Brian Rudman wrote an opinion piece a few days ago about plans to replace the Te Wero Bridge that connects Wynyard Quarter to the CBD
It’s true the $3.7 million Te Wero drawbridge across the Viaduct Harbour was not built with longevity in mind. In 2010, with the Rugby World Cup looming and no money for the $51 million “aesthetically world class” winner of a 2007 Auckland City Council design competition in sight, the modest pedestrian-cycle bridge we now enjoy was rushed up as a temporary solution.
To save face, the political champions of the “legacy” project said the new structure would be replaced, in 2016, by the prize-winner. This had twin sail-like arms which would “carry cyclists, pedestrians, passenger transport and possibly light rail”.
But as of now, the only things replaced have been the political dreamers who were cheerleading the project, like councillors Sam Lotu-Iiga and Aaron Bhatnagar.
This week, as Auckland councillors sharpen their hatchets to trim $4.4 billion of capital spending from the mayor’s 10-year wishlist, the council’s development agency, Waterfront Auckland, made a desperate bid to keep the legacy dream alive.
Ever the optimist, chief executive John Dalzell called for a start by year’s end to fit in with the construction of a new hotel and apartment blocks. If we don’t have “the right infrastructure at the right time we won’t receive an optimal uplift in land value”, he told councillors.
But who wants to shell out a king’s ransom for “optimal uplift” when we already have the right infrastructure in place.
The existing bridge is certainly more modest in size and appearance than the prize-winning design, but it’s both eminently functional and popular. That it was born a “temporary” structure seems irrelevant. It’s in good company.
[….]
To me, the time to come seeking funds for a replacement bridge is not now, but when the idea of light rail along the waterfront to Britomart and beyond is more than just an unfunded pipe dream. Until then, it is surplus to requirements.
There’s a lot of debate that can be had about whether there should be light rail across to Britomart and further afield. I certainly think there’s a case to do that at some point with along with an extension up Queen St – effectively a replacement for the City Link service along with Queen St being a transit mall. One thing I don’t think can really be debated though is whether we will need a new bridge or not.
For starters as Rudman acknowledges the bridge was only ever meant to be temporary with a replacement being in 2016. The thing is, it being temporary also translated to its design and so keeping it longer than the five years originally planned will likely involve some very costly maintenance.
The second issue is I’m not convinced the bridge will have enough capacity in five years-time. Yesterday was a good example as waterfront was heaving with people out enjoying the beautiful weather (and a few taking their fathers out for a meal. It was a struggle to get across the bridge simply due to the sheer number using it. After 2016 we’ll have a lot more development of Wynyard that will have been completed further making it an even more interesting destination for people putting even more pressure on the bridge.
I would suggest that regardless of whether we build light rail now or not a new and larger bridge will be needed soon. Designing it so light rail tracks could easily be added later (while still leaves plenty of space for pedestrians and cyclists) seems like the right thing to do.
As an aside here’s what the bridge that won the design competition in 2007 was meant to look like.
Processing...
it will cost at least $50million including removal , administration , usual council over runs and what ever else currency changes .For get 25 million .and what an insult to the name of the bridge and for what it represents relegated to the recycle bin .
I’m waiting on a response from Waterfront Auckland to a few questions:
1) How much design life is left in the existing temporary bridge?
2) If the temporary bridge isn’t replaced, how much would it cost to keep it maintained and operational?
3) If the bridge is replaced later, how much additional cost is involved?
4) Has Waterfront Auckland done an economic valuation of the uplift in property values if light rail is implemented, vs the status quo?
5) What is the plan for the small carpark on Te Wero Island, which directly conflicts with the movement of pedestrians and bikes?
I can’t see how anyone can come to a conclusion without knowing the answers to these and other questions first.
I do wonder about how safe the temp bridge is if it is often that crowded.
Last night the bridge apparently wouldn’t close completely after lowering and so the gates at each end wouldn’t open. The guards tried to keep a lot of impatient people (mostly international tourists on a Sunday night) from jumping the fence for about ten minutes, but eventually gave up and let everyone across. Maybe it’s already having maintenance issues.
Assuming the existing bridge is still in good working order and maintainable. Can we keep the existing bridge and build a second bridge for light rail? Or extend the existing useless tram line to Queens wharf?
Does the bridge really get that busy?
Yesterday at 3pm I could still ride across it (slowly, but I didn’t have to dismount).
Once Cameron’s questions above are answered we’ll know whether we need it, or just want it.
It is constantly busy from my experience, but not to the point above on a daily basis, however when a big event is being held in Wynyard Quarter or at the Event Center, or there is an especially good day, then the bridge can be packed to un-movable. I guess the question that results is, if we are designing roads for peak time traffic, should we not be applying the same standards to our pedestrian and cycle facilities?
Exactly. We are spending $100s of million for a motorway to serve traffic on a few days a year (sorry, and to subsidise private trucking businesses), why not a pedestrian/cycling/PT bridge?
If the current bridge was not built with longevity in mind then who signed it off. This person needs the sack. Just as well the Harbour bridge was built with longevity in mind. The pedestrian bridge survived the 1000s and 1000s of people that used it during the Rugby cup and since then, so what is the real reason someone wants to spend big bucks and build another one. Starting to sound a bit fishy to me. I wonder who would get the contract if the idiotic idea goes ahead. There is more to this than meets the eye when Len Brown has anything to do with it.
From what I understand from people involved in the project, it was John Banks who led the charge to have the Te Aro bridge built as cheaply as possible. The cost to put in a future proofed, light rail capable bridge was not that much higher but since it didn’t carry cars, he wasn’t really that interested or believe in it. I doubt he ever imagined so many people would use the area.
As with just about every public project in Auckland (e.g. harbour bridge), it was done on the cheap by people who claim to be fiscally responsible. In the long run it costs us more but they don’t care because by then they are gone or everyone has forgotten.
To paraphrase Wilde, people like Banks, Brewer and the C&R crowd know the costs of everything and the value of nothing. And the failed legacies of that are everywhere in Auckland. Frustrating and sad.
The bridge was only intended for temporary use, to serve the RWC and beyond till a replacement is built 2016. The reasoning was the need to have it in place prior to the RWC and complete a properly ‘not rushed’ designed bridge to last the test of time at a later stage. I’m glad to hear they are sticking to a plan for once, rather than the usual standards of Auckland, where temporary usually ends up being the permanent solution, which is always substandard for the intended use.
This was heavily discussed in the public light at the time, after the huge public design competition for the permanent solution was completed so not sure where the confusion on this is coming from. As to who signed it off, would of being the person following the publicly consulted specific brief.
John Banks, has, pretty clearly, had ‘the sack’. First by the people at the ballot box, then by the law.
But of course fellow cost cutter, short-term thinker, and opposer of any investment in value for the city is still there: Mr Negative himself Cameron Brewer. And the other arch-Miseralist: Dick Quax. These guys perfectly fulfil Wilde’s definition of a cynic, they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
Lets not confuse things here. Light rail is just another fancy name for trams and trams could quite easily travel along the existing lanes & roadways in the Viaduct area. A few motorists may have to find somewhere else to park but “tough!”
I’ve always thought the same thing. Not sure why a tram doesn’t loop around to Victoria park market then along flanshaw.
Not sure why you’d run a tram over a bridge that goes up and down a few times a day delaying trams.
as well as serving a greater number of locations along the way? access, isn’t that what it’s all about?
$50m? I think we have bigger and better priorities. At around 50m in length, that’s $1billion per kilometre. I bet the BCR is near zero.
If it becomes consistently congested, then let’s consider something, but at the moment this is only necessary a few days a year. A “Holiday Bridge”, to coin a phrase.
Well put. How can so much be spent on so small a bridge?
It’s actually completely crowded most weekends and frequently in the evenings, this is ignoring the fact that it’s designed life span is about to end. In any case, these a need to provide for light rail which the current bridge doesn’t support. Wynyard has a consent required mode share of 70:30 active/PT:private vehicle, and that won’t be achieved if the main route in from the city is a tiny bridge which is already struggling with a Wynyard that’s only started to be built.
$50m for a new bridge, get real guys – half that at most.
Whangerei got a new “lifting” bridge (called a “Bascule bridge”) last year, across a much wider river east of the Town Basin for $32million to do the same thing (let boats with tall masts go by).
Details here: http://www.lgnz.co.nz/home/news-and-media/2014-media-releases/draft-17/
It won awards too, so why do you guys think a new bridge will cost $50m price for a much shorter span? Because it will carry trams or buses?
The Whangarei bridge design will cope with 40+ tonne trucks in both directions – so tell me what trams/light rail vehicles weigh that much – even when fully loaded with people and Buses that weigh 40+ tonnes really?
Actually couldn’t think of a better place for a clone of/successor to the Whangarei bridge than Te Wero Island. And it looks the part too.
And as a design costs bugger all to run which is just as important in the long run.
Biggest issue with such a bridge will be keeping cars and trucks off it, as they will all want to use the shortcut it provides to Wynard Quarter.
“Biggest issue with such a bridge will be keeping cars and trucks off it, as they will all want to use the shortcut it provides to Wynard Quarter.”
Automatic lift bollards (already have them at the old – non-moving lift bridge further east) and/or stiff fines. It eventually worked on Grafton Bridge!
Cannot fathom why you’d shell out for rail over the gap at all,
There is an existing road route via Viaduct Harbour Ave / Customs St W that would capture some major businesses – Vodafone, Microsoft, the new Fonterra HQ etc. Bypassing seems daft – an I’m based in Wynyard Qtr!
Those three offices have a tram stop on the corner already. iirc the winding route around Viaduct Ave to Quay St has sharp curves that have speed and safety issues for the trams (been discussed on here in the past), and make the journey much slower than via Te Wero bridge.
Auckland Transport have been discussing an ‘urban busway’ along the northern side of Fanshaw St so why not run the tramline along that corridor and then along Quay St? There is no reason why buses can not share the same corridor as light rail, That means we just need a bigger pedestrian bridge.
I also struggle to see why light rail needs to go through this area and not along the road corridor. But regardless, whatever the decision on the bridge, there is no need to wait on getting rid of the carpark on Te Wero Island. That is a disgrace. Where else in the world would have this spot dedicated to storing metal?
It should be a green oasis in amongst the water of the harbour and the concrete of the Viaduct.
Any improvements along Fanshaw Street needs to prioritise the busway that is planned there. It could conceivably share with trams, though (done often enough overseas – shared right of way where only buses and trams are allowed).
The route along Viaduct Harbour Ave is too contorted. Would risk becoming a slow tourist attraction, not a PT facility.
I absolutely despise that bridge. While the aesthetic is pleasant enough, the fact that dozens (and sometimes hundreds) of people are routinely forced to wait while a single boat passes through is patently idiotic.
Hate to tell you, but new bridge will be exactly the same, in all likelihood. You are in a harbour. The only way you could prevent what you describe would be to put the bridge extremely high, which is just not feasible! The new bridge will be a lift or swivel bridge too.
Only alternative would be to limit boats to a very small number of slots a day. May be feasible, not sure about the legal aspect – but would be rather damaging for the Viaduct Basin viability as a lively boat quarter.
Also, from my experience you usually go like 9 times fine, 1 times wait – sort of okay.
We accept lengthy waits at traffic lights when driving, walking, cycling or in buses and trains. Occasional waiting for boat traffic seems a small price to pay for the sheer ambience and quality experience along the waterfront. In fact when I go through there I’m disappointed if I don’t see the bridge raised. To me it’s all part of the theatre.
Or you could always do whatever you did before 2011 and take the long way round.
Part of the reason for the huge cost is the nutty specification that the span should be wide enough to accomodate two super-yachts (one going in and the other out) simultaneously! As a Councillor at the time I kept questioning this over the top requirement, suggesting instead that the span be halved with an obvious cost saving – but also a reduction in cycle time (the time taken to raise and lower the bridge) which would thereby reduce the waiting time for those waiting to cross over the gap. Despite this, officers were fixated on producing an “iconic” structure and kept delivering up oversized plans for which Council had insufficient funds. In the end with the RWC rapidly coming at us with no decision on a permanent solution – the cheaper interim bridge was approved.
So can we please make sure that whatever is built is designed according to sensible criteria.
2nd comment
I also hope that we can have cleverer operating protocols for the bridge (existing and future). Small craft can pass through at any time (as they do not require the bridge to be raised) but larger craft should be required to pre-book their passage and directed towards early morning or evening time slots least likely to interrupt the flow of pedestrians, cyclists and (hopefully soon) trams. I have several times been late for appointments as I waited with dozens of others for a yacht to casually putter through the basin entrance as if they had all the time in the world. If any scheduled serviced is planned to run along the waterfront such delays will need to be more carefully managed than at present.
a) there is a 5 knot speed limit in the Viaduct.
b) It may look easy to steer one of these around but add wind and it can get very lively in a confined space.
c) I think there are consent conditions around bridge operations and boats.
Wouldn’t the tide play a part in when yachts can enter and leave? Or is that irrelevant now with dredging and motors?
Disagree, if we start limiting access flexibility we risk losing the yachts and boats that currently tie up within the harbour. This is what adds character to the viaduct. Not only that, people actually like seeing the bridge raise for boats, again part of the attraction.
Why do we need two super yachts to transition the viaduct entranceway at once?
Surely treat this like a one-way bridge for super yachts so rather than allowing both to pass side by side at once, one simply waits while the other transitions through the gauntlet and then it goes through itself, that will add all of 2 minutes more to the time the bridge is open.
And how often will two super-yachts be waiting to cross? once in year?
Its not like we’re going to host the Americas cup here again anytime soon.
I had a problem with Te Matau a Pohe. Eventually the motoring lobby would object to opening the bridge at high tide if high tide coincided with a traffic peak, and the ancient right of navigation would be curtailed. This has not happened yet and I will shed, if not blood, then serious invective, to stop it happening. Whangarei without the town basin would be tumbleweed central. Similarly, letting cars across Te Wero would be wrong.
Incidentally, the lifting span of Te Matau a Pohe is only 25 metres, as against 40 metres at Te Wero, so the costing is not really comparable.. Whether Te Wero really needs 40 metres is really dependent on the skill of Auckland boaties. The USS Missouri famously passed through the Panama Canal (Lock width 100 feet), so a Te Matau a Pohe clone should accommodate anything remotely likely to get near the viaduct basin. The structural cost of the bridge may vary as the cube of the span, so any reduction in ambition is worthwhile. And go with your own artists. A clone of Te Matau a Pohe would lack soul.
This is yet another instance where Auckland needs to make a decision now on the size and shape of future light rail.
Sorry Graeme, missed your post which explains, but of course does not justify, the large span.
There are far fewer superyachts in the harbour now that the new terminal has opened next to Silo Park..
Would a tram generate much revenue if it actually went across the bridge and out to somewhere useful like the Judges Bay area or even up to Aotea Square and Victoria Park Markets? (previously it was severely limited and not used except on weekends).
With a $51m price tag it would be best to get the most out of the current bridge’s 5-8 year life span before replacing it in 2018. Auckland can’t really justify the replacement bridge at the moment and hopefully by 2018 some alternative funding can be found.