Yesterday, Minister of Transport Chris Bishop and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon announced changes to the development of the next Waitematā Harbour Crossing.
They’ve announced that the project is being taken away from the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) – whose board endorsed a tunnel earlier this year after completing an investment case – and will be moved into the Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions, and Transport (MCERT) under a Senior Responsible Owner (SRO), in order to prepare a Detailed Business Case.
No particular option has been endorsed by Cabinet, neither bridge nor tunnel. So in theory at least, that question is still entirely open.
Also, apparently a summary of what NZTA has worked on so far will be publicly released in the coming weeks.
In yesterday’s media release, Bishop explained the reason for the move:
“Given the scale and complexity of this project, Cabinet has agreed that an independently led DBC is needed. This will allow us to do further work required on funding and financing, and delivery model options. It will also allow us to consider the Auckland transport network more broadly including NZTA’s Auckland Motorway Plan, any time-of-use charging scheme, and the 30-year Auckland Integrated Transport Plan to be developed as part of the Auckland Transport governance reforms.
“The WHC DBC will be independently led by a Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) who will answer directly to the Ministers of Finance, Transport, and Auckland, and Cabinet.
Additionally, Cabinet has also agreed to commission a further study into Mayor Wayne Brown’s idea for a bridge from Meola Reef to Birkenhead (a notion that has been repeatedly dismissed as misguided at best)… as long as Auckland Council contributes 50% of the cost. As reported by the NZ Herald:
Bishop and Luxon both laughed as they announced the Meola Reef study, saying it was part of the Auckland City deal and a “sign of good faith”.
They said the $500,000 taxpayers will stump up for the Meola Reef study was worth it.
It’s been interesting to see people home in on spending a million dollars to rebut the Meola Reef option. That is quite a chunk of change, to rule out something that’s been repeatedly ruled out already.
But keep your eye on the ball: the cost of the new Detailed Business Case is likely to be in the tens of millions, a far larger amount to spend on yet another report.
In any case, the Meola Reef study looks to be the Government calling the Mayor’s bluff, as The Post reported today:
After years of Wayne Brown firing shots at the Government over Auckland’s harbour crossing, Bishop has fired one back. Brown has long favoured a bridge from Point Chevalier across Meola Reef to the North Shore. It has become his political hobby horse, with Brown keeping a map of the reef on his phone ready to show anyone who’ll listen.The plan would require a motorway carving off State Highway 16 by MOTAT, cutting off part of Auckland Zoo then ploughing through a dog park which is basically built on a sand bank.The bridge would then go into the Waitematā Harbour over Meola Reef, which is a thin layer of basalt rock resting on deep sludge.
The government says they are also considering a “market-led” proposal for an “innovative construction methodology to upgrade the existing bridge”. It’s unclear as yet what that involves; although there have been proposals involving (for example) sliding the old bridge onto new piers.
Bishop says he has also briefed the Greens and Labour over the last few days about this new approach.
Yesterday’s announcement came on the same day as reporting in The Post of the more than $106 million that’s been spent on consultants in the last few years, information that both The Post and Greater Auckland acquired recently through OIA requests. I spoke to The Post about that:
Connor Sharp, campaign director of advocacy organisation Greater Auckland, said $100m was an “exceptional amount of money to spend when we still have no idea what they’re really working on”.
Sharp argued that with maintenance on the Harbour Bridge likely to cause disruption, NZTA needs to urgently be having a conversation with the public about what a second crossing might look like.
“[They’re] spending this much money in secret and there’s almost no conversation about what these solutions actually look like.”
Sharp said [one] of the reasons why City Rail Link ultimately got across the line was because there was a huge concerted effort to build public support for it.
“It required transparency.”
Matt spoke to RNZ last night about the announcement, which you can listen here.
There’s also been a lot of media today, including NZ First leader Winston Peters coming out strongly against another study, which potentially breaches Cabinet’s collective responsibility agreement.
Much of the media coverage so far has focused on the question of whether this is just another report to add to the piles of existing reports.
There’s a good chance it could be. However, it is also an opportunity to finally make some productive progress.
Electioneering? Or a good decision?
We have led the call in recent months for a fresh approach to the harbour crossing. We’ve endorsed a practical proposal for an iconic and affordable new bridge, and presented on the issue to Auckland Council.
The Waitematā Bridge we endorse. Image: Nicolas Reid/ MRCagney
From our perspective, it is absolutely the right call to take this process off NZTA, which for decades has operated on this critical project under a shroud of secrecy.
However, key questions remain about whether this new approach is truly about making process towards a workable, and beneficial, project – or just timely electioneering?
There are some positive signs.
For me, the litmus test of whether this is a serious attempt to actually progress a solution, is how others will be engaged in the process from here on out.
Will there be more – and genuine – engagement with:
- Auckland Councillors and the Mayor
- Mana whenua
- Opposition parties such as the Greens and Labour
- Advocates and civil society representatives, like us
- The public, including dedicated citizen’s assemblies
Wider and more sustained engagement is crucial, because projects as large as this inevitably transcend political cycles.
As we have seen with the CRL, the path to actual delivery is paved by developing public support and growing understanding over time, with the costs, benefits and trade-offs made maximally clear. And success comes when there is sufficient (and crucially, sufficiently reliable) political consensus to proceed.
Additionally, with a project of this size, if we want the solution to be the best one for Auckland and for the nation as a whole, the process needs to be open and transparent with all the cards on the table.
A number of assumptions have been baked into this project as it has been developed over the last few decades, with prior seemingly constrained and dismissive regarding various options and alternatives.
This is why it will be interesting to see the summary of NZTA’s work thus far.
From where we sit, the entire process has been remarkably secretive, with NZTA only occasionally breaking cover to do surveys of public opinion, and successive governments making unusually sudden and specific calls about what they would or wouldn’t commit to.
You only have to look at the abrupt rise and fall of Labour’s 2021 suggestion for an active-modes-only bridge – a design that came as a total surprise to most people, including us. If asked, we’ve have advocated strongly for including public transport, for what would have been just a smidge larger budget.
Public sentiment is strongly behind this combination: NZTA’s 2022 – 2023 period of public engagement found that 88% of people wanted to catch a train or bus over the harbour, and 66% wanted to walk or bike over the harbour. The two most common feedback themes were “prioritise public transport” and “get on with it.”
Which is why it was bizarre to hear then-incoming transport minister Simeon Brown’s say in late 2023 that any new harbour crossing should primarily be for general traffic with no funding for walking or cycling.
It’s hard not to wonder if this week’s fresh approach is an attempt to draw a heavy line under that narrow and hands-on-the-wheel take and how out-of-step it is with the reality of what Auckland wants and needs. If so, good.
In any case, I hope we are now emerging from the long quagmire of secrecy and cross-purposes.
If this new approach keeps the lines open for public opinion, and commits to making the process open and transparent, we will finally be able to have a real conversation – such that Auckland can lead the way on what we actually need.
We’ve asked Minister Bishop a number of questions (see below) about how the proposed process will play out, and we hope to have the replies for you tomorrow.
Questions for the Minister
- How will questions and possibilities about the project be socialised?
- How will the government ensure opposition parties are involved from the get-go?
- How will the public and Auckland Council be involved?
- How wide a range of options will this new approach consider?
- Will any solutions be required to include the missing modes – rapid transit, and walking & cycling?
- Will consideration be given to changing the law to enable cheaper options (such as consenting)?
- Will there be a set budget envelope for the project to ensure the development of realistic options
- How will the government ensure the next phase takes a properly independent view?
Greater Auckland’s research and advocacy is powered by hundreds of hours of work each month, and your support helps keep us going! We welcome your donations; or offers of guest posts, practical help, or pro-bono expertise. Support the kaupapa via Greater Auckland merch including CRL-themed T-shirts. (Note: these are print-on-demand – allow a week for delivery, and double-check your sizing.)
Processing...
I can predict the outcome. A tunnel at a cost of infinity, which will not get built, but will generate a solid stream of business case studies for transport agencies and consultants to chip away at over the next decade.
Meanwhile, across the rest of the region, other projects will be deferred put on the back-burner, because talking about the Harbour is more important than actually building something anywhere else. Maybe I’ll get to ride the majestic North Western Busway before I die, but probably not based on current timelines.
Being as agnostic as I can about this whole ordeal, actually the one thing holding up this project is the City Rail Link. CRL needed to be built before we could understand the new shape of the transport network, and how the new crossing(s) might ‘plug in’ to the new network.
your suggestion sounds very safe, but very slow.
This is assuming a new rail crossing should be connected to the existing rail network, so it also benefits from the City Rail Link
which is a faulty assumption, whether heavy rail or light metro a North Shore line would need an east-west tunnel under Wellesley St because 1) that’s how Te Waihorotiu station was futureproofed, 2) there’s no provision for any junction into the CRL, and 3) the CRL will have its capacity taken up by trains headed west, south, and east, reducing service on those lines should not happen.
Its why I still think any rail across the harbour willl be LRT and the start/part of a complimentary rail network to the current HR one.
Although, I think its at least 30yrs away. Its going to be a busway “future proofed” for LRT, or it leverages the current one.
Even taken in good faith (I really don’t think the CRL held anything up about this one), they knew what the CRL would be 4-5 years ago. Doesn’t hold water, sorry.
With the Northern Motorway extension committing massively disproportionate, compared to the population it will benifit, part of the total nz transport spend, it will be a big big ask to get an even bigger spend in Auckland any time soon.
The justifiable squeals now coming from the South Island about disproportionate transport spending, in and out of Auckland , will become roars, as their roads and bridges continue to fail and crumble under this government’s raising of total vehicle weights and axle loads.
Look, by this trajectory, by 2037, New Zealand will have only 3 transport projects going on. By 2048, this will have reduced to one single project (probably 4-laning SH1 between Taupo and Palmerston North). Think of the efficiency gains when we only have to manage one single project. All the agencies and their staff can be abolished, except a few people sorting that project. We will finally have money for other things than transport.
That will please the South Island. Not
There’s a South Island? Huh.
They are probably all woke cyclists. What do they need four-laned highways for?
Oh well, have a few too!
We don’t need another report/consultation, we need another harbour crossing, and we want it ASAP.
What has been proposed by Greater Auckland, a second bridge east of the present structure, is ideal.
It doesn’t need to be gold plated, but it should allow for a future light rail to be part of the discussion.
If we got straight down to designing it, it could be completed by 2030/31.
It should not be a PPP, because the taxpayer is the last man standing when things go wrong.
Additionally Warkworth to Te Hana should be paused as the bridge offers far more benefits to more people.
I think its more of a “want” than a “need” at this stage. We could turbo-charge cross harbour travel by:
1. Introducing congestion charging at peak, for private vehicles enterting the central city
2. Prioritise the NX route south of the bridge, where it mingles too much with general traffic. Speeds up travel time.
3. Build a busway on the Upper Harbour Highway, connecting Constellation (Northern Busway) and (say) Westgate on the NW Busway, which adds another RT line to get north-south.
You could put the bridge/tunnel discussion back decades. In the interim, spend far less money on more Busways (or LRT) through the isthmus, Airport to Panmure, Avondale-Onehunga-Southdown, etc.
Bump
One issue that might arise though is the pressure congestion charging may put in the already pressured NX service’s – running out of room to shovel even more buses on.
Might bring forward the need to move to LRT, or a dedicated PT and active mode bridge only (where the demand is growing), or both.
Yes – investment on other projects to reduce demand on the existing bridge need to happen. Plenty of them will be less infrastructure heavy also.
The Harbour Bridge is UGLY. It always has been UGLY. This new bridge looks beautiful. Could we have a beautiful bridge across our lovely harbour?
We have a tunnel, it is called the CRL. A beautiful tunnel, as it can carry trains, and trains are fast.
We do not need more traffic, we need more train ways.
Trains on tracks use less land. They travel faster and more efficiently than any other thing in the past two hundred years, without wings.
Our trains are electric, they are future proofed.
The North Shore deserves better than a busway, the North Shore deserves a marvellous train network like West and South Auckland.
Our city is the size of Los Angeles, with the population of some small backwards town east, north, south or west of NOWHERESVILLE.
Soon the CRL will make living WEST, or SOUTH, much better. A new harbour crossing will make living NORTH better. But NORTH deserves trains too. Everyone deserves trains. They shoud be a human right. Safer than any other form of transport.
We already investigated Light Rail at a great cost, and could construct light rail. Now we will investigate multiple harbour crossing ideas, at great cost.
How about some action? We are a futuristic city, in the future we have sea level rise, we have less available oil (in the past and present too actually), but we still have electricity, produced locally and reasonably locally; at least within our sovereign territory.
Electric buses are better than diesel buses, electric ferries are better than diesel ferries, electric trains are better than every thing, and can move many more people, much more efficiently, than any other mass transit format.
Auckland looking forward must build on the CRL, see trains as the best way to connect our city, and whether they be light and bridge friendly, or heavy, they are the best we can give to the generations that follow us.
The future is bike and train, so let’s build our city to suit trains and bikes!!!
bah humbug
Yes!
Winston: Lets go to tender. Let the market price it and sort it out.
Also Winston (afterwards): This is ridiculous? They want 3 Octillions to build it? This is just foreign corporations and consultants milking the poor NZ ratepayer! How could the Prime Minister allow this farce?
Simeon Brown: If it saves only one minute of delay, we should build it.
Build a 2 track train tunnel, with the emergency exits doubling up as the active modes path – tunnel because it’s needed to hook into Aotea Station etc. and avoids wind issues. Leave the mega expensive road bit for phase 2, while getting the majority of the benefits from the PT only tunnel. Driving wise the Harbour Bridge is fine, we’re not yet at the point where lanes are restricted for certain vehicles etc.
Eventually, after the PT link has been built (with active modes path being the emergency evacuation bit), build new road tunnels (with a dedicated bus lane/emergency services lane), then turn the harbour bridge into a local road to Onewa with a single general traffic lane in each direction, single PT/emergency services lane in each direction, and the clipons for active modes. If the clipons need to be removed, and they aren’t being replaced, then turn the harbour bridge into a bus (or eventually tram once Onewa Rd caps out bus capacity wise)/emergency services only bridge, and the other 2 lanes being reserved for active modes as all general traffic would take the new tunnels.
The south of harbour rail system is now near complete.
The double track central system, including the new underground section has limited capacity to add frequency. So more destinations will have to subtract from frequency to existing destinations.
So just like in London new destinations require complete lines, with the only connections between lines, being by foot, at the stations serving more then one mode.
And then is the intra operability with long distance freight services still relevant? Nah.
So why not busways? or for the higher capacity of coupled vehicles, street running, or when available seperated exclusive pathways, using the more appropriate and cheaper for urban passenger services, light rail?
Perhaps when the existing high frequency hybrid busway to the North Shore is suffering from capacity constraints the section from Takapuna to Waitemata Station could be replaced by light rail, via either a multi mode bridge from the Onewa Road Junction to Swashbucklers, or instead a twin bore light rail tunnel only, and then street running to Waitemata. This could then be the basis of a staged extension street running up Queen Street then either or both, extending South down Dominion Road and West as a replacement for the Western Busway when in the distant future it reaches bus capacity.
The Meola reef site would make a great cycle / walkway route.
Agree. And would link up perfectly to the fantastic Meola cycleway and (depending where it lands) open up huge potential on the ‘Shore. Be amazing if this Govt could pull off what the last lot of hot air balloonists couldn’t: a standalone cycling & walking harbour crossing
I think you are going to have to have a lane each way for buses in there, to hope to get that over the line in terms of funding. And even then it probably comes after the second main crossing.
And then if you engineer it strong enough to take buses (those electrics are fkn heavy!) then the argument becomes why not build a general traffic bridge… and on and on it goes…
A railway bridge could be built next to the harbour bridge, lower down with a central lift span. I presume the number of large boats needing to access the upper harbour would be 1-2 a week , if that , and can’t see why they could not pass at night. So you have a cheaper link which is common in the USA , see Chicago , which must have a hundred or so lift bridges.
not conductive to running a high-intensity metro rail network with trains every 5 minutes or better at times, though
Lift/swing bridges are notoriously high maintenance and breakdowns with attendant non availability. For the extra cost of some higher support piers go for fixed spans everything. All but heavy rail can cope with the gradients involved. Neither the freight inter operability nor the modest increase in peak passenger capacity are required for a North Shore commuter solution.
The existing Northern busway still has increased capacity availability so conversion beyond the immediate harbour crossing area to Light/Metro rail is still some way away but still totally feasible.
There saved a few chapters of consultants reports at many thousands of dollars per page.
We have a huge industry costing us millions, producing nothing but reports, as a way of avoiding, by induced delay, of doing something that does produce something.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/96837360/aucklands-northern-busway-to-reach-capacity-a-decade-ahead-of-schedule
They’ve done a few capacity improvements on the busway and they can do a bit more, but capacity wise it’s not some way away (as it’ll take like a decade or so to build).
Also in their modelling it’s not a minor capacity increase, it’s pretty massive with heavy rail/light metro.
Auckland had enough problems just maintaining the wynyard quarter footbridge…. can only imagine how things would play out with a full size one.
The Bish has made all the right noises about bipartisanship, although a cycnic might point out he has torn up at least one of those agreements before.
Still, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and the inclusion of Labour – and particularly the Greens – indicates PT will be a non-negotiable part of what’s decided, which will grind the gears of the previous Transsport Minister.
Bishop seems to get urban issues and solutions a bit more than his curret and past colleagues. I watched the public forum a few weeks back (Engineering Institute?) and he mentioned that the issues we were facing (a historic focus only on the private vehicle) had been called out by Julie Ann Genter for quite some time. Steven Joyce must have choked on his dinner.
I still refuse to believe that it’s not possible to convert the Busway to Metro, this should be the only aim for North Shore to CBD transport, nothing that adds any extra road capacity
Convert the Busway and then put the track over/under the harbour, plug it into Te-W station, under the Uni & Hospital and out to Newmarket for another line at some stage (south under Manukau Road to the airport?)
How does converting the Busway to Metro improve things?
The idea to have another bridge right next to the old one is silly. We are still forcing all aucklanders through narrow corridors on either side.
Meola reef makes much more sense. Spread out the traffic.
yeah, great one. bulldoze through the zoo and some kauri forest all to connect a motorway bridge with a hilly set of suburbs and 2-lane roads. that’s totally gonna work (/s)
Green bridge where it’s walking cycling. Bus only. With light rail or heavy rail etc would be the go. Connects to north western busway.
The fact that there are parks on both sides is a positive.
Except that our politics would need to change A LOT before that is deemed viable spending in parliament (or our current government policy manuals). Walking and cycling and even PT just don’t get that kind of money or cut-through through the red tape that any large project has to get over.
those corridors exist because of geography. This isn’t Sydney, with all their rivers and peninsulas and inlets. The only other decently narrow part of the harbour here is Devonport to Bledisloe Wharf, and the local nimbys aren’t gonna let that happen.
Dumping motorway traffic onto 2 lane arterial roads in Birkenhead is not going to work. Chaos and billions spent and the loss of the zoo + kauri forest is not worth it and won’t create any sort of resilience. If you really want to get from Pt Chev to Birkenhead, run a car ferry.
Great (continuing) work, team. As a civics nerd my ears pricked up to hear “dedicated citizens’ assemblies” in your list of engagement things the govt & council should do. can you expand on that?
I think its very, very optimistic that funds will become available to tunnel any future rail expansion, and I include the Waitemata crossing in that.
I like your route through the Uni, Hospital and down M Road to the Airport. But its going to have to be at street level I think. So that’s LRT, but it raises a whole new set of issues – reallocation of road space.
This sort of thing, I reckon:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/regions_auckland/1068719/aucklanders-getting-paid-to-share-views-on-various-topics-with-council
The example given is how to manage/ eradicate moth plant and other invasive weeds… which is at least as gnarly a problem as how to make our harbour crossing/s as efficient and sustainable as possible!
This is the key bit:
“Participants heard from subject matter experts and council staff before giving feedback for councillors and local board members to consider. An 80 percent supermajority consensus on any recommendations, including how much the council’s response should cost ratepayers, is required.”
Getting well-informed regular people’s views on the problem statements, proposals and proposed spend would be helpful. (Especially as it seems people in the current airless rooms have become “billions-blind”… y’know, like brow-blind, but for dollars rather than drawn-on eyebrows).
Connor, you have written beautifully and with great knowledge. I suggest Waka Kotahi employ you. They need some of your transparency and reporting skills.
But I predict that over the coming year there will be several changes to our driving patterns that will see a reduction in total km of driving by Aucklanders.
More and faster rapid bus services. More bus lanes installed on main routes. New bus stations at Rosedale and Westgate. Busway to Botany opening next year. AT have made it clear they want to improve services such removing parking on busy bus routes and increase parking charges.
Increasing numbers of people biking. More bikeway connections Orakei basin, Whau river.
More train users now that all those years have renewal have ended and Te Waihorotiu becoming our busiest station.
Intensification and more people moving into 100s of new apartments close to bus and train stops. People not owning a car and saving money.
Monetary incentives, fare caps and discounts for PT users.
Congestion charges will encourage more to use PT.
We might not need a new crossing afterall but just some repairs to the existing bridge.
Let us imagine the outcome of the latest NZTA work was a 10b+ road tunnel. Under that scenario I imagine Bish would have immediately realised that it isn’t getting built and that he needed to take the project off NZTA to someone flexible enough to come up with a realistic solution.
Leveraging off the CRL then logically the only true long-term the only solution is a train tunnel from the Waitemata station up the norther busway for an integrated train system to service all of Auckland. AND. To create road capacity, the next crossing needs to be away from existing harbour bridge. Meola reef is not quite the answer – but just further west is from around Traherne Island on the NW motorway. This would be an extension of SH 20 (the south-western motorway). This could flow over the shallow waters in a bridge similar to what is used in the Florida Keys. A low lying relatively cheap bridge to build. Then to land the bridge at the Army reserve land past Kauri Point. Why there? As its military land there is no Resource Consent needed – the government can do what it wants on military land and it cannot be argued as a strategic asset for military purposes. Avoids the need for a high bridge due to being west of the Chelsea sugar refinery. That new bridge services all beachhaven, birkenhead etc. and so would reduce congestion off the existing bridge And who knows, one day it may even link up to NW motorway at Greenhithe. Now this would create true movement around the city
Greater Auckland needs a petition to get the Greater Auckland bridge proposal included as an option for consideration in the detailed business case.
“The bridge would then go into the Waitematā Harbour over Meola Reef, which is a thin layer of basalt rock resting on deep sludge.”
How is that not ruinously expensive, Mayor Brown?
As an aside:
It’s believed that Meola Reef was formed from a lava flow originating from Mt St. John, just west of Remuera station, 28 500 years ago.
Sea level was at that point was 80-90 metres lower than now and it was cold.
The lava flowed west and was deposited onto land, perhaps a swamp.
If there is sludge under that, it isn’t fresh marine sludge.
That dog park rests on the old tip, not sand. It’s loose rubbish generating methane. Then the motorway would go through Western Springs park right alongside Western Springs High School. Then it would cross Great North Rd and take out the new Waiorea recycling facility, probably some of the historic pōhutukawas we fought AT over. It’s a fundamentally stupid idea.