Related: Victoria Park Viaduct & Tunnel, Waterview Connection

The Auckland Harbour Crossing Debate & Introduction

Every few years we bring up the same old debate that has been around since the 1970s, the second Auckland Harbour crossing*. The debate is between a new tunnel or a new bridge, what travels on these and where they go. The reason why the discussion is so significant is that the Auckland Harbour Bridge is the only central harbour crossing that connects the Northern & Southern motorways, lacks public transport options, has issues with the clip-ons and the fact it is utilised by some 166,000 commuters per day.

The issue of a secondary harbour crossing is of political significance, especially to the voters of suburbs on the North Shore. This was similar to the cost of the tolls on the Harbour Bridge before they were removed. It is also of such significance politically due to the cost of either a tunnel or bridge, as it ranges between $2bn-6bn.

* Technically this would be a third Waitemata Harbour crossing, as the Auckland Harbour Bridge is number one and the Upper Harbour Motorway (Greenhithe) Birdge is the second.

Auckland Harbour Bridge construction, clip-ons and recent history

The first crossings of the Waitemata Harbour were investigated as early as 1860 with a floating bridge design suggested by a Ponsonby farmer, every ten years since then basic to large scale plans for bridges were talked about but none of them went past the drawing board, mainly due to the fact that nobody thought that the North Shore would grow, and that it would remain rural and a holiday spot. Cars could access the North Shore either on the car ferry that remained until 1959 or via western areas through Riverhead and Albany, a journey that was 40kms long.

Originally a five lane plan with two six foot wide footpaths and a railway crossing was proposed, but was too expensive and the four lane option was chosen. In 1954 construction commenced of the four lane Auckland Harbour Bridge. The lifeline took four years to build, took four lives, and was opened by the Governor General Charles John Lyttelton, 10th Viscount Cobham on May 30th 1959. The bridge was funded by tolling which operated from Toll Plaza on the northern side at Northcote, the tolling ran from the opening in 1959 to March 30th 1984. The removal of the tolling was due to an earlier political promise that it would only be tolled until it was paid for.

After the bridge opened the growth of the North Shore exploded causing traffic chaos and congestion on the small section of motorway between Fanshawe Street and Northcote Road. The four lane harbour bridge was unable to cope with the unpredicted demands.

This congestion proved that the original bridge was a planning mistake, so they added four new lanes, two on either side, with a new technology called clip-ons. Clip on lanes are lanes that are added to the existing structure of the bridge, they are cheaper than creating a new bridge or duplication of the bridge next to it (if the existing bridge can handle such expansion). The clip-ons followed a box girder design. In 1966 they were installed by a Japanese heavy machinery company called Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries getting the nickname 'Nippon Clip-Ons'. The clip-ons were completed and opened in 1969.

One week before the opening of the clip-ons the Ministry of Works (existing roading ministry) found cracks and buckling in the welds of the added lanes, in 1970 more problems were found, in 1971 the problems were fixed, in 1982 these secrets were revealed to the public. In 1985 40 cracks up to 60cm long and 2mm wide were discovered and led to trucks and buses being banned from using the outside lanes of the clip-ons. Due to the clip-on technology being relatively new they are only expected to last 50 years likely to need replacing by 2016, unless extensive work is carried out on the clip-ons (currently happening).

In 1987/88 Auckland Regional Council asked the Ministry of Works to investigate crossing options. In 1996 Transit New Zealand started investigations into a third Harbour Crossing and identified preferred options. In 1997 the Auckland Regional Council started investigations. In 2001 the Auckland Harbour Bridge Climb opened where tour groups could climb to the top of the bridge and not long after AJ Hacket bungy jump opened underneath the main deck. In 2004 the Auckland Harbour Bridge featured on The Amazing Race television show.

On December 3rd 2007, ARC, ARTA, Auckland City Council, North Shore City council and Transit New Zealand released new preferred proposals. An option was decided as the best, which is outlined below.

The 19 year old barrier transfer machine was replaced on the last weekend of February 2009, a new machine was introduced which takes half the time to transfer new narrower barriers. The barrier and the operation of transferring it will be continued into St Mary's Bay as part of the Victoria Park Tunnel project in 2012.

Recent clip-on issues:

In 2006 more fatigue, buckling and cracks were recorded on the clip-ons which prompted local government to put pressure on government to look at solutions, Transit responded with having money set aside for current bridge maintenance and investigation in their 10 year plan.

In May 2007, for the second time in the bridges history, Transit New Zealand introduced bylaws to stop heavy vehicles (5.5% of total traffic) from using the outside lanes of the clip-ons and encouraged use of the centre spans. In October 2007, Transit New Zealand committed an 'urgent' job at strengthening the clip-ons valued at $45m.

The clip-on strengthening project took place between mid-2008 and late 2010. Heavy vehicles under 44 tonnes are now able to use the clip-ons again, while heavier vehicles must use the centre spans. A surveillance system will be introduced to prevent the usage of the clip-ons for vehicles heavier than 44 tonnes.

Why do we need another harbour crossing?

Clip-Ons: The life of the clip-ons have not been easy. They require constant costly maintenance which occur regularly, these repairs disrupt traffic flow. While the clip-ons have recently been strengthened - a system to monitor usage of very heavy vehicles must be introduced to police the clip-ons correct usage.

Public Transport: The current bridge has no capacity for rail or a bus only lane, rail could also not be added below deck due to weight issues. You cannot currently walk or cycle across the Harbour Bridge either. The Northern Busway project should run directly to Britomart creating a direct public transport route, but cannot have its own (dedicated) lane on the AHB.

No Alternative: There is currently no viable daily or convenient transport alternative to cross the Waitemata Harbour for vehicles.

Growth: To ensure Auckland remains as a world class city it needs to make infrastructure such as harbour crossings reliable and less susceptible.

Traffic Demands: Currently the AHB handles its traffic well, almost never being congested during peak periods (due to reasons on the bridge itself) and remains one of the freest moving sections. But future growth will change this, also with the movable barriers 3 lanes in the opposite peak direction often congests either side of the AHB. Also the existing bylaw against trucks using the outside lanes had negative effects on the confidence of the AHB itself. However, traffic demands may slightly decline with the completion of the Western Ring Route.

Secondary Harbour Crossing: the chosen option

Three new proposals in regards to a second harbour crossing were outlined on the 3rd of December 2007, one of these options was chosen and refined. This was option two, which is now called 2c, a tunnel across Auckland Harbour (Waitemata Harbour). There were three preferred proposals which were decided on from 159 different options since investigations began in 1997. To see all of the previous proposals, click here.

The estimated cost of the Harbour Crossing project was increased in March 2011 by $1.2bn to a total of $5.3bn. This study re-introduced the ongoing debate between a cheaper bridge and the below proposed tunnels.

Current Estimated Cost: $5.3 billion | No construction date yet

The Tunnel Itself The new motorway will run between Esmonde Road in the north and just south of Wellington Street in the south. The section which is a tunnel (underground & underwater) runs between Toll Plaza (Northcote) and Wellington Street. The tunnel is made up of four separate tunnels, two for traffic and two for rail. It will carry 3 lanes in each direction, totaling 6 lanes. Sections that are on land or shallow water will use a cut and cover technique (similar to Victoria Park Tunnel). The existing Auckland Harbour Bridge (AHB) The existing Auckland Harbour Bridge will be left as it is, but with lane layouts changed, and greater priority for public transport including walking and cycling. Changes in access to interchanges and parts of Auckland Essentially the current AHB route will be used to access the CBD and the new tunnel route will be used to access the North Western and Southern Motorway. For the northern interchanges, Onewa Road and Esmonde Road, access is available to the new tunnel and to the existing AHB. The AHB provides access to the CBD & Ponsonby and the new tunnel provides access the North Western Motorway and Southern Motorway. Stafford Road off-ramp will only be accessible for traffic coming from the CBD and Ponsonby. For the CBD interchanges, access is only available for traffic that is using the existing AHB route, not to the tunnel traffic heading south and west. The existing link can still operate during construction, maintenance and incidents. The current AHB route will terminate at Cook Street for citybound traffic, and begin at Wellington Street for northbound traffic. Public Transport and Rail Options Buses, walking & cycling will be given access and more priority on the existing AHB. The AHB is likely to be converted to 2 bus only lanes and 6 traffic lanes with walking & cycling below deck. Rail is included in two separate tunnels in line with the traffic tunnels, which will link in with the Northern Busway*, Wynyard Quarter, CBD rail loop and Auckland rail network. *The Northern Busway is likely to be converted to light rail in this case. Interaction with current and near-future projects Central Motorway Junction (CMJ/Spaghetti Junction) has been designed to incorporate a project like this, where tunnels surface after Wellington Street to link in with connections that have only recently been completed. The Victoria Viaduct Tunnel and existing Victoria Viaduct project is designed to enable easy incorporation with the project. This is one of the reasons why the Victoria Park Tunnel is only in the northbound direction. The Northern Busway has been designed to enable the conversion to light-rail, which is incorporated in the new crossing tunnel. Note: These proposals may change at any time and illustrations are purely indicative.

The chosen option is as follows in this image in more detail:

*Northern Busway may be converted to light rail as it has the provision to do so.
The above image is © of AucklandMotorways.co.nz. Satellite images are courtesy of Microsoft Live. www.maps.live.com.

Previous Harbour Crossing Proposals

You can see which options were proposed and why they were not chosen in detail here on the Previous Proposals page.

Option One: Esmonde to Britomart, Public Transport Only. This option was not chosen because a single mode tunnel did not benefit the region economically enough to make it a good option to build.

Option Two: This option was chosen, but the chosen option is a variation of the original Option Two.

Option Three: Esmonde to Grafton Gully, peoples choice in polls*. This option was not chosen due to cost. It comes in $1-2bn more than the chosen option, it also required extensive demolition in the Grafton Gully area.

A Bridge: A bridge was not chosen because of its urban design issues, despite being cheaper it also would require extensive reclamation and disruption for areas by the bridge footings.

Opinion

Note: This section has been written by the web sites author Benjamin Paul, this does not represent the opinions of the government or local government. Click Here for About.

The proposed option is positive for two main reasons. One, it creates a dedicated route into the CBD via the existing bridge, while offering pedestrian connections and more priority for buses. Two, the tunnel offers rail and traffic options while bypassing the St Mary's Bay and Victoria Park areas, connecting to the Southern Motorway.

It is better than a bridge option because the bridge options require intrusive connections at either St Mary's Bay/Herne Bay and at Northcote for little benefit. It is better than previous tunnel options because it uses the existing and recently upgraded southbound/northbound sections of the Central Motorway Junction - instead of using the steep Grafton Gully section (which would require significant works at lower Grafton).

Also this option retains connections to the southbound tunnel at Onewa and Esmonde, and does not need to bypass them.

Tell us what you think about this proposal

Yes; complete this project. No; review different options. Please do not vote more than once, it will cancel your original vote.

Comments or questions?

Name Email Comments Please fill out the re-captcha image below before submitting to help us prevent spamming (this is required): Contact Us

From: Chris | I believe this preferred option looks favourable. I believe that only options which will have no or minimal impact to current residential areas should be considered. I believe keeping the existing bridge and tweaking it's function is a great idea, opening it to pedestrians and cyclists etc as well as motorists makes sense. I believe the path of the new proposed tunnel is the best it can be, it surfacing on the North Shore in existing uninhabited land. I believe none of these changes should impact some of the beautiful and historic residential areas which are adjacent to the proposed tunnel and/or existing bridge e.g. Northcote Point, Northcote, Bayswater etc. If anything the new proposed tunnel should be seen as an opportunity to ease the impact the current motorway has on any of these residential areas.

From: Scott Re: Liam's comments below | Although it has been done overseas it is extremely unlikely that light rail vehicles will be used on the Auckland heavy rail network. In NZ our trains run on narrow gauge. The vast majority of light rail vehicles in the world run on standard gauge. It will require custom (expensive) train/trams to run on narrow gauge (and the 25kV overhead power). In addition there are major operational issues between mixing light and heavy trains on the same network for reasons such as speed, signalling, collision protection, platform height etc. Basically it will be unreasonably difficult and expensive to mix the two. This means that, if the north shore link is light rail it must terminate in the city. This is a huge disadvantage operational over through routing to somewhere like the airport etc. You cannot "upgrade" heavy rail track's to light rail. This would be considered a downgrade, and pointless as it is possible to run trams on heavy rail tracks of the same gauge. If it was converted to standard gauge it would prevent use of the tunnel to our narrow gauge trains, crippling our rail network. Heavy rail also has greater speed and capacity than light rail. Many people believe that the current busway configuration (with offline stops) will have a greater capacity than light rail (where stops are normally on line). Unfortunately the introduction of heavy rail to the north shore will not be able to utilize the busway due to the gradients, this will mean that (heavy) rail to the shore will be an expensive process.

From: Hugh | All of these proposals seem to have missed the point that North Auckland is expanding rapidly and congestion on the motorway section north of Esmonde road will only get worse. Width expansion (which God forbid) can only be achieved on the western side due to the presence of the busway. Common sense demands a further crossing that will reduce the traffic pressure on the existing highway, not increase it. Therefore the answer of a northward extension of SH20 to Highbury and beyond should be as plain as a pikestaff and infinitely cheaper!

From: Liam | This is good, but why is there only a light rail connection? If there's going to be light rail used on the Northern Busway, how will it connect to the CBD loop, when the Auckland suburban network is heavy rail? Shouldn't the North Shore rail line also be heavy rail, so that it can keep up with heavy patronage that may occur in the future?

Answer: If you look at the map the rail links in with Britomart and the proposed CBD loop. Heavy-rail is not needed in this circumstance, as heavy-rail is more expensive and mainly for freight, it can easily be upgraded to light-rail however.

Mauray: We definitely need a option which includes cycling, walking and rail for a new harbour crossing. Anything less is a waste of money!

From: Richard | I'll make it quick, overall the plan is sound. I would however prefer heavy rail or rapid rail. Reason being that light rail cars have a limited speed but more importantly capacity which might be fine for the next 20 years but what will capacity will be needed 50 or 100 years? Building a light rail [tunnel] is shortsighted as the grades required cannot be used for heavy rail at a later date. Also why cut off the Harbour Bridge connector to southern motorway? If there is a disruption in the new tunnel commuters have no other option but to cut through the city. Why?

Answer: The plan would not cancel out the Auckland Harbour Bridge to be used as an alternative if the tunnel were to be closed due to an incident etc. they would be able to connect to the Southern and North Western. The main goal of this is to lighten the traffic volume between Wellington Street and the Auckland Harbour Bridge, there are noise and aesthetic issues with the motorway through this section.

Images of the Auckland Harbour Bridge

There are some more classic photos of the Harbour Bridge during the 1960's at Dennis Wilford's website here.