This guest post by Tim Adriaansen, an advocate for accessibility and sustainable transport, is an expanded version of a recent post on LinkedIn.

A note to readers: we suggest reading all the way to the footnote, especially if you’re new around here.

Auckland Harbour Bridge is collapsing.*

A new report investigating the health of the bridge shows that without rapid and significant changes to how the asset is managed, it is likely to suffer a ‘critical failure’ by the end of the decade.

Engineers first warned of the problem decades ago: vibrations from traffic crossing the bridge have been causing metal fatigue. The more vehicles that cross, the more that fatigue is amplified.

At present, roughly 200,000 vehicles cross the bridge every day. To prevent imminent collapse, the engineers say, this number needs to be halved. If vehicle numbers can be sufficiently reduced, then the metal fatigue impacts can be managed and the bridge will last indefinitely.

These numbers are rigorously calculated based on observation of the bridge, its construction, and how it is impacted by the laws of physics. There is nothing aspirational about them: We must reduce traffic volumes or a disaster will occur.

But Aucklanders aren’t just crossing the bridge for fun. People go across the bridge to access things like jobs, universities, healthcare, or to enjoy a night out. If transport authorities suddenly restricted how many people cross the bridge, that would have a significant impact on Auckland’s economic productivity.

Thankfully, the clever boffins in Council’s Transport Strategy Team have worked out a plan.

For every 100 people that currently cross the bridge by car, approximately 50 of them will need to get access to things in another way.

By running more bus and ferry services and installing more bus priority lanes around the region, 30 people could shift from cars to buses—significantly reducing the load on the bridge. These numbers are commonly seen in cities with good-quality public transport systems, like Vienna, Barcelona, Bogota or Seoul.

By constructing a connected network of bike paths around the region and making sure that everybody has a bicycle, e-bike, e-scooter, or similar device, 15 people could shift from cars to ‘micro-mobility’—further reducing the load on the bridge. Currently 9% of commuters to Auckland central use a bike, so this number is hardly a stretch-goal (none of them currently ride across the bridge, where cycling is prohibited).

By carpooling, telecommuting or literally moving house to the other side of the bridge (something which would be easier and more attractive if we constructed more homes in suburbs adjacent to the city centre, therefore reducing the need to travel long distances), another 5-10 people could avoid the need to cross altogether, subsequently reducing the traffic burden further and bringing us into the ‘safe zone’ in terms of traffic volumes.

None of this requires new technology or expensive infrastructure. To stay standing, the bridge must carry half as many vehicles. Because of this, half of the available deck space on the existing bridge is available to implement the required solutions.

While there will be some expense in adapting existing facilities and deploying more public transport services, we don’t need to dig a new set of tunnels or build a whole new bridge just yet. First, we must focus on how we use the existing asset differently.

Pulling this off would have other benefits, too: Roads region-wide would carry less traffic, reducing congestion and improving freight reliability. Air pollution would decrease, and thousands of Aucklanders would enjoy a more active and socially connected lifestyle. An empty parking spot would be easier to find when driving into the city, and people who can’t drive—like young, elderly or disabled people—would have much more attractive options for getting from one part of the city to another.

Yes, the change will be disruptive. It will require strong leadership and sustained communications to maintain public support and pull Auckland through this potential crisis. This is the job of Auckland’s transport agencies and their senior leadership, who will need to bring together a highly competent team who can articulate both the challenges at hand and how they plan to overcome them. They – and we – will require calm, confident and compelling encouragement from our political leaders, too.

Auckland Harbour Bridge is a critical piece of infrastructure that the Auckland economy is utterly dependent on. Shouldn’t we do whatever we can to look after it?


*As luck would have it, Auckland Harbour Bridge is not, in fact, collapsing. Or to put it another way: what’s collapsing is not, at present, the Auckland Harbour Bridge.

The natural systems which provide humans with a high quality of life, however, are in a perilous state.

The solutions, thankfully, are exactly the same – which makes this post an easy global find-and-replace exercise for those with the power to save the day.

Now – what do you expect Auckland Transport and NZTA to do?

Remember when: Australian bushfires turn Auckland skies orange, 5 January 2020. Screenshot from news footage.
Share this

127 comments

  1. The Devonport ferry needs to keep going to new ferry terminals at Takapuna, Milford, Mairangi Bay, Browns Bay, Arkles Bay finishing at Gulf Harbour. Ferries are not held up by anything other than really bad weather. This would take a lot of cars off the bridge

      1. You can always get ferries with low drafts and dredge out some area. A long wharf could always work to bring ferries to these areas.

    1. Yep agree – a network of north shore ferries would be great. But likely expensive, so let’s focus on some reallocation of existing traffic lanes to bus lanes first. You know, the cheap* and easy** solution that could radically change the way how Aucklanders travel.

      *in comparison to new infrastructure projects
      ** in most instances, only requires the removal of parking***

      *** thy holy subject, most taboo thing in the world. Basically impossible, must build new roads, tunnels, bridge etc in order to maintain parking.

    2. A ferry service round to the eastern bays would have to use a lot of much faster boats to make any dent in the number of people crossing the bridge. Ferries are the most over-subsidised and least effective forms of transport around Auckland. The only place they make sense is from Devonport and Bayswater, from Hobsonville (and perhaps from West Harbour), from Half Moon Bay for Howick, and to enable a lucky few to live in the eastern extremities of Beachlands. Other than the Devonport and Bayswater services the public cost per seat-trip, and per seat-km, must be vastly higher than any and every other form of PT in the entire country. Those who insist on commuting from ridiculous locations and distances like Gulf Harbour and Beachlands are over-privileged and over-subsidised. And don’t get me started on the lunacy of what was paid to enable a handful of Northcote Pointers to have ‘their’ boat back.

  2. “We agree that the Auckland Harbour Bridge is under pressure. We appreciate the support for our new road tunnels proposal expressed by articles like this.”

    – A certain politician, probably.

  3. Absolute nimby logic. Instead of build the infrastructure required to keep us moving into the future your suggestion is people change their way of life and get on a bus or cycle.

    You are only factoring commuting. Sh1 is the main arterial corridor of the entire nation top to bottom.

    People go places on the weekend people go see their friends.

    What you are suggesting is get 100,000 people to change how they live instead.

    No. We pay the taxes. We expect the infrastructure to be there to get us where we need to go.

    People like you hold this nation back with your out of touch ideology.

    1. SH1 doesn’t have to go across the harbour bridge. It is already possible to drive up the North-Western motorway and across the harbour (on the super-secret 2nd harbour bridge) to Rosedale. It might make sense to re-route SH1 that way, or even create a land link back to the East Coast above Riverhead Forest.

    2. Yes, I totally agree. We need a new bridge…. It’s all very simple and the traffic crossing the harbour will be resolved. A bridge in comparison to multiple ferries would last much longer and in the long run, less expense to maintain. Of course there would be an electronic road toll for the maintenance costs which should not have been removed from the harbour bridge in the first place. We don’t need new Gulf side wharves and breakwaters in several bays plus all the infrastructure that’s associated like parking and passenger services. We need the Chinese technology to build our new harbour bridge and we pay for it with the road tolls taken every day …. No cash upfront, Chinese construction = high
      productivity plus already have the ability in massive bridge and highway construction.
      Look online as to what the Chinese have constructed in China over the past twenty years.
      I didn’t mention that they’re the leaders in highspeed rail construction but there’s another possibility. People, we have to get with the program as NZ has fallen so far behind being a so called “first nation”. So let’s get with it and make progress that will take NZ into the next century of commuter transit.

      1. The reason Chinese can build things so quick from what I understand is mainly because they don’t have all the planning/property rights/environmental things to work though like here and other Anglosphere countries. It’s not that they can magically work faster on stuff.

      2. Labour had a plan to built a tunnel plus light rail to North Shore. Companies were bidding for it. Who voted them out ? Who voted for National &Act&Winston? They are the reason the project was canned toghether with other like 3 Waters. This government of incompetence, cuts , Atlas Network, Taxpayer Union ( rich who avoid taxes nothing to do with tax payers people ) , Hobson pledge members are the reason Auckland infrastructure upgrades and built stopped taking the country backwards. Chinese? Yiu need to look at what quality their projects have! Get Singapore or Japanese to build it .

    3. SH1 should never have come near the bridge and the CBD, it should always have gone round the west and through what it now Waterview. We have the sh!t-show that is the motorway loop in the city because some fool thought that the main connection from top to bottom of the country should pass directly through the middle of the biggest and densest existing urban centre.

  4. Good article
    What worries me is at 11.30pm always at nite 1or 2 spans collapsed into the W
    What is the actual disaster team going to do. WE HAVE A SPECIAL TEAM A , AT MOMENTS NOTICE READY TO SPRING INTO ACTION, A HIT THE RED BUTTON TEAM
    Because it will be an epic event and people will be hung
    Can you even imagine tomorrow or Monday there is no bridge?

    1. Extending light rail from the CBD to the north shore would go a long way towards resolving things… Although I’d suspect that their more likely to enhance or extend the northern busway.

      1. Have been saying this for years. Transport lack sense. Sir Dove Meyer Tibinson Mayor 1960s was in favour of commissioning light rail down the motorway…he get voted out due to being fanciful

      2. My contribution to this debate is to think seriously about tunneling under Auckland in stages.. to make an MRT underground train system. Including under the Waitemata (Auckland Harbour).

  5. People won’t like this but they need to understand that critical changes need to be make to improve the residence of one of the most important roads in Auckland. Fewer cars and heavy vehicles using the bridge at the busiest times seems to be pretty imperative. Yet 8 lanes of traffic is entirely a free-for-all, with single occupant cars becoming most of the traffic.

  6. I know this is a joke to make a point but about half the population still believe that the bridge clip-ons have only 20 years left in them and that is why we need to build a new road bridge.

    Comes up in every discussion and road-orientated politicians are happy to go with the story to keep public opinion behind more car lanes.

    1. Please look up the chap who was with the engineers.They warned it will collapse.That was when the clip ons were added.must look into my saved files see if I can find it.

  7. The Baltimore bridge collapse was brought on by an aging cargo ship losing power.

    What would happen to Auckland or New Zealand if something bumped into our harbour bridge. With the state of our aging ships and infrastructure – this is a sooner problem, rather than later one.

    Whats the plan ? Kayak to work ?? Start tunneling ??? Gondolas….

    1. It would be the definition of bad luck for one of the few ships that go through to the Chelsea Sugar Refinery to run into the bridge.

      1. Yeah, I think that would be rather unlikely. We do have issues with ships running into things – but those issues are on Cook Strait, because we underfunded another non-car mode for decades.

    1. how big do you plan to make the ferry, John, and how fast will it cross the harbour? Where will it land? The only way a ro-ro ferry would work would be if you bought two of them, each as long as half the width of the harbour, and tied them together. Bit of a pain for those over-subsidised ferries going up the harbour, though…

  8. Knock the thing down and build a new better bridge that has space for transit and walking/cycling. It’s not that nice of a bridge anyway. It ain’t Sydney. A cable-stayed bridge would look better.

    1. Or don’t knock it down and just build a new better bridge that has space for transit and walking/cycling alongside.

      Even cheaper and more capacity to leave it there and keep using it.

  9. With the move to more electric vehicles the Harbour Bridge won’t stand up to the added weight, it’s been proven overseas that heavy electric buses and trucks are having a huge negative impact on roads.

    1. Oh it’s a good thing our government are intentionally killing the entire rail system because the trucking lobby asked them to then.

  10. Well none of this is news. This has been known for 20 years and the “dicks” on Auckland Council and Auckland Transport just keep taking their fat salaries and doing nothing. We are at fault because we do not hold them accountable for not doing their jobs. Just more pigs with their snouts in the trough.

    1. Maybe get some facts straight yourself before abusing public servants. The bridge is controlled entirely by Waka Kotahi, AKA Wellington.

  11. I own a house on the shore and will not be moving. The public transport system doesn’t support my commute to work. It would triple my commute and would cost me so much more. A tunnel is the only option. I do not support the mayor’s bridge to nowhere option and neither should anyone else. Congestion charges for people going to work is a lazy solution. We should be making bold solutions such as a real rail network

  12. The bridge was NEVER designed for the traffic running over it these days, nor shortly after it was built. Duh!!! That’s why they added the Nippon clip-ons! And they were only meant to be a short term thing, before they replaced the whole bridge. If I recall correctly meant to last 25 – 40 years, by which time the bridge was meant to be replaced.

    1. Sad but true, Darryl. But then, this country isn’t good at planning anything long-term, especially anything that can be a political football.

    1. That one’s a dead duck and always a ludicrous idea. A small bike bus would solve that, and could drop cyclists off at a couple of different destinations.

      1. “and always a ludicrous idea.”

        Ah yeah, something that many cities have done worldwide (yes, even the “convert an existing lane”) to rectify a base injustice is “ludicrous”.

        And the proffered option – a shuttle bus – in practice ensures that the key advantages of walking and cycling (flexibility of time and route) are massively diminished. No wonder it didn’t work in the past. Why not say “but there’s already ferries”? That’s as true.

        Ever wondered why ferries and buses are not good enough for car drivers?

  13. Tolling on the bridge should have been put up years ago, so they can start funding a new bridge that should take cars and city rail to Orewa as well.
    Any other major cities like ours would have done this years ago.
    Disgraceful.

  14. We have known for two decades that the ‘clip-ons’ have serious metal fatigue cracking. Nothing has been done, other than repair welding these cracks. The cracks continue to occur along side of the welds…heat plus metal fatigue never stops. So for approx 20 years we have been ‘repairing’ the issue….this is a very temporary fix. When is Transit NZ going to do the right thing and replace an asset which is past its use-by date?
    Metal fatigue is ‘terminal’. Time to recognise that fact and replace, at the very least, the clip ons.

  15. Clearly we need to reduce axle loadings on the bridge ASAP. That means banning trucks and buses and encouraging more people into cars, preferably petrol driven cars to keep the weight down.

    1. Yes, and since we now have heard that electric buses ARE BAD because they do damage to the road, we also need to quickly buy lots more petrol buses.

      Heck, why not wood-fired steam engine buses? Wood is sustainable, after all. You just need to think outside the box.

        1. Wood-fired bikes? I prefer my electric one, even though I destroy all the cycleways with it’s extra weight, which is worse than truck axles*

          *May or may not have any factual basis

  16. Build a new bridge ans mayor brown suggests. and toll the old one. Then fewer cars will cross the old one, making it easier to make a cycle lane and strengthen it.

  17. Interestingly, a policy setting could save the day. Set a toll on the bridge, with the net funds raised dedicated to the next crossing. Set the toll at the level needed for the volume of demand to be at the target level of traffic. The toll for this level of ‘demand management’ would appear quite high….but read on.

    Then change the priority order of consideration for alternatives: put pooling first because this is the least costly way to get people to travel as passengers. Put real effort into making pooling work ‘big-time’, including incentives for people who travel as passengers. Tolls and incentives on the same facility have an additive impact: A person who would drive, but instead travels as a passenger, avoids the toll and receives the incentive. Fund the incentive from the toll revenue (with the balance of the tolls going into that future crossing fund). Establish meeting places for poolers heading into the city so they can form pools easily. Establish meeting places for people heading home to different suburbs, so that pools for heading home can be formed easily. Provide an ’emergency ride home’ facility to make sure people who left their cars at home can get home quickly in case of emergency. Think about how to make sure all poolers can be accommodated to get home every evening.

    Clearly for the overall objective to be achieved (reduced vehicle travel over the bridge without reduced person travel), we need more people to travel as passengers. They can either travel in buses or carpools. Perhaps not all people want to travel as passengers, but we ‘need’ them to do so. So it becomes a question of what is the most likely successful option for the best cost. Overseas studies have shown that many people prefer pooling over public transport, when given the choice. And with pooling being the less costly option (much lower fixed costs, much lower management costs) it makes sense to put some emphasis on considering pooling as the first solution.

    Of course, we need to also provide some PT, but if pooling is strongly in place, the amount of PT needed will be much less, and therefore more affordable.

    The longer we make the existing bridge last, the greater the amount of funds accumulated in the future crossing fund will be, and perhaps the longer we can survive without building that future crossing.

    There is a researcher living in Auckland who has spent some time developing strategies based on exactly this line of thinking, and carrying out relevant research overseas.

    1. I definitely would prefer sitting on a larger bus compared to carpooling with 3 random strangers in a small private vehicle.
      I would also prefer sitting on a bus compared to having to wait in my private vehicle for 3 random strangers to show up to provide them an Uber alternative.

      I love ride-sharing for longer distances and it used to be very popular for budget travel between cities in Europe. I don’t think this would work easily with regular commutes or intra-city travel.

      1. Agreed. More people on the bus and a uniformed driver means more security for passengers.
        A mid-point idea could be light buses – carrying 16 – 19 seated passengers and able to go from a pool meeting point direct to a suburb or CBD, or follow routes not busy enough for larger buses.

  18. First of all, who are these engineers? It seems the proper engineers seem to think the lifespan of the bridge is considerably longer than it collapsing by the end of the decade. Heavy traffic needs to keep off the add ons, we all know that. But this article is blatant bike lobby scaremongering. A new bridge from Meola creek is the cheapest option, and it also would have a bike lane.

    1. Graham, think about this…the bridge was NEVER designed for the current traffic load. The “Nippon clip-ons” were added late 60’s, as there was too much traffic for the original bridge. And the clip-ons, were only meant to last 25 – 40 years, if I recall correctly.

    2. Graham, think about this…the bridge was NEVER designed for the current traffic load. The “Nippon clip-ons” were added late 1960’s, as the bridge was already not coping.

    3. “A new bridge from Meola creek is the cheapest option, and it also would have a bike lane.”

      Not with Simeon Brown’s current rules. The walk and bike parts would not stack up “economically”, and they’d get dropped from the proposal before construction.

      But at least we’d get new 60kph (maybe even 80kph) roads through Pt Chevalier. I always thought that area was too laid back and needed some speedier traffic. As for the Shore, far too few roads there – improvements all around!

  19. Auck bridge is one of many transport routes that is running on a fine line before failure.
    The big picture is NZ in general is so far behind the times in terms of reliable infrastructures and transport links, start with own fuel refineries and power stations, wake up and make it right, going green is a joke at this stage..

  20. It is happening…these structures don’t last forever..I thought it was mire important than the tunnels.Thw country would be completely stuffed.
    Get the Chinese in..build it in less than
    2 yrs and toll it just like Sydneys tunnel-that’s how they did it.

  21. Trucks and busses are obviously a problem. We had a new road made out in the boondocks..as soon as the trucks hit it that was the end of it. Ruined. Heavy trucks and busses need to be removed from the bridge for light vehicles…as it was intended for.

    1. how do you propose to get all of the people across it if they’re only allowed to use cars? More than half the people crossing it in the peak are on buses. That’s a heck of a lot of extra cars needed per bus that you’d like to ban. Next, what do you propose to do for the one third of Aucklanders who can’t drive?

  22. The first thing I would do is get an independent engineering report. My understanding is that the fatigue problem is now under control as a result of putting about 800 tons of steel work into the Bridge in the last few years. Anyway, the problem only applies to the Nippon clip on, the main Bridge structure is perfectly okay.

  23. It’s about time Auckland had a Railway under the harbour extending to Orewa and beyond. If it can be done in London with there clay foundation I’m sure it could be done here. A train can carry between 2 and 300 hundred passengers at a time. Lets get in the modern world.

  24. A twin track rail tunnel under the Waitemata is by far the best way to provide an economical commuter link between the North Shore and the Auckland Isthmus. Any other connection is a “Lamborghini” and/or a lame duck.
    If you want to drive a Lamborghini from Wellington to Picton a 5-span suspension bridge complex using piers similar to the Troll-A platform would appear to be an engineering possibility, but would probably cost multiple times more than the cheap terminals that the Chaos government rejected as being too expensive.

    1. Are you Troll-ing? Lol. Unless you are proposing a swimming bridge (pontoon bridge!) I doubt that those offshore oil platforms are suited to be set down on top of a seismic fault-line. Maybe if we use a rubber suspension bridge…

      Well, it would make about as much sense as a lot else currently being proposed.

  25. I am an ex POM living all over Europe, I must admit a tunnel or two has got to be the future.

    Besides curing the bridge problem, think of the jobs it could generate.

  26. Vague article. The bridge itself, or clippons?
    They are separate. Why aren’t we prefabricated new clippons, to reduce downtime when replacement needed.
    Its an opportunity to improve on design, even if it makes them deeper . Just get lower sugar boats.
    A walkway could be included in new clippon design. Have an international competition for designers.

    As for original structure, the clippons can survive without it.
    Replace middle span with another clippon?
    Are box girder bridges like this allowed anymore?
    No one is answering these questions, thankyou for providing a place for us to ask

  27. Do any of you actually live on the Shore, or at least for any period of time. Ferries might help but costly( look at Gulf Harbour) Extra buses perhaps but with Auks unpredictable weather where it could rain on any given day at a moments notice, not attractive. Long term its a railway system either under or over ground and we simply dont have the population to fund it

    1. Yes, I do live on the North Shore.*
      We know that it can rain any day at any time, that’s why most of us (probably) carry a compact raincoat in our work bags, or just dress accordingly. I agree that ferries are far too expensive to provide, far too small in capacity and far too slow and limited in their routes, to be able to provide any really effective form of harbour crossing for the mass of people now doing it daily. When access north relied on ferries, hardly anyone lived there – for that very reason. Long term Auckland does need LRT, and it needs to connect across the harbour. I don’t know the depth of the Waitemata, but instead of boring (at extreme cost and slowness) we should probably be looking at sunken-tube tunnels, sitting on the sea bed or in a trench that’s as shallow as is necessary to get the water depth that we want. But in the short-term, they need to adopt Bike Auckland’s report that proved that Liberating a Lane would work, and would not cause the city to seize.
      (*Maybe – I have to stay hidden so can’t reveal any personal facts.)

  28. The bridge was not designed for the use. We keep talking about a new accessway. Another bridge or a tunnel. Either way we cannot keep on talking. We need another crossing…urgently. The other solutions are not viable.

      1. Well, the climate crisis IS too hard to discuss for many, because the implications for our Status Quo are too big for many to want to hear. So it’s easier to get side tracked into how many lanes the new tunnel-bridge should have, whether cyclists are “elitists”, and why [insert project here] will never work. Human nature. We suck at cooperating for the greater good sometimes. I guess our nature is built more around cooperating with a few dozen people at most…

        1. I think I’m happy with most people missing the point.

          What I find interesting is how everyone wants to discuss solutions when we are talking about a bridge.

          The bridge metaphor works. The subtlety of the article is a little too much for most.

  29. Doesn’t always work to carpool, especially if u want to go shopping after & the driver doesn’t, buses don’t always work either for transport

  30. Easy solution: You need half, the get half. Cut off the nippon clippons from all normal traffic and make them bike, pedestrauan , bus lanes. Make other alternative routes wider such as north-west and speed them up with traffic lights given more time to traffic coming from northwest. Yes people would get annoyed, but so what? If it must be down to half make it so.

  31. You also need an easy express link from Birkdale Birenhead diectly to the bridge at Greenhive as a good alternative development 5owards northwest

  32. Why did the vast, overwhelming majority of you commenters feel the need to say anything at all when you did not, in fact, read more than the first line of the article?

    This is the first line:

    “Auckland Harbour Bridge is collapsing.*”

    Asterisks, in English, indicate that there’s a footnote. I know you’re obviously incredibly lazy and stupid, but you could’ve scrolled to the bottom of the page to see what that asterisk meant, which indicated that the entire article, since you were too lazy to read it, was actually about climate change, not the harbour bridge.

    Every single one of you earnestly talking about the bridge *does not know what they are talking about* because you DID NOT READ THE ARTICLE.

    1. to be fair, while the satirical take on climate change and why we’re seemingly incapable of taking any action, let alone any meaningful action, is a great read, it’s also spurred some quite interesting chats about the ‘cover story’ and what we should do about the AHB…

  33. The bridge has had a lot of steel added to it, but that also adds weight. The bridge being used as it is is on a time limited basis only. It was designed for 9 ton trucks and now has up to 55 tonne trucks over it every day and buses with 11 tonne axle loadings.
    The CRL will need a relief valve to enable more HR routes to the south such as via the Mangere employment hub (MEH) and the airport, so the North Shore is the obvious choice as it will attract property developers away from the fertile soils of Pukekohe to areas like Dairy Flat and the Waitoki Valley and will add a link to the Hibiscus Coast and further north via a link to Kaukapakapa.
    We need a bridge for rail, heavy vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians and we need it now.

  34. The number of commenters that didn’t read closely enough to realise this article isn’t actually about the harbour bridge is stressing me out

  35. Brit here, lived in Auckland 8 years. When we built the Kiwis a bridge we had an amazing design, with 8 lanes complete with walkways and the option for rail travel. The government at the time chose the cheapest, penny pinching option. Which led to the Nippons being added retrospectively in the 70s. To cope with the traffic. Fast forward to 2024 they are telling us to cut the bridges use by 50% rather than invest money in a new one or property repairing the asset or property maintaining it. Will short sightedness and quick fixes be the answer this time?

    1. Yes but the cost of the cheap one even was huge compared to our population base & GDP at the time.
      “At the time, the £8.1 million pound cost was a full 7.5% of Auckland’s annual regional GDP, equivalent to the city spending $7.7 billion dollars today.”
      from: https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2021/05/05/the-auckland-harbour-bridge-clip-ons-planning-disaster-or-best-practice/
      Clip-on’s were a good upgrade and considering the time value money a good choice to delay that many lanes to start with. I agree with not allowing a small extra bit of width for active modes on it for smaller outlay was a crime though.

      1. Not to mention that I don’t think there’s any reputable evidence that rail provision was included in the recommendation of the ’46 Royal Commission design – just 6 lanes and walking paths on either side according to Wikipedia. Besides, the 1 in 20 gradient of the bridge is certainly too steep for heavy rail; the CRL and the limit for today’s EMUs is 1 in 28.

        There was however a 1949 MOW proposal for a 3 lane bridge with 2 rail tracks underneath; and it’s not clear if it was in serious contention for the final design of the bridge or not.

        https://www.flickr.com/photos/archivesnz/24978930262/in/dateposted/

  36. The engineering here is suspect – heavy trucks create most loads and damage. That’s a fact. From industry professionals. That this coincides with AT’s political push for their already failing public transport initiatives that are killing the inner city is most suspect of all.

    Simply moving trucks to SH18 would more than halve the damage while keeping Auckland vibrant. Why are the boffin or “scientists” not saying this?

    Because they are bought off by politics and have seen others get away with the same manipulation and twisting of the truth for political agendas.

  37. Wilson parking is part of the problem.every spare space is turned into parking. Ban parking in the CBD and that will solve your problem without much cost. Do Wilson parking have some hold over the council or are they getting a kick back. Force people to use buses and ferries. Simple solution ban cars and make the CBD a pedestrian zone. Don’t know why someone has not come up with the idea before or is someone getting a kick back.

  38. I rely on the bridge to access my non work from home shift work job producing food and beverage packaging which is an essential industry . I can go west now however it’s a 12km longer option . The whole country relies on the traffic in Auckland to flow. If it doesn’t the whole country suffers financially. So tolling only those who use it is unfair . We have all paid petrol taxes for decades that’s been wasted by successive governments. We cannot afford to build a modern commuter transit system as we are a small country and we cannot justify the tens of billions it would cost to install that in Auckland. Auckland was made into a car city in the 60s when councils and governments refused to build a system when there was space and land to do so and because of their shortsighted politicking we are now a car city. Our public transport is a standing joke . To get to my job on public transport on shift work can take up to 7 hours . It’s simply not an option .
    Successive govts have proposed a highly expensive tunnel crossing that would end up costing 15 billion . It could for that price do no more than a modern rail/road bridge with a fantastic sail type design that was proposed a few years ago. It could carry 2 buslanes a cycle way pedestrian access up to 4 railway tracks (for what purpose as where is the rail to link to on the shore?) And 8 to 10 lanes of traffic . You could also include a fabulous revolving restaurant atop it with bridgewalks and bungee jumps and swings . It would represent Auckland as the city of sails . It would cost around a tenth the price of the tourist unfriendly tunnel at 2 billion and would provide income streams from the activities and restaurant/ viewing platforms .This could be built in just a few years and then you could put the old coat hanger into a life of 4 to 6 lane no heavy vehicles semi retirement. They should now be sending all vehicles above a certain weight out the western route . Be sensible. Build another bridge that the country and city can actually afford. Not a useless tunnel at massive cost .

    1. Agreed. Tolling any link when there’s no realistic alternative is always wrong if only a specific set of users will end up paying for a nationally-critical asset. Just as the whole country but particularly the whole of Auckland (rates) has paid for CRL because the new capacity and the journey time savings benefit the economy of the whole country, so the whole country and all of Auckland needs the new harbour crossing, and the whole country and Auckland needs to pay for it.

    2. “We cannot afford to build a modern commuter transit system as we are a small country and we cannot justify the tens of billions it would cost to install that in Auckland”

      Yeah, we can afford it. We just choose to spend it on RoNs instead. And it need not be a “big-bang approach. A continuous pipeline of smaller improvements which over time build a rapid transit network worthy of a city of 2m people. 24-7 bus lanes, busways and rail lines, in that order, to compliment what we already have.

      Roads aren’t going to cut it.

  39. Well to be fear I could bs on this whole article I mean where is this engineers report where are the photos taken by the engineers of the degrading sections of this bridge in bridge terms it’s not really that old I see this as nothing more than a scare-mongering tactic to legitimize the congestion tax as well as implement the new bridge toll which they haven’t announced yet obviously to maintain and repair the structure you know that 116 odd million that was sent to Ukraine would go on way to repairing one of New Zealand infrastructures most important crossings either way The fact is if that bridge is not operational the whole country virtually comes to a grinding hole and I remember a few years ago they were contemplating through the clip-ons to the bridge because it was feasible although it didn’t happen they must have had consulted engineers to the logistics of it do you even propose the idea one would think now considering that tunnel boring machine is not that far up the road finishing off the rail if it hasn’t already wasn’t that an option to put a tunnel underneath , and I mean he’s already a new bridge going into the back of Silverdale and to shorten the time out to whangaparaoa perhaps the bridge there should have been put with the Harbour bridge or next to it, look all I’m really saying is there’s more than meets the eye then oh my the bridge is going to collapse within 5 years and if that was legitimately the case do you think work safe would allow that bridge to be open right now no they wouldn’t because to say it could collapse within 5 years means it could collapse at any time, have they performed tests for Structural integrity of aging steel bridges by 3D laser scanning? If so where are these reports?

  40. Surely concentrating the load of 50 people into one heavy bus rather than spreading the load out over 50 lightweight cars is going to be worse for fatigue loads? So this par of the article. is pretty silly. And isn’t it just the clip-ons that are suffering fatigue so put a bus priority lane and heavy traffic lane on the centre spans and have active transport users and cars on the clip-ons.

  41. Well to be fear I call this claim as bs. I mean where is this engineers report where are the photos taken by the engineers of the degrading sections of this bridge in bridge terms it’s not really that old, I see this as nothing more than a scare-mongering tactic to legitimize the congestion tax as well as implement the new fees on motorist’s.
    Repairing one of New Zealand roading infrastructures most important bridge crossings or putting another opinion together is extremely important.
    The fact is if that bridge is not operational without a alternative in place the whole country virtually comes to a grinding holt, if I remember correctly a few years ago they were contemplating adding more clip-ons to the bridge because it was feasible although it didn’t happen they must have had consulted engineers to the logistics of it.
    What I’m really saying is there’s more than meets the eye.
    Come on ! If this bridge is going to collapse within 5ish years & that was legitimately the case, do you think work safe or whatever authority is liable for it, would allow that bridge to be open right now? No they wouldn’t because to say it could collapse within 5 years means it could collapse at any time, have they performed tests for Structural integrity of aging steel bridges by 3D laser scanning? If so where are these reports?

  42. Nice article.
    Funny comments from all the people that didn’t read the article.

    Unfortunately, even if the entire population of NZ dissappeared overnight, it wouldn’t have any effect on climate change. All our resources should be directed to moving away from rising water and preparing for more droughts and floods. Not rebuilding in the same damn place where our house got washed away.

    1. Unfortunately, that is the same argument that every country or sufficiently smaller sub-division can make. US? Meh, wait for China. China? Meh, wait for India. Mumbai? Meh, wait for China.

      New Zealand residents contribute to those emissions by importing goods from abroad and exporting products (dairy!) with a large environmental impact. We have to start somewhere – and many climate-friendly solutions have other benefits such as lower noise levels, increased health, less (local!) air pollution, better and cleaner green spaces, and so on…

      These are things that would not get significantly better if the rest of the world suddenly vanished and NZ just continued on its current path.

      1. It’s also ethically problematic. Damage is damage – if I take a hammer to my neighbour’s house, and thousands of other people do as well, I’m not really blameless by the fact that my single hammer blow isn’t going to make it collapse.

        I should stop. The fact that the hammer also rebounds in my face shouldn’t even need to be part of it.

  43. Loving the Stuff comments section and lots of ‘new’ posters completely missing the point. I guess at least engagement is up and some of them actually come back and read the article properly.

  44. I say… REDUCE THE LANES. 3 vehicle lanes, dedicated bus lane and 2 outer lanes for bikes. Come on it’s not that hard. Low cost to implement. An increased uptake on bikes and scooters and wellbeing. How about a park & ride (your bike) on the Northern end of the bridge for those city commuters who’d like the option to bike over and save on city parking. This will “Shore’ly” lighten the load AT.

  45. Just need to rebuild the clip-ons one at a time with capacity for walking & cycling added. This ideally could be done after a new light rail/metro bridge done add massive capacity. Well that new bridge could have walking cycling so perhaps not needed on the old but if was done before or instead of the bridge, then yes. Both would be good anyway as slightly different routes, heights & views and for more resilience.

  46. As many of us have been asking, for a while, Waka Kotahi and Auckland Transport; why is this bridge for the exclusive use of motorised vehicles?
    Why do buses have to battle with other traffic while attempting to maintain the implied efficiency of an Express Service, the NX1 and NX2?
    Why can we not walk, skate, pedal or scoot over this magnificent bridge?
    And most of all, why do we still prioritise the motor normatives over everybody else? We are an increasingly unfit society, and deleting cars from our existence would have incredible positive outcomes, for all of us; be they health, sociability, or even realising how amazing apartment living is, for everybody, and making sure that our developers are building apartments.
    We have wasted so much time and space on silly little houses, when we should be building for city folk.
    Living here feels rural at times, and it is embarrassing for those of us who have lived in real cities.
    There is a nightclub that can only put up it’s sign on Friday and Saturday nights because it is the basement of a heritage building. And we claim to be a city?
    At least our long term plan is walking us towards the light, but it does really seem to take an age when you started this decade childless, and now with a seven and four year old struggle to explain why we breathe noxious fumes that we know are killing us, and that people that have the power to change these things, would rather ignore them.

    bah humbug

  47. They said this about viaduct foot bridge 7 years ago
    .Panuku (The development
    arm of Auckland city council), spent millions on engineers design and consultants. Anyway it was decided after spending all that money and almost two year’s that , she will be right mate let’s do nothing instead . And the executive patted themselves on the back and awarded and awarded themselves hundreds of thousands in bonuses that year Great job Auckland council.

  48. Did anyone read to the bottom? This is a silly story that has now created a story of its own that the bridge is collapsing… It is not.

    ” As luck would have it, Auckland Harbour Bridge is not, in fact, collapsing. Or to put it another way: what’s collapsing is not, at present, the Auckland Harbour Bridge.

    The natural systems which provide humans with a high quality of life, however, are in a perilous state”.

Leave a Reply

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