Tell us what you think about this project

Polling has closed on this project, as the project has already begun. The poll has run since 2005 and overall 86% of voters believed the project was 'good'.

Comment

Comments

From: Steve: From the new design of barriers along Westhaven Drive it looks like you will no longer be able to see the marina from the motorway, isn't that a really silly thing to be blocking?

Answer From: Benjamin Paul | The camber of the corners in some locations requires the road to be raised higher than Westhaven Drive. This means a barrier is needed to prevent cars from going through in an impact. Therefore an Armco barrier (the metal ones with wooden posts) or a tightened wire barrier would not be suitable. Also due to the widening, the motorway is now closer to Westhaven Drive, so a sufficient barrier is needed.

From: Martin: Why only three lanes through the most congested part of Auckland City? There is still no future proofing for Auckland City being undertaken in any development, and this is another short sighted development. There needs to be at least four lanes right though from the moment you come off the Harbour Bridge until at least Onehunga. Instead as you come off the 5 lanes of the Harbour Bridge you be pushed into three. As a rate payer I am completely disappointed at the poor thought out Victoria Park tunnel, I would much rather have seen a new harbour crossing to correct the major problem we have with our current crossing.

Answer From: Benjamin Paul | The project addresses capacity issues by providing four lanes once off the Harbour Bridge where two go to the Cook St and North Western (eventually Western Ring Network) and two southbound. Overall one quarter of traffic that is heading south from the bridge exits at Fanshawe Street. Of the 53,191 cars that are left on the Victoria Viaduct 42% of that exits at Cook Street or the North Western Links. By providing this 42% another two dedicated lanes and southbound traffic two dedicated lanes, I cannot see how this is short sighted. Also the Northbound tunnel can be widened in the future. From your comment it seems that you have not looked at the proposals for the Auckland Harbour Crossing.

From: Mary | What are the plans to ensure there is no utility disruptions (water, gas, power and telecommunications) to the surrounding area during the period of construction?

Answer From: Ben Paul | Ensuring no disruption to services is always included in plans and construction.

From: Terrance | I don’t see anywhere in the plans to straighten the approach to the bridge through St Mary's bay. This is a dangerous piece of road and should cut through the lagoon to provide a safer approach.

From: Jamie | The partial tunnel approach is disappointing because we will still be looking at that ugly viaduct for many more years. In addition, there will still only be two lanes going from the Northern Motorway to the Southern Motorway. I thought one of the main purposes of all these upgrades was to provide for a 'core' of 3 continuous lanes in each direction from the Harbour Bridge to the Newmarket Viaduct, with any additional lanes on any particular section being for connections to and from the CBD, Port (via Grafton Gully) and North-Western Motorway. That made sense to me. The current plan is just another typical Transit half-measure.

Answer From: Ben Paul | There are many reasons why Transit has opted for the partial tunnel option and when all factors are weighed in, it’s the best option. For Transit to build the Victoria Tunnel in both directions it would cost around $700mn, which it would not get funding for, if it did, many factors make it even harder to complete, especially for the southbound tunnel. The gradient at the end of the tunnel is too steep to allow for the appropriate gradient, the tunnel would have to be constructed outside of the Motorway corridor due to the foundations of the existing Viaduct and would take much longer to complete. Other issues include the second harbour crossing implementation, because the final option for the second harbour crossing has not been confirmed Transit would like to leave all options open, as the second harbour crossing is likely to have priority for southbound traffic and northbound using the existing Harbour Bridge with public transport sharing. With this priority the southbound direction of the Victoria Tunnel needs to be left open for all options. The tunnel for southbound will eventually be completed. Also one thing needs to be looked at: If you are getting 7 lanes through an existing 4 lane corridor would the extra $300m+ to build another 3 underground (the southbound tunnel if built at this stage would only be 3 lanes wide) be better spent on projects that are more urgent than putting a 300m section underground? I would rather see that money in the short term spent on the Newmarket Viaduct also and public transport and the western ring motorway.