phil, he is completely right, the Busway use is growing rapidly and we need a tunnel now!!!

  29. Come on guys, embrace the future…a second harbour crossing and now you wont have a need for an expensive and wasteful Skypath. As for Geoff and Red Bryce…no doubt you have the inside line on the growth of Auckland and condition of the Bridge that eludes the Government. I mean, obviously you know better right 😀 😀 😀

    1. Sorry to have to break it to you but the NZTA have already said that Skypath is now their preferred option for a walking/cycling crossing. That means that even if another road crossing were to happen, Skypath would too. As for expensive, $25 million for a ped and cycle crossing vs $5 billion for a car crossing.

    2. I don’t get how the Skypath is supposed to be wasteful either. They’re setting it up with user pays (as an insult to pedestrians and cyclists).

      I would have thought that an active transport link to the North Shore was highly bloody useful and necessary.

    3. Red Bryce. I love it. Guess what Phil? I got kicked off the Labour Blog prior to the last election. I don’t care which party does what as long as they share my values and vision. I’m probably a bit more Green these days now that most of the socialist extremists have left, although I still disagree with a few policies. Nothing’s perfect.
      You know how LB wants a harbor crossing for vehicles? I’m dead against it but I’m also happy to admit that the Southern Motorway could use some work which will leave the proposed Mill Rd corridor over-built and a waste of valuable resources. Balance is what works. Your opposition to the skypath but love of a vehicular tunnel at $5B is not balanced in the slightest. Have a nice life. I don’t feel the need to reply to any more of your posts.

  30. So apart from the insult exchange, lets look at the facts (I know you like them).
    1. Inflation means there is no time cheaper to build a second harbour crossing than now.
    2. Interest rates are historically low so the Govt can borrow the money to build now cheaper than it would cost in the future.
    3. The NZ dollar is at a historical high now so all imported products needed to complete the construction are cheaper than likely to be in the future.
    4. The economy is in a downturn period and construction costs are lower than likely to be in a future upturn economy.
    5. Metal fatigue is not science fiction, its science fact, the bridge wont last forever
    6. The population of Auckland is going to grow and create more traffic demand.
    Now I know you people like to bury your heads in the sand but facts are facts. The Govt is showing great leadership in getting Auckland a second crossing at the best time possible. If you cant see that then you are….mmmm…..stupid!

  31. Poor Phil, to use a metaphor he won’t like, his train is fast leaving the station; the world is rapidly becoming a very different place to the one he desperately wants to believe it is.

  32. And yet boys and girls the Government just green lighted a second harbour crossing with the support of the opposition. Short of you MAMILS organising a coup and installing the communist leadership you obviously desire, the tunnel is going to happen. The same can not be said of Skypath 🙂

    1. Do you actually have something to add or are you just a troll who can’t read? I suggest you read my post a few above this one. Further not everyone on here, myself included, even own a bike yet I support it as I can see the benefits. I think you will also find that we have readers who agree with us on this and many other topics from a wide range of the political spectrum.

  33. @ Matt L. NZTA may have said Skypath was the preferred option but that does not mean it will go ahead. There are plenty of obstacles to cover first, not least strong opposition from residents. Also with a second crossing now a go, it would be much cheaper to wait for the tunnel to be built and then have a cycle path on one of the existing bridge lanes. Saves $$$’s that way and gets around any opposition to the project. We should all be happy with the second crossing announcement as everyone will be a winner, especially cyclists as they can have a toll free crossing on the existing bridge lane and wont ever have to pay a toll in the tunnel because they wont be crossing by car.

    1. Why are you so strongly opposed to Skypath but happy to have a cycling crossing on the existing bridge?

    2. “Also with a second crossing now a go, it would be much cheaper to wait for the tunnel to be built and then have a cycle path on one of the existing bridge lanes.”

      On what planet is $5 billion much cheaper than $40 million?

  34. Because I am not opposed to cycling. I just believe for very good reasons that Skypath is an expensive project that is too invasive of local residents.

  35. Trev…. Think about it. The tunnel is going to be built regardless of skypath. The Saving is in not wasting the money building skypath now but waiting a few years till the second crossing is working and having an existing clip on lane for cyclists and peds. Do you get that now?
    Skypath is invasive because of the entry/exit ramps that are placed in residential areas. If the clip on was a cycle lane the entry/exit would be away from residents.

    1. Let’s be completely frank here. If any local residents think entry and exit ramps are too invasive then they are complete fucking morons.

  36. Well Matt the residents are concerned about the estimated 5000 users a day tramping past their homes and also all the casual parking and chaos it will bring. I dont know how you would brand them ‘complete fucking morons’ unless you believe morons achieve the sort of wealth required to buy a home on Northcote Point of St Marys Bay. With property prices in both those suburbs being what they are, chances are the residents are made up of very clever people.

    1. All their fears are overstated snobbery. 5000 bikes past a day would be a pleasure compared to 50 trucks. Parking can be controlled with parking controls, and have they brought out the “we’re going to get robbed” line yet? I’ve seen that one rolled out in opposition to bike paths before.

      If any stick in the mud NIMBYs are really, really, really worried let the NZTA buy their houses (much as they are doing in Kapiti for their expressway) and then let the NZTA sell their houses (probably at a profit anyway, since the value of the home would most likely increase with the cycleway) afterwards. Their misfounded and selfish concerns should not put a stop to what is a great project to link the North Shore to the city by an active transport route. 5000 journeys a day on the Skypath is also another great way to drop vehicle demand on the bridge, so the tunnel’s raison d ‘etre is looking more and more never needed.

    2. Unless of course they just bought years ago when it was affordable and have ridden the boom until now. And now of course dont want anyone else coming in to their neighbourhood. You know the ones, NIMBY Baby Boomers.

    3. We’ve been here before, but I mustn’t be the only person for whom these sorts of comments are just self-entitlement on a stick. We’ve had an entire thread of Phil’s poorly reasoned and ill-tempered opposition, so there’s no point going over it again here, but I thought I should quote the following section for great justice.

      “I dont know how you would brand them ‘complete fucking morons’ unless you believe morons achieve the sort of wealth required to buy a home on Northcote Point of St Marys Bay”

      Quite how one man’s crusade against this project became such an existential fight in which the very values of the opponent, captured in a small public works project, are threatened from all sides baffles me. Truly, an enigma wrapped in a mystery.

  37. Talking of Morons…here’s a quote from someone who def doesnt know what they are talking about:

    “Oil prices are going to go up (available oil to buy on the world market has gone down a million barrels a day per year for the last 7 years at the same time as developing nation demand has gone up) so fuel taxes aren’t going to be able to be raised easily on top of already rising petrol prices”.

    Obviously no one informed you about Fracking and how that has been such a game changer that the US may go from a net oil importer to an exporter over the next 10 years.

    1. Really. You’re a believer in that bit of proaganda? Ever seen the decline rate on a fracked well. They’re stripper wells within a year. Know why they have to be fracked? Because the rocks aren’t naturally porous. So really they’re fracking because all the good wells with porous rocks have been and are nearly gone. Fracking is a symptom of the decline in the availability of easily won oil, not it’s saviour.

    2. Once more a graph shows the reality of the situation:
      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c8/IEA_2010UnknownSources2.jpg

      Look at the dark blue and light blue. Now what does that do to a little NZ petrol station price board when we are tying to buy with our little kiwi dollars in a world where everyone wants some?

      Even if fracking was magical (rather than something most communities don’t want to happen near them) it ain’t going to save use from the reality.

      Now instead of having our energy stored in the chemical bonds of alkanes that become more and more expensive as the decades roll on, we could use some of the electrons we produce ourselves. I don’t know how, but here’s a good start: http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2013/07/04/electric-trains-will-significantly-boost-capacity/

    3. Poor deluded Phil; swallows every bit of corporate PR he sees. So Phil now that the world is awash in fracked oil how come the price isn’t back to 10 bucks a barrel?

      Could it just be that while this makes a great story to keep people from changing their habits for a bit longer it is actually making very little material difference to the global supply/demand balance?

      Yes, that’s exactly it.

    1. To be fair there has been an uptick in production and an even bigger fall in imports since that chart ends but the truth of your point remains: The US is heading for a tertiary peak in production. That is a 21st century high, but one that is lower than either the massive conventional fields peak of 1970 [the real cause of the seventies oil crisis] and the secondary Alaskan Prudhoe Bay sourced peak of the mid 80s.

      The best news is as I explain here http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2013/07/04/the-decline-of-car-culture-in-the-west/ that the massively wasteful US use is starting to move in the right direction. Starting. This is helping their economy and balance of payments enormously. It is also helping to keep the price of to *only* around the $100 mark, as this means that more tankers can turn left out of the Red Sea and supply Asia instead of mostly having to go to the US.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *