1. Speaking of Waterview, does anyone know what the status is of the cycleway connection between Waterview and the existing SH20 cycleway? I know it was an RMA condition of the motorway being constructed, but is it funded, does it have a date for construction, or detailed design?

        1. It is correct that the consent process has again been delayed (unsure why – haven’t talked to the project manager in the last month, heard it from another AT manager). Consultation (the next stage coming in the Notice of Requirement process for the cycleway consents) will likely not happen until early 2014 now.

          NZTA’s contractor may or may not build it (they pay for it – or for $8 million worth of work – as part of their mitigation conditions of consent for the motorway impacts. But first AT needs to actually get the blimmin’ consents. Not an easy task, admittedly, what with the route involving two bridges, crossing a KiwiRail line, an ecologically sensitive stream and several private properties (including a university and a block of Iwi land). But still, I would have hoped for a bit more progress by now.

          1. So let’s get this straight. NZTA can make huge progress on a massive motorway project since consent was granted but AT can’t make any progress on a small cycleway.


          2. Cycling is not even on AT’s radar, I think an intern works on these projects during their holidays from doing a law degree at university. That’s the whole cycling team at AT.

          3. NZTA had the grunt of a full NZTA team doing a “Road of National Significance” application with a 9 month, no-appeals-allowed-later fast-tracked approval process designed essentially for the specific project by the minister. Admittedly, they also had years of preparation ahead of this, before they lodged the application.

            AT is doing a Notice of Requirement process (more difficult than a standard resource consent), of which they knew they would need to do it since early/mid 2011 (2 plus years). They haven’t lodged yet, and their process WILL allow appeals, so it will probably take them another 1-2 years before they can think of building.

          4. Re bbc’s comment – AT’s cycling team is a wee bit bigger, and the Waterview Cycleway project is led by a quite experienced engineer (and a team of consultants) that I trust to get the design done right (I have seen much more detailed plans than have been publicly released) – they aren’t some interns…

            BUT there seems to be very limited urgency about the whole thing, which is my major gripe. As it is, we can count ourselves lucky if Waterview Cycleway doesn’t open later than the motorway!

          5. Max, there is a CLG meeting scheduled for 10 December – I have asked that the cycleway be put on the agenda, adding that I am still hopeful that I will be physically capable of riding a bike when the bikeway is opened.

            While I am somewhat amazed that it will take as long to build the bikeway as the motorway, AT are having to start the consenting from scratch. NZTA never anticipated that CA and the community groups would succedd in getting provision of the cycleway added as a consent condition for the motorway project.

          6. Hi Duncan – I have also asked for it to be on the agenda. I am also fully aware of the “delayed start” that AT is facing compared to the motorway. Still, it will be about 3 years (!) between when they first heard they would be doing this, and when they will finally lodge (because I don’t think they will do so before mid next year). Add another 1-2 years for appeals, and they won’t be able to start construction before 2015-16 (and that assumes they have that ready to go once appeals are completed). All that makes it unlikely they will be finished before the motorway guys leave.

          7. Are the CLG meetings open to the general public?
            Given the planning and design work that was already completed prior to mid 2011, I cannot understand why some construction has not started by now.
            It’s just a glorified footpath, which should be bread & butter for the council.
            Given the amount of time that has past, I sure hope the design has been improved to give a straighter more direct route with better sight lines, i.e. get rid of the wiggly bits and bends, and provide a direct connection through Unitec to the western cycle track rather than the diversion around Gt Nth Rd.
            Also, with the work going on between the motorway & Unitec, I’d really like to see the western cycle track run beside the motorway under Carrington Rd.

    1. TBM’s have been used on many projects in NZ, including the Kaimai and Porootarao railway tunnels, and the recent Manapouri second tunnel. Also the various tunnels built around Auckland in recent years, including Mairangi Bay, Hobson Bay and Vector tunnels, all used TBM’s. I think the latest Tongariro power scheme tunnel used a TBM as well.

      1. Im pretty sure the Vector tunnel going from Penrose to Hobson street was constructed using a TBM. It even has a stainless steel train 🙂

      2. Vector used a TBM from Transpower Penrose to Liverpool St (about 6.2km), and a roadheader* from Hobson St to Liverpool St (about 3km). A TBM suits long straight runs while a roadheader being more flexible can follow city streets, but is of course much slower. The TBM was dismantled below ground in a chamber under Liverpool St (or thereabouts).

        The diesel train (with catalytic convertor to clean the exhaust) is used for maintenance.

        *For anyone not clear about the difference, a roadheader is like an enormous dentist’s drill on tracks. The drill head can move vertically and laterally and simply grinds away at the face.

Leave a Reply