A response from the Minister on the Harbour Crossing reset

After the Government’s announcement of a revised approach to planning the next Waitematā Harbour Crossing, we had thoughts – and quite a few questions.

The Minister has provided answers, which we share below. While a lot of it this remains promising, we also have a lot of remaining concerns, and quite a few follow-up questions as well.

Questions for the Minister – and answers provided

How will questions and possibilities about the project be socialised?

As we move into the Detailed Business Case stage, we will progress planning for stakeholder and public engagement. We will have more to share in due course.

How will the government ensure opposition parties are involved from the get-go?

We have provided multiple briefings to the Opposition over the past year, including ahead of yesterday’s announcement. This is something I plan to continue through the next phase of the project.

How will the public and Auckland Council be involved?

Auckland Council will be engaged through the Auckland Regional Transport Committee currently being established to coordinate central and local government transport plans in Auckland and create a unified 30 year transport plan.

The Chair of this Committee will be a member of the Waitematā Harbour Crossing project’s Steering Group – providing oversight and input into the project. In addition, the study into Meola Reef will be jointly commissioned by central government and Auckland Council.

How wide a range of options will this new approach consider?

We aren’t starting from scratch in the next phase, instead we are simply being as transparent as we can be about the options taken forward. We will be progressing the two existing bridge and tunnel options from NZTA’s Investment Case through the Detailed Business Case, and considering the Meola Reef investigation and the Market-Led Proposal in parallel.

Will any solutions be required to include the missing modes – rapid transit, and walking & cycling?

Any option for an additional crossing would increase lane capacity across the harbour. There would be options for how those lanes can be best used to support transport demand.

Both the bridge and tunnel options from NZTA’s Investment Case include dedicated lanes (one lane each direction) for a rapid transit busway across the harbour.

Will consideration be given to changing the law to enable cheaper options (such as consenting)?

The Government has already made significant progress on reforms that will make it easier to plan and consent infrastructure projects. We introduced Bills to replace the Resource Management Act last December and expect to pass them later this year. Infrastructure projects will benefit from spatial planning, standardised rules, and a more consistent consenting process. The Bills will also ensure consent conditions are proportionate to the scale and significance of effects, avoiding unnecessary costs and requirements for applicants.

Will there be a set budget envelope for the project to ensure the development of realistic options?

At this stage, we are not planning to set or share a specific budget envelope. However, Cabinet has been clear in its expectations that the next phase of the work continues to look at opportunities to reduce costs where appropriate.

How will the government ensure the next phase takes a properly independent view?

A common assessment framework will be developed to fairly assess all four options. They will also go through the same assurance process which will be based off the Infrastructure Commission’s existing assurance process and adapted to a project of this scale and complexity. This will be overseen by an Independent Assurance Panel and will assess both the assessment framework used, and the quality of each of the options developed.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Minister of Transport Chris Bishop announcing the changes on Monday

The good bits

First of all, it’s great that the intention is for more transparency going forward. As we’ve long argued, the secrecy that has surrounded this project has been immense, and has prevented a real conversation about what’s best for Auckland.

It’s also good to know that the project will being scrutinised by an Independent Assurance Panel, based on the Infrastructure Commission’s existing framework for assessing major investment.

These are not small things. The best way for a project to happen is to build public support through openness and public conversation. And, the best way to ensure we get the best version of the best solution, is to have an open process with proper independent scrutiny.

So far, there look to be some good moves in this area, and this could go further using processes like deliberative democracy, along with regular consultation; to get informed views of regular Aucklanders and build up the social licence of any solution.

What needs improvement

While there is some positive direction in other areas, we think this should go a lot further.

For example: while it is good that Auckland Council will have more involvement in the project, that’s set to happen through the Auckland Regional Transport Committee. And it should be noted that the chairperson of the Auckland Regional Transport Committee is jointly appointed by both central and local government.

So although they might be on the Harbour Crossings steering group, they are essentially only half a representative of Auckland Council itself.

We suggest Auckland Council should have its own chosen representative on this steering group.

Likewise with the involvement of other political parties in this process. If the intention of this project is to have true cross-party involvement, so the project can successfully span multiple changes of government, then it would be equally useful for the opposition to have their own representative on something like the steering group (which should remain through a change of government).

Additionally, we would like to see more of an appetite to set cost envelopes for the project. Any proposed “solution” that ties up the entire city’s – or the whole country’s – available resources for decades (whether funding, gear, or person-power), is not a practical solution.

Finally, a project as complex and significant as this should likely come with its own enabling legislation. It’s not clear to us the existing consenting process, even after the governments reforms, would make sense in order to produce the best option here. It often seems that viable solutions (such as a bridge, or in other projects something like elevated rail) are too easily brushed aside due to claimed difficulties with consenting.

That isn’t to say things like the environmental impact shouldn’t have a lot of importance in the process. Rather, when something will change the visual landscape of our city as much as a new Harbour Crossing could, this should require a more project-specific approach.

Highly concerning

While we appreciate the Minister’s responses to our questions, they highlight a number of things that we are extremely concerned about.

First and foremost, this new process – if it is to truly take a fresh and considered approach – must be tasked with questioning the assumptions and work of prior reports.

It is absolutely right to take this project out of the space that has produced unworkable report after report, for decades. We commend the government for creating the opportunity for a better process, and thus ideally a better outcome.

However, a failure to question the assumptions of prior solutions would be catastrophic.

There will undoubtedly be useful components of the decades of work so far (such as geotechnical inspections over the last couple of years) that can be used in this refreshed process. But the key premises – and founding assumptions – of what NZTA has produced thus far deserve to be questioned, and rethought if required.

We can all see the cost of the failure to do this. Unquestioningly carrying forward set assumptions, project scopes that have accreted to monumental size, and the occasional surprise bid has been a fatal flaw of projects such as Auckland Light Rail and Warkworth to Te Hana, where wildly over-scaled “solutions” have been advanced under a claim of “there is no alternative”. This is especially harmful when there were always alternatives that were both fundable and buildable.

So, this is why a more transparent and open process is crucial. The prior process has operated under an extraordinary shroud of secrecy. While we don’t know exactly what has been produced (hopefully this will change soon with the public release of details, including what this Market-Led Proposal is, any guesses?), we do know that process is likely to have repeatedly produced the same unworkable solutions, again and again. If not, a project would already be underway.

The only way to solve that is to have a public and transparent conversation – and to give the new process the mandate to consider reputable independent proposals, such as the bridge proposition we have endorsed.

Our endorsed bridge proposal from across the city Image: Nicolas Reid/ MRCagney

There’s a reason why we have endorsed this particular proposal: it seeks to solve the real problems that any Harbour Crossing needs to resolve if it’s going to be a lifelong benefit to our city. Starting with an accurate problem statement is vital.

And that’s why any proposed solution must embrace and prioritise the currently missing modes. Any solution that does not have walking and cycling at the top of the list is an immediate no-go.

On that note, it is striking that the Minister’s answer doesn’t simply say something along the lines of: “Of course a priority of any new crossing will be to enable Aucklanders and visitors to walk, bike, stroll and scoot across their beautiful harbour, just as in every peer city we can compare ourselves to. This is a glaring deficit that we are both excited and delighted to fix.”

Honestly, how hard would it be to say something like that? And what is it telling us, if a sensible minister isn’t saying it?

The same goes for rapid transit: a commitment to a single lane feels bare minimum. The key reason the existing Harbour Crossing has worked for as long as it has, is due to the enormous proportion of people who travel across on buses rather than driving. So, planning for Rapid Transit must be front and centre in any solution, and it must be future-proofed for greater usage, and to ultimately enable rail.

After all, the main benefit, and indeed the main point, of building any new crossing is to deliver purpose-built new modal connections that are fit and proper for keeping a sustainable city moving, in the world we now live in.

Only when these missing modes are top of the planning list will we be sure we’re actually on the right track here.

To sum up, this change offers an opportunity for a better outcome for the Harbour Crossing project. But only if it is done right.

• For any solution to be legitimate, it must include walking, cycling, and rapid transit connections (future-proofed for rail).
• We ask for more extensive involvement of Auckland Council and the Opposition parties.
• We support the intention for more transparency, and greater independent scrutiny of the project options.
• We would like reputable proposals, such as our endorsed bridge proposal, to be evaluated as part of this process.

Time will tell whether this will be just another report, or a genuine move towards delivering the next Harbour Crossing.

Share this