Editorial: One bridge is beauty, two a blot

Proposals for a new harbour crossing have long been a staple of Auckland life. Many an idea has been put forward, discussed in urgent tones, then faded from view. Now it is the turn of Transit New Zealand, which has unveiled its two preferred options: a new bridge to be built 500m west of the harbour bridge, or a tunnel going under the harbour to the east. The alternatives have been thrown into the public arena even though it is estimated that planning for the crossing will take another five years and construction will require up to 11 years. That invites an obscuring of priorities. Other, more pressing, shortcomings in Auckland's transport system must be solved - the building of an eastern highway, for instance - before a new harbour crossing takes centre stage.

That has not stopped Transit from seeking to inject an air of urgency into the crossing project. A little over a year ago it said it was keen to secure a route and land by next year. That was hopelessly optimistic. So far it has completed only a feasibility study. A report on nitty-gritty matters such as the impact on traffic of the two options, and their economic, social and environmental effects, has yet to come. In reality, it is too early to debate Transit's proposal at other than the most basic of levels.

Effectively, that boils down to deciding whether a new bridge or a tunnel would be most suitable. Transit NZ appears to favour the tunnel option. On balance, that seems the right call. Transit's reasoning is that the tunnel, an immersed tube between the Northern Motorway east of the bridge and Wynyard Wharf, would be the more integrated solution. It would offer better road network connections, including the smoother delivery of traffic to the port area, and from the North Shore to the city centre. It would also provide superior public transport connections - a direct feed to the Britomart transport centre is a possibility. That is a powerful plus, given the desirability of exploiting Britomart to the full.

What Transit has not commented on is the question of aesthetics. Would Aucklanders want the beauty of the Waitemata disturbed by a new bridge within half a kilometre of the present structure? Probably not, if there were a valid and cost-effective alternative. If one harbour bridge decorates the Waitemata, two would be more likely to disfigure it.

That is not to say that the proposed six-lane bridge does not have advantages. These, however, may be more imagined than real. Unlike the tunnel, it would offer walking and cycling lanes in addition to accommodating private and public transport. But the number of people who would want to walk across such a bridge is open to question. This would not be a short stroll like, say, crossing the Thames. Nor would it be particularly pleasant at most times of the year.

A more compelling argument for the bridge is the potential to add lanes. Transit estimates that a six-lane structure, including two dedicated public-transport lanes, would, with other transport initiatives, be enough to cater for the predicted doubling of Auckland's population to two million by 2050. The history of the present bridge suggests that flexibility is no bad thing should such forecasts prove wide of the mark.

Other population trends are, however, equally important. The one, for example, that shows the number of people living and working on the North Shore is increasing rapidly. That tendency, if it continued, would make a new harbour crossing a rather less pressing matter, certainly less urgent than filling in the missing links in Auckland's motorway system. Much work still needs to be done by Transit and the Auckland Regional Council before the new harbour crossing takes shape. It will need to be built - but not before a lot of water flows under the present bridge.