Yesterday, Patrick and I presented Nicolas Reid’s bridge proposal for the next Waitematā Harbour crossing to Auckland Council’s Transport and Infrastructure Delivery Committee.
We got a good hearing from councillors, and some great questions – you can check out the full presentation, about ten minutes followed by about twenty minutes of Q&A here,
You can see our presentation slides here. We also covered the discussion in real time on BlueSky; check out this thread if you want the TL;DR on the Q&As.
We’re looking forward to continuing to engage with Auckland Council and the public on this proposal, especially as the city heads into discussions about the 30-year Integrated Transport Plan.
Jonathan Killick also covered our presentation in an excellent article for The Post, under the headline Second Auckland harbour crossing must be bridge not tunnel, councillors told.
Here’s a snippet:
Greater Auckland’s Patrick Reynolds and Connor Sharp pitched an idea for a 12-lane bridge system at the council’s Transport and Infrastructure Delivery Committee on Tuesday, outlining several advantages it would have over a tunnel.It would include four motorway lanes, and two “local traffic” and bus lanes each way, for a total of 12 vehicle lanes as well as lanes for bikes and pedestrians.The proposal would include a new six lane bridge that would run from a breakwater at Westhaven Marina and connect with Northcote Point next to the existing Harbour Bridge.Sharp said the project would cost $4 billion to $6b whereas a tunnel might cost $15b or $20b.Reynolds, a former director of NZTA, told The Post he was expecting the transport agency would be imminently recommending a six-lane tunnel with no public transport or cycle lanes.
What other questions or feedback do you have on the proposal and our presentation of it? Let us know in the comments.
If you’re keen to support Greater Auckland’s work pushing for a brilliant, beautiful bridge as the heart of a top notch 30-year transport plan for our city, you can donate here. And as always, please feel free to share our work widely. This conversation belongs to ALL Aucklanders, and we all deserve to be part of it!
Processing...
Did the councillors ask how the proposal would help halve traffic volumes?
Why should they, like it or not traffic volumes are going to increase more housing and shops in the north and the industry in the south. Even if we get a perfect PT system you’ll never halve the traffic volume. PT patronage and traffic are both going to increase It’s inevitable.
But traffic volumes haven’t really increased in over 20yrs, mainly due to the northern busway. In 2006 it was 162k per day, 2008 (intro of busway) it was 158k and in 2025 it was 160k. I don’t think that trend will change (see below).
The uncomfortable truth is that we don’t need the extra motorway lanes right now. The numbers of vehicles crossing the bridge has barely moved in 2 decades, but bus passengers have almost doubled in that time (Chat gtp). Congestion only happens 4hrs out of 24 and we are about to introduce congestion charging which will shift more people from cars to buses.
I’m not naive to the point I think the solution won’t have road capacity included, but the best option was actually the active mode and PT bridge Michael Wood proposed for under $1bn. We could then look at a road based solution (together with PT and active modes) much later, in a different location.
KLK I agree except the main part of my point was we are never going to halve current traffic volumes that’s just a load of BS
Traffic volumes will simply be the outcome of what we choose to do, just as NZ’s high traffic volumes are the result of policy and practice to date.
We have to be careful about the stories we tell ourselves. It’s a political choice to believe the story about traffic growth being inevitable; a willing alignment with powerful, legacy industries, rather than a technically-astute or informed choice about our actual options.
Congestion at pinch points should be tackled by reducing the traffic feeding into that point. Doing so iteratively around the city, in ways that improve travel options, leads to lower traffic volumes and a more effective system.
Nicolas’s plan is a timely response to bloated planning insanity. He hasn’t been able to apply best traffic reduction concepts because the current need is simply to pull the government back from a punishingly-destructive and expensive agenda.
My original point was about the Councillors, and whether they referenced back to the actual outcomes they are responsible for delivering.
“Congestion only happens 4hrs out of 24 and we are about to introduce congestion charging *precisely at that time of the day* which will shift more people from cars to buses”
“its not our decision” – Chair of Auckland Councils Transport committee chair.
Seems to be one of the biggest decisions for our city next century, suggesting if NZTA mandates a “six-lane tunnel with no public transport or cycle lanes…” then dont look to city management for any alternatives.
Seems to be the biggest issue is that on this issue, Wellington is calling all the shots, and i’d like to say more than ever the TERP work on framing and measuring transport outcomes will be more relevant than ever.
Thanks Connor and Patrick, bridge or cave is a solution important to Auckland.
Yeah its really bad when councillors surrender to central govt like that. Its clear Auckland will be taxed to pay for any additional crossing, via tolls and/or levies, so clearly we should demand decision rights too.
Surrendering early, by councillors, is unhelpful
The discussion around time of use charging was interesting, making up the funding shortfall in the Land Transport Fund will be next to impossible if road users either refuse to or can’t afford to pay.
A bridge is clearly the way to go – but very disappointing that rail is still being downplayed compared to the continued expansion of motorway capacity. Bus congestion downtown and/or the passenger-deterring hassle of big interchanges is the result when continuous rail through the heart of the city is ignored – as Wellington demonstrates and as Auckland acknowledges with the support of the CRL.
There remains a distinct impression that industry is deciding what it wants to build, and the government, and it’s agencies, just are just the enablers, (and fund raisers)
Auckland Council, are presently at most, just a nuisance, but otherwise really irrelevant, in the our harbour crossing process.
The wrong process will then produce a poor and expensive result for Auckland, and NZ.
We need to reverse the current increasing centralisation of decision-making.
When even setting Auckland residential zoning , and even local speed limits has been increasingly subject to invasive micro management from central government.
Come November, Aucklanders must really vote against the increasing power grab, of what should be Auckland decisions, by our current National Government.
Auckland is big enough and compretant enough to have far greater role in local decisions.
I agree with you totally, but Auckland lost a lot when central government took away councils ability to raise funds independently for infrastructure projects – ie the regional fuel tax. Without the RFT – Auckland needs Wellingtons approval for any project.
The Mayor and AT are on a short leash.
The election in November will hopefully change Auckland and NZ for the better.
Congestion charging will remove so many unnecessary trips making a second crossing a waste of cash and thus unneeded.
If people feel we need a new bridge, tear the old one down and build ONE decent fit for purpose crossing that covers active, rail, bus and private car crossings. Send trucks out west.
Don’t understand people’s panic at having two bridges, I mean to the point if not only getting rid of all the usefulness of the current bridge, but also paying what could be hundreds of millions to demolish and scrap it. Sure new bridge, but there’s no point in removing the old one. Even if it’s completely derelict, which it isn’t, you could still use it for walking and bikes.
For me, the priority is to reduce the amount of cars on the roads, the new bridge would improve the flow of traffic & needs to be multi use for all modes of moving around. One question that comes into my head everytime I want to travel from the south to the north is why do I have to go through Akl city centre, can’t we bypass the current mess that is Akl central for traffic that does not need to come off the motorway & just wants a quick way Nth or Sth?
It’s called the Western Ring Route, and it already exists.
The existing bridge was built at the geographically optimal point, narrowest part of the harbour downstream from Hobsonville and also smack bang on the shortest route between the North Shore and the vast majority of Auckland (and the rest of NZ) that lies south of the harbour.
Only major downside is that they had already built the bloody CBD in the way!!
I read that as proposing a “12-lane bridge” and was WTF?
Then re-read that it was a 12-lanes bridge system, so the six lane one discussed earlier + existing bridge.
One thing I see often is that talking points need to be reduced and dumbed down so that people with minimal interest and knowledge can get some idea of what somebody is talking about.
I don’t know how to make it snappy and memorable with a tag line, but ‘New bridge’ that improves on the old might be the way.
An idea can easily get shot down just by somebody labelling it a ‘white elephant’ or ‘ute tax’ etc
interesting that NZTA ‘s newly appointed top brass in Auckland (Jason Dawson and Kathryn King) were in the room to present their regular NZTA update to the committee a bit later in the meeting. Jason did acknowledge the GA presentation (which had been sharply critical of NZTA’s role in the harbour crossing saga) but did not give anything away about the latest NZTA scheme that is expected to be announced within the next few weeks.
Further to my earlier comment – Jason did announce a workshop to be held shortly for Councillirs to brief them on the NZTA proposal – date yet to be confirmed but presumably very soon.
Does anybody know where the extent / boundary is for where geotechnical investigations were undertaken? Talking about predeterminism, chances are NZTA proposes a crossing where they’ve been testing ground conditions
Kinetic yard space in Wynyard Quarter should be redeveloped for light rail vehicles, likely has power infrastructure already
They were doing some investigations with some barges out in the harbour between Esmonde and Onewa not long ago.
I used to know for certain that harbour bridge studies were done just to shut people up. Nobody had any intention of ever building another one. The scary part is despite the economics being worse than ever, I am no longer certain. We live in a world where stupid shit isn’t a mistake any more, it is a policy.
You must be talking about the stupid policy that makes it illegal to walk over the bridge
not just studies but proposals.
This is just the next round of delays and inaction.
Its coming up to an election, Auckland votes win elections. Putting up Tunnel of National Significance leading up to an election is an easy way to win or lose a mandate.
The current Auckland Harbour Bridge needs to be replaced with a new bridge, to a design similar to that proposed with the ANZAC Centenary Bridge a few years ago, which would incorporate road traffic lanes on the top, with rail, pedestrian and cycle paths underneath, running in a more direct route from the Victoria Park flyover in the CBD through to Northcote Point:
https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2009/12/04/anzac-centenary-bridge-information/
https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2009/12/03/the-anzac-bridge-idea/
Trams need to be reintroduced to Auckland in conjunction with congestion charging and a new harbour bridge. A new light rail tram line could run from Britomart to Takapuna via the new bridge, extended into a new central city loop running from the Wynyard Quarter to Britomart, up Queen St, along K Rd to Western Springs, and Ponsonby Rd, down College Hill back to the Wynyard Quarter. Light rail could also be added to the Northern Busway, linking to a line along Symonds St and Dominion Rd.
The new bridge and light rail could be funded with congestion charging on all motorways across Auckland, with removing all the congestion-causing on-ramp signals on the motorways and replace with toll gantries. There would still be free routes with using local arterial roads like Great South Road and Great North Road.
Land that the current motorway approaches to the existing bridge sits on, could also be sold to offset the cost of the new bridge.
Love it but 99% of kiwis, including many here, will find a reason to “yeah na” it.
Does anyone know what Mike Lee had to say? He mentions during the Q&A that he intends to make a comment later.
Who cares?
The Councillor Against Virtually Everything, the member for Waiheke, last made a useful utterance over a decade ago.
Whatever it might have been it wouldn’t be relevant, coherent, or useful.
There’s a third option that doesn’t get any air time— immersed tube tunnelling.
Prefabricated segments, built on dry land, floated to site, sunk into a dredged trench. Cheaper than a bored tunnel. Faster to build. Lower risk contingency. Sydney Harbour Tunnel used it in 1992. So did San Francisco Bay’s BART rail crossing. The Øresund link between Denmark and Sweden built a combined road-rail immersed tube at 3.5km. Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macau extended it to 6.7km.
NZTA has stated only bridge and bored tunnel are under investigation. Why ?
LOL good to see my grandfather’s cartoons still being referenced in formal presentations. Here’s another one that is only just finishing being played out: https://cdn.sanity.io/images/wcs514e0/production/67ad475df5844249eddfa16bfd97c8be28902e1e-1640×1152.png [Mayor Robbie tied up by Wellington Treasury]
wonderful, yes we’ve used that glorious one before too, so great to hear from you too,
ta
Yeah was funny as was watching this on delayed live and the heavy rail type group before presented and I was thinking: Hey, why does GA not get any airtime on here? Then low and behold they came on, was a decent chunk of time too, good stuff.
flicked through that presentation and ugh they’re still pushing it as this such superficial ‘heavy rail fast and better’ proposal with no thought to construction costs, gradient & curve limitations, or capacity in terms of trans per hour and passengers per hour, only vague annual boarding figures which also doesn’t hold up when you do a little extra digging.
“Perth’s airport line carries 6 million passengers per year” Sydney’s L1 light rail line carried 9 million passengers per year before the pandemic, the L2 and L3 each carried more than 15 million passengers last year; and Seattle’s Line 1 light rail carried 35 million passengers last year, more than all 4 of Auckland’s rail lines combined.
Yeah, running pattern & cost issues for sure.
Riding Vancouvers SkyTrain right now on my way to watch the All Whites play Belgium and was on Seattle’s system last week.
Having both systems elevated is great and the views are spectacular in both cities. I wish we had this in Auckland instead of BS tunnels as was put forward for Akl’s metro.
I love elevated!
Elevated is great! It does the following:
1) Cheaper than tunnels
2) Faster to build than tunnels or surface.
3) Cheaper to operate than tunnels.
4) Dedicated RoW without taking up much street space compared to surface and faster than surface.
5) Great views – tourist attraction as a bonus.
6) Provides shelter beneath for pedestrians/cyclists.
Skytrain in Vancouver is amazing – and the technology has only improved in the decades since that was first built.
7) Fully automated/Driverless allowing for 24/7 operation (and reduced costs/no driver strikes).