When NZTA released their further assessment of whether the next Waitemata Harbour Crossing should be a bridge or a tunnel (millions of dollars of public money spent on the assessment, without it even having a recommendation) I felt that the whole project really missed the point – why do we need another road-based harbour crossing? In fact, it seemed as though the whole proposal for another crossing – released just a couple of days before Auckland Council released its spatial plan discussion document – was more aimed at disrupting and distracting the Council’s transport plans than anything else. I mean an additional harbour crossing seems to even be below a Cambridge to Taupo motorway on Steven Joyce’s list of pet projects.
In fact, if one was to be really cynical, you could think that the entire purpose of advancing another road-based harbour crossing project is to generate a whole pile of debate over whether it should be a bridge, a tunnel, whether or not it should have rail, whether or not it’s a higher priority than the CBD Rail Tunnel and so forth – while at the same time drawing debate away from projects like Puhoi-Wellsford and other Roads of National Significance that are eating up NZTA’s budget over the next decade.
Fortunately, Auckland Council Transport Committee chairman Mike Lee seems to have caught on to these tactics, and there’s an interesting letter he has sent to NZTA included in the agenda of Tuesday’s transport committee meeting. Here’s what the letter says:
Somewhat buried within the vast bulk of documentation in the Harbour Crossing study – much of which expounded the benefits of the project – was the actual cost benefit ratio of the bridge (0.6) and tunnel (0.4) projects. Now one would think that such low BCRs would kick the project to touch for many years – but seemingly that’s only true for rail projects. It seems that these days a low cost-benefit ratio for a roading project is almost a virtue.
Good on Auckland Council’s transport committee for being highly sceptical about the latest study. And good on Mike Lee for not taking NZTA’s bait and creating a major debate over whether the crossing should be a bridge or a tunnel. We settled that debate back in 2008, like he says in the letter.
Now, can we get back to debating whether spending $1.7 billion on the holiday highway or the CBD Rail Tunnel makes more long-term economic sense?
Processing...
Good on Mike – Auckland really should just focus on developing the projects that really matter, eg central city rail loop, which are in line with its strategic vision.
The second harbour crossing may be important in the long run, but it’s definitely not needed for at least a decade after the other projects that we have on the drawing board.
Sinister Joyce doth protest too much!
I think the point that Mike makes that is important to remember is that we aren’t going to start working on this project for another 15-20 years and in that time both technologies and costs are going to change quite a bit. There was obviously also a clear motive behind the timing of the release of the reports as pointed out by Brian Rudman a while ago where the agency had planned to release the report a few weeks after the spatial plan but that at the last minute Steven Joyce made them release it just before in an obvious attempt to muddy the waters.
That’s great they are asking them to do economic modelling of how much it would save to restrict heavy vehicles on the bridge.
Yes, where would Auckland be without Mike Lee? He’s a great visionary and battler for our city, and we need more of his kind given the backwards facing Mr Joyce and company we have down in Wellington.
The BCR is expectantly very low for these road crossings, but as you point out that has being ignored by declaring uneconomic RONS as “strategic” and “effective”. I still don’t understand how this escapes Bill Englishes so-called austerity drive.
Anyway, if we need to talk about more capacity now, why not turn one of the existing lanes into a bus lane which will add 10-times the carrying capacity?
Is silly doing too much traffic modelling until after Vic Park and even Waterview opens anyway. I though the point of Waterview was to get Albany – Airport/South Auckland traffic away from the Harbour Bridge, hence large decongestion and time-saving benefits.
NZTA can’t have it both ways by saying Waterview will make heaps of difference when looking at Waterview, but no difference when looking at the Harbour Bridge.
And once the WRR is finished SH1 should be tolled to encourage people to use the alternative route. That in itself could get many heavy vehicles using the alternative route.
I wonder how long before their are calls for the Coatesville – Riverhead highway to be upgraded so trucks and others can use it to bypass congestion around Albany?
When the WRR was planned Albany was just a twinkle in some developers eye, now its a car dependent congestion generator.
What! No mention of ANZ-BUTT (Australia-NZ Brisbane Underwater Toll Tunnel) linking Brisbane to Auckland via the Pacific Ocean?
Got to love Mike Lee, i dont always agree with him on everything but he sure cuts through the bullshit. Nice work!
Good call from Mike Lee on the whole thing being a mass distraction. Pm the topic of North Shore rapid transit, it has already been published that the Busway has vastly increased the amount of people the bridge is carrying at the same time as reducing the number of vehicles traveling over it, so there is plenty of potential carrying capacity in the existing bridge we can still unlock.
I’m in Bordeaux, France right now where there is an excellent and well-used light rail system that has turned a bunch of narrow streets into very high capacity transport corridors. It’s a very good way of unlocking extra capacity of an existing space. Interestingly the system only started opening in 2003, the same time as Britomart and the start of our rail upgrade.