A new approach to the next Waitematā Harbour Crossing?

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.)

Share this