As you may know, the NZTA plan to replace the old Mangere Bridge which is 100 years old this year. This needs to happen as the bridge is crumbling away and according to the NZTA doesn’t have much structural life left.

One of the fantastic features of the existing bridge is its width at around 15m wide. The new bridge won’t be quite so wide but still significant compared to most pedestrian/cycle bridges and will be 8m wide for most of its length extending out to 12m wide in some places where bays will provide space for fishing. It will also be a bit higher than the existing bridge to enable small boats to pass below it.

The project has progressed to the stage that the NZTA are now seeking resource consent to build the new bridge giving us some good images to see what the bridge will eventually look like. Instead of being straight like the current bridge, the new bridge will curve slightly towards the motorway bridges.

New Mangere Bridge - NW
Aerial view of the bridge from the North West
New Mangere Bridge - Harbour
Looking at the bridge from the Harbour

You can see just how much of a curve there is in the image below

New Mangere Bridge - Above

A few more images

New Mangere Bridge - Onehunga Harbour Rd
Looking South from over Onehunga Harbour Rd

The image below I’ve joined from two separate images

New Mangere Bridge - From Motorway joined

As mentioned earlier the bride is at least 8m wide across the entire length however the effective space for walking and cycling will effectively be about 6m in most places due to seating and other features – although some places get a little narrower than that. In addition the design of those features creates  chicanes all the way across the bridge.

New Mangere Bridge - Deck plan

If you want to submit on the resource consent it is open to Sunday 13 October.

Share this


  1. While overall, we think it looks pretty great, and should be a good replacement, CAA (and Council’s cycling people) aren’t really happy with the “chicanes”. I understand that they are mostly surface treatments (so you COULD ride over them), but we remain worried that they will encourage fishing people and leisure lingerers to spread out just a little too freely, making the ride across more meandering than necessary. That could be easily changed by having the surface treatment sections pulled back a little, leaving a central corridor free.

    CAA submission and blog post on that will come in a while.

    1. Yes Max, there should be a cycle lane in each direction as straight as possible and separated from pedestrians where possible.

      1. I have ridden across the current bridge and agree that the obstacles proposed above are very disappointing. Can it not combine through route with place treatments? If not then it really isn’t wide enough. The width of the old bridge is so great; there’s room for all users and uses.

        This looks cluttered and fiddly by comparison.

      2. I assume the side of the bridge you fish from depends with which way the tide runs(???) so you cant just put cycle lanes alone one edge. Having them down the middle would create crossing hazards which is why I assume they are trying to slow things down.

        1. Splits the bridge in three making the ‘pedestrian’ part two thin parts rather than one wide part. Would mean the layout is say 2.5m pedestrian, 1.5mx2 bike each way, 2.5 pedestrian. 2.5m isn’t that wide when you add in fish guts, chilly bins etc.

          1.5mx2 for bikes then 5m for everyone else would be much nicer.

          Having said that, I note Skypath is only going to be 4m wide, with 2m wide bays.

        2. So make it 3m ped, 3m bike, 2m ped, and alternate the wide sections from side to side. Remember too that there are some “splays” along the length, making the ped/fishing areas wider in a number of places.

    2. The fisherman tend to spread out and from one side to the other a lot, and I doubt they will confine themselves to the wider bays, so there will be choke points.

      The cycle lane needs to go roughly down the middle and be clearly marked

    1. It does look expensive just to ensure there is somewhere for people to fish for free – maybe all the Auckland golfers will turn up there once their golf courses have been sold 😉

    2. One isn’t needed, retaining a crossing in this location was a resource consent requirement of the motorway works recently. The existing bridge is falling apart so they are required to provide a new one

      1. Plus I understand that after the new bridge is built, NZTA want to hand it over to Council and be shod of responsibility for it (they currently own all the bridges).

      1. Any evidence the new bridge was ‘unionised’. The real difference was the method of construction, the first motorway bridge was done by building formwork then laying steel and concrete. Slow and inefficent method made worse by poor industrial relations with large on site workforce. Was ridiculously out of date even then and produced the uneven surface due to post tensioning miscalculations. The updated lanes were done by building prestressed beams off site and laying concrete deck deck on the beams. Standard method now eg Waterview. Old method was done in Spaghetti junction and mistakes led to construction collapse. ARC had built pakuranga hwy bridge with pre stressed beams laid in place by cantilever frame ( as Newmarket viaduct rebuild) so MoW should have had kick in pants to come up with traditional method.

  2. Not sure why the need for the big curve either… probably adds to the cost and doesn’t serve a purpose… Just build it as straight as possible.

  3. The concept looks good! I hope they put some emphasis on lighting. At the moment at night people are being blinded by cycle lights and fisherman’s headlamps.

  4. The curve and allied decking camber seems to be for effect and is unnecessary, A straight line is the shortest distance between two points, so presumably would be slightly cheaper and would provide a preferable level decking across the width of the bridge although a slight rise in the centre is acknowledged for the benefit of small boats. In addition, with good design, there is no reason a straight bridge cannot be as aesthetically pleasing as this curved proposal

  5. There is another reason for a straight bridge. It would leave more room for a rail crossing to Mangere Bridge township and on to the airport if the Onehunga line is selected for extension.
    In this blog there have been discussions whether the Onehunga line is preferable or whether a branch from Otahuhu through Mangere Central would be better but it is my contention that even if the latter is selected, the Onehunga line should be extended to Mangere Bridge and terminate there rather than at Onehunga as at present. There is already provision for one track to cross the harbour under the existing motoway bridge and a single track return bridge would not bankrupt NZTA.
    There is plenty of room for a station behind the shops on the eastern side of Coronation Road and the extension would greatly enhance the catchment to employment on the city side. And take cars off the airport motorway.
    The lack of a rail designation to the airport is a glaring planning omission by NZTA and a real dereliction of responsibility by this government who persist in mono modal and profligate roading expenditure to Auckland’s civic detriment.

  6. I don’t believe so. I understand there is provision in the design for the addition of a single rail track under the motorway using the same piers.

  7. Another thing that the designers need to consider is that there are a number of mopeds who use the current bridge, so there needs to be enough width in the bike lane for them as well, because otherwise they’d have to go around Otahuhu way as they cannot exceed 50km/h, no one wants to hit anyone, although I’m more worried about a stray hook from an angler than anything with wheels on the bridge.

    I agree with those saying why tf does the bridge need to curve?! Purely for aesthetics is stupid and costly. It’s a transport link for those who are unable to go on the motorway, exactly what every cyclist wants is extra distance on their morning ride to work (-_-)

    And a rail link would be great, it astounds me that such an international city as ours doesn’t have a rail like to the airport, especially since other public transport out of the airport is expensive (Airbus) or convoluted. If we have a rail link you’d actually be able to go through the area during public holidays without being stuck in traffic leading to the domestic terminal.

Leave a Reply

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