Regular readers will likely know about the plans by the NZTA to replace the old Mangere Bridge which is now more almost 100 years old and requires a lot of maintenance to keep open. One of the massive advantages of the old bridge is that being a former road it is quite wide and it has become a very popular spot for walking, cycling and fishing with the width allowing everyone to happily do these activities without impacting on others. This is shown quite well in this time-lapse the NZTA made on a mid-winters day (imagine just how much busier it would be in summer)
However people were annoyed, not because of the plan to replace the bridge but because the new bridge was proposed to be only 6m wide. If it were a new pedestrian/cycle bridge that width would be considered wonderful but the current bridge is around 15m wide and so the replacement would represent a significant narrowing of the path. That might have been ok if it was just walkers and cyclists but throw in people fishing and things can quickly get quite narrow.
So some good news today from the NZTA that as a result of the feedback they received, they are going to make the replacement wider. Here is the press release.
Community feedback from both sides of Auckland’s Manukau Harbour has made a significant impact on the next phase of the NZ Transport Agency’s project to replace the Old Mangere Bridge.
The Transport Agency has advertised tenders to design the new bridge and its Highway Manager for Auckland, Tommy Parker, says that design will include features requested by the community.
“We’ve heard them very clearly and we’re delighted to be able to respond positively to ensure the new bridge continues to be a much loved and popular connection between communities,” Mr Parker says.
Mr Parker says one the most significant changes is that the bridge will be wider than the six metres the Transport Agency had originally planned for.
“The bridge will now be designed to have a basic width of eight metres, with some sections or bays up to 12 metres wide. This will ensure that people can continue to enjoy to fish from the new bridge and walk and cycle across it safely just as they do now.”
Other elements to be included in the design of the new bridge include:-
- Constructed next to the old bridge and further from the port
- A higher clearance above the harbour than the existing bridge for better boat access (the new bridge, however, must have a gradient that is comfortable for walkers and cyclists)
- Enhanced lighting, seating, railings and rubbish bins
- Features yet to be confirmed that reflect the area’s iwi connections and rich history
“These elements mirror the feedback we received last year,” Mr Parker says. “The project team’s worked hard to incorporate the community’s wishes and this is an excellent result for everyone.
“Identifying these issues upfront means that they can be included into the design right at the start of this phase of the project. This delivers more certainty about the cost of the bridge and value for money for the Transport Agency, and great transparency for the community.”
Mr Parker says $1m in funds has been approved for the design of the bridge. As part of the tender process, the Transport Agency is working closely with iwi, Auckland Council and the Historic Places Trust. It is anticipated a successful tender will be named in October.
There will be a second chance for community feedback in early 2014 on the detailed designed for the new bridge. The Transport Agency plans to start construction later in 2014 with completion estimated in 2016, around 100 years after the existing bridge opened.
Once the replacement bridge has been constructed, it will be transferred to Auckland Council as its asset.
The Old Mangere Bridge is believed to be the oldest reinforced concrete bridge crossing a harbour in New Zealand. With the opening of a new Southwestern Motorway spanning the Manukau Harbour in 1983, the bridge was closed to all traffic except walkers and cyclists. It is also one of Auckland’s most popular fishing locations.
That certainly seems like a decent improvement on what was originally proposed but what do you users of the bridge think of this change? It’s also interesting that the NZTA will hand it over to the council to be maintained after it has been built.
There is of course one more bridge that will be needed in the area in the future, one to carry rail on it’s way to the airport.
Processing...
Hm – wonder what the comparative costs are of building a pedestrian bridge now and a rail bridge later, or a pedestrian+rail bridge now? You just have to design the approach formations for rail access to the bridge, but don’t have to build them yet.
Besides, grades suitable for rail will definitely be comfortable for cyclists.
These composite bridge beams were originally designed for Class 1 rail loads here in the US and could be used on a hybrid Mangere structure.
http://tinyurl.com/HCB-Videos
http://redoit.org/wp-content/uploads/HCB-Boardwalk-Marine-Structures.pdf
I think it would be more aesthetically pleasing to have any future rail be attached/below/near the main motorway bridge rather than near this new pedestrian bridge. Pedestrians and railway lines don’t mix well. Maybe Jasmax who designed a lot of the nice bridges around Auckland will come up with something to win the tender.
This whole area is such a nice area to cycle around. Glad they’re giving locals what they want.
Peter – The motorway bridge only allows for a single track to be under it. Here is a rough indication of where a double tracked bridge would go.
I can envisage bungling and shortcuts with the single vs double track choice, just as they seem to stuff things up with previous transport projects. (Britomart entrance, Onehunga station platform length, HOP/AT HOP or whatever etc). They’ll do the single track option and it will become a bottleneck in the future.
Some of those aren’t actually bungles, the Onehunga platform length was actually done deliberately short to enable services to get started sooner. This is because there were issues on either end of the platform that needed to be sorted out first (consent to have the platform closer to houses at one end while some technical aspects to work out with Kiwirail at the other). if ARTA had of waited till they had the full consent needed to do the platform in one go services would have not started for an extra year or so. Building it shorter allowed services to start earlier.
As for Britomart, the tunnel was built before the station itself was even signed off. They had to do that as the Ngati Whatua wanted to develop the land so they had to build it then or lose the opportunity. Considering there was no guarantee the rest of the development would ever happen it was quite an extraordinary risk that was taken.
What Matt L said, plus the single track was already there. It was a rehabilitation, not a new line. There was never going to be money to widen the corridor, lay in a full double track bed, rebuild all of the level crossings, etc etc. It was an unproven line which hadn’t had a train along it for many decades. The best that could ever have been hoped for at the outset was getting the existing track up to a usable state and construction of a platform. Those “bungles” and “shortcuts” enabled the Onehunga Line to be coming to the close of its third year of revenue service, instead of probably being still tied up in funding arguments and consent hearings.
Looking at that last picture, they should probably finish the motorway bridge first. Those cars and trucks heading south in the photo are in for a rude shock in a few seconds! 😉
Pedestrian + rail could make sense but realistically (we are talking AT and the Govt), how far away is a train line to the Airport. Plus from a noise perspective, having the rail bridge separate would be more beneficial.
They mention moving the location of the bridge away from the port; how far?, looking like the space for the rail bridge is getting squeezed…. Are NZTA really planning ahead here, actually thinking all modes?
Well given the new boat ramp being built at the moment and the work that was done on the causeway I doubt it is going to be that far away. Might even be right beside the current one.
I do wonder at the value we are getting out of building an extra wide ped bridge essentially for recreational fishing. Hard to see how this NZTA’s cross to bear.
Can someone clarify for me why NZTA are funding this new bridge (Im happy they are) but not able to restore the Old Kopu bridge. I was told that they only restore state highway bridges. So does this new bridge count as part of the state highway?
I suspect its all part of the mitigation of that large motorway going through the area.
The old kopu bridge would get the average daily use of about 3 rats and a squirrel and so hardly justifies any mitigation on the same level. Not to mention the ongoing maintenance cost.
Ha, love the “3 rats and a squirrel” remark. Do inductive vehicle counters pick these up I wonder?
For the same reason they are happy to build a new Mangere bridge but not maintain the old one?
Bryce I think the old one is getting very difficult and expensive to maintain. It is 100 years old after all.
That’s what I meant. It’s so old that the maintenance is high and in the same way, so too is the old Kopu bridge, sorry to say. Old buildings can be great to keep because they can be re-used and made to pay their way (Britomart) but the Kopu Bridge doesn’t meet this standard. Take some photos and remember it. There is only so much coin to go around.
Does the new Kopu bridge have provisions for pedestrian and cycles? I think it does which is why there is no “need” to maintain the old kopu bridge.
That differs to this bridge which acts as the pedestrian and cycle crossing since the motor way bridge is motor vehicles only.
@Harvey Specter, (your reply had no reply button, damn nested relies)
The Mangere “Motorway” bridge does have a walking and cycling path, but it is underneath and is not seen as overly user friendly nor safe,,,,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mangere_Bridge_(bridges)
Interesting. The question therefore is why is this a transport project for NZTA.
I 100% agree with the new bridge being built. Perhaps the bridge is an admission from NZTA that the pedestrian / cycling / community path on the motorway bridge is not up to a useable standard?
Perhaps acknowledgement is a better word than admission 🙂
Wow, I never knew that path was there. It’s actually not to different from what they plan for the skypath.
Do you think it could be successfully operated with a toll?
Aside from being on a motorway bridge, its very different to the skypath. Its just a dark, concrete path under a bridge (not alongside it, well lit, with a great view).
Put a few animated bright lights and its the same. 😉
Seriously now, have they planned for fishing areas on the skypart?
I think the path itself is actually quite good being nice and wide with good views.
What it misses out on however is CPTED however and being located in what is historically a very rough part of town makes the lack of security and lighting a real issue.
If it had been manned and tolled it would not have had these issues but then it would have most likely had a high ongoing cost.
For the skypath the demographics of the surrounding area may help however if you have ever visited the north bridge abutment at night you will see that gets pretty scary as well.
No one used the vile Traffic Engineers’ rapists’ delight walkway under the motorway; why would they? It’s dangerous, indirect, unpleasant and just an afterthought to the eight lane brute above, especially when there was real pedestrian and cycling amenity in the form of the old bridge… now about to be ‘upgraded’ ie replaced by something newer but less optimal.
Re: “historically a very rough part of town”. I wouldn’t call Onehunga and Mangere Bridge particularly rough. No worse than Northcote, but perhaps that is VERY rough by your North Shore standards.
They rightly should replace upgrade as part of transport budgets. it is a busy cycle connection between the airport, south and central Auckland. Cycling is transport. They would be driving over the bridge otherwise making your trip to the airport slower.
Patrick, can you explain to us how a direct link over the harbour is “indirect”? Are you suggesting a 10km detour around the harbour is more direct than a 700m bridge?
While your at it you could tell how you arrived at the conclusion it was an afterthought. Given the obvious huge cost of providing it and the fact the original plan was to remove the old bridge it seems more like it was a key part of the bridge.
As for being unpleasant I would agree that it is not overly nice. However apart from the obvious crime issues it is little different from the Sydney harbour bridge or many of the ones in Manhattan. And obvious issue with it is that its designed for all weather conditions and so is not as nice as it could be on a still summers day. Not too different to a design issue the skypath will face with any translucent roof likely getting covered in road grim.
And peter, I live near Onehunga not the northshore.
Much as a new harbour crossing will be challenged by the existing one if it is tolled, the existence of the old Mangere Bridge would present a challenge to tolling the corridor under the motorway. There is no ready alternative to Skypath if you aren’t in a motor vehicle, but cyclists and pedestrians aren’t in any way forced to use the corridor when the old bridge is right next door (and much more convenient for most users).
“For the skypath the demographics of the surrounding area may help however if you have ever visited the north bridge abutment at night you will see that gets pretty scary as well.”
I havent been to the abutment too late at night, but if the youth are anything like the ones who hang out over on Birkenhead point, I am afraid you are a bit of a wuss Lauren. I get a few blotto kids bumbling up my street from the park – they are generally polite and good natured despite being unable to walk in a straight line.
The sky path will be a roaring success.
Plus, on the AHB, even once Skypath comes in, there will be no better, more direct alternative, SF Lauren. If you are willing to pay for something even better than SkyPath, well, we’re happy to have it. Right now, though we’re just wanting SOME reasonable walk/cycle route over the Waitemata.
As it is, you are just trolling a bit by comparing future apples with an old rotten orange.
The quality / layout of the existing under-bridge path:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mangere_Bridge_Cycleway_On_Western_Side_III.jpg
Max. As your photo and the other ones show the path itself is actually pretty good. Where it has been let down, like I said just before, is in the CPTED aspects with no security CCTV or apparent lighting.
Other than that the only difference is the the skypath is currently CG with pulsating neon lights with animated characters community with glee in a perpetually sunny Auckland.
It’s also not comfortably accessible on a road bicycle as the southern approach path is unsealed. Which makes it a bit of a non-starter for the many dozens of road cyclists who travel that route as part of the airport loop. So it’s a security disaster and also not friendly to a large group of users.
As someone who was, as linked, deeply critical of the original planned width, this is pretty good news. It’s still not 14 metres for the full length, but at minimum it’s got enough width for 2×1.5m bike lanes plus 2.5m shared space for pedestrians and fishers on each side. Well done on listening to feedback, AT/NZTA.
Crazy common sense thought but why not extend the Onehunga rail line down the disused freight rail bed that goes right up to it already and put railway tracks across a new bridge (built to accommodate the tracks of course) to Mangere Bridge village and then beyond! Very simple and a step on the way to the airport.
That route takes the rail away from Mangere East and Mangere, which is where the biggest residential population is on the way to the airport.
just rebuild the bridge because? I think at one point its not gonna be any safer within a few years to carry passengers across … although the bridge has been an anonymous fishing resort for the community I suggests a rebuild and more optional scenery… Now we are obviously being rude to AT Transport by the way….
Kei te hoki mai te purakau o Hape raua ko Kaiwharau? ;-p