KEY POINTS:
Here is an earlier selection of Your Views:
GD (Auckland)
Some 35 years ago the Harbour Bridge Authority had plans for a second crossing from next to the Chelsea works to Meola Reef to take all traffic not heading for the inner City. It was a brilliant idea and if built we would not have a problem today or in the near future. But the dim-bulb politicians refused to allow it condemning the good citizens especially of the North Shore to the nightmare we now endure. This current scheme is a dog for all the reasons others have stated. It's planned by morons and those who want to drive motorists out of our vehicles and further erode our freedom of movement. We should demand the busway currently under construction become vehicle lanes. If the so called authorities refuse we should drive on them and defend any attempt to penalise us and clog up the Court system. The citizens need to send a clear message that our patience and tolerance towards the fools who attempt to govern us has run out.
Allan
Double the price and start building it now. By the time this forecast has the tunnel half completed the current generation will no longer be the primary support for the project through tax dollars. The next generation will be wondering why they are paying for some old guy's dream project that seems to never be near completion, rather than enjoying the benefits.
Kiwi (Canada)
Get real Auckland! What is needed is a second crossing up harbour avoiding the CBD use the new Hwy 20 extension from Hillsborough through to NW Motorway at Western Springs and then on the Meola Reef to Birkenhead would only require a 500m bridge. You could do this for a 5th of the price and quickly!
Ken Haydock
A road tunnel is absolute rubbish and a waste of money. Any tunnel to the North Shore should be for public transport only whether it be buses, light rail, or heavy rail. By the time a road tunnel is completed in 20 or 25 years time there will be no fuel available for the masses to drive their cars through it carrying only one passenger at a time. Do it right the first time and make it public transport only.
Logan
What is the point in this option? A tunnel is a great idea, but place the entry/exit points should be somewhere other than where the current Harbour Bridge is. Congestion on the bridge isn't the problem. It is the approaches that can't handle the load. Another crossing in the same place is narrow sighted and worthy of little or no consideration.
Why waste money (Beach Haven)
Should not the new tunnel avoid filling the existing Northern Motorway with more cars? Why not have the tunnel going from the bottom of the bridge or the tank farm directly to the new Greenhithe motorway. That way you will remove a lot of traffic from the Northern Motorway that needs to head directly north. And why is it so expensive? In Sydney they can build three times the length of tunnel for what it costs us for just this one.
Harry L (Waitakere City)
Some great comments here, but to Ian (regarding his seemingly serious proposal to replace the Harbour Bridge with an "earth dam"), you are aware that there are a number of marinas in the Upper Waitemata aren't you? Also, how would turning this section of our beautiful harbour into a giant, clogged silt and salt pond constitute creating a "fresh water lake". I can't for the life of me think why your visionary proposal has been ignored by the city's various planning committees for the past 38 years.
Richard Worrall
Although it is claimed the tunnel will be used for both public and private transport, the alignment and the fact it is designed to link with the existing motorway clearly indicates Transit's priorities. It is also likely all the additional traffic from the tunnel being funnelled into spaghetti junction will just cause more traffic chaos. The price tag also seems outrageous compared with other undersea tunnels elsewhere. The new twin rail tunnel project under the Straits of Gibraltar between Europe and Africa is costed at $420m a km despite being 300m below the seabed. Why is this Auckland tunnel more than 250 per cent more expensive per km?
Anne van Duren
Fantastic concept! Excellent proposal!
Questions:
1. How will the northern exit/entrance dovetail into existing motorway? Is there an artist's impression of the ground level view available for public to see from multiple angles (north/south/east west)?
2. Do you think we could design it so as to incorporate long haul/light trucks and public transport, and save the bridge for cars? (Referring to the clip-on weakening problem of the bridge lanes)?
3. Can there be a way to incorporate a way to link the underground public transport buses into the Britomart lane ways along Fanshaw Street? This would streamline the bus services very well!
Aussie kiwi
Transit NZ If this goes ahead you need to include rail. Otherwise this city will continue to have traffic problems. This will also solve the problem of north shore residents claiming that electrification will not help them (when in fact it will even without this!).
Adam
The bridge is not the major problem I go over it every day, it is not where the delays are caused. It is other parts of the network (around Newmarket and Greenlane, CMJ, North Western), and specifically their feeder roads, that are so problematic. The way cars enter and egress the motorway slows the traffic enormously. The new light signals are a start, but we need a whole system approach, not an all eggs in one basket solution such as a new tunnel. A second crossing may be an improvement, but it is not the most important improvement. As any businessman will tell you do the most important things first.
Ian Turner
Originally the ARA engineers were opposed to any tunnels due to the volcanic nature of the region and the possibility of an eruption in the harbour, so what has changed? Since 1969 I have made submissions to the ARA and ARC advocating scrapping the harbour bridge and replacing it with an earth dam/causeway at the present site. Effectively blocking the tidal flow into the Upper Harbour and creating a fresh water lake. The overall cost of a causeway would be minimal compared to other alternatives including bridges. Also it would provide more transit options including rail, cycling, and pedestrian use and further lanes as required. Construction of the causeway could commence immediately, finishing within say two years.
Jeff
What? "Regional manager Peter Spies said the Daldy St corridor would be wide enough for a cut-and-cover tunnel to be dug with four lanes two for public transport and two for general traffic". Two for public transport is great but two for general traffic? WTF? That will only reduce capacity when the clip-ons fall off. I'm sorry but if this is to work the developers are going to have to make way for Daldy Street park to be widened for another four lanes at least. Also, valid comments here about trying to squeeze more cars through CMJ, the tunnel really needs to head east of the CBD to hook into Grafton Gully and a new Eastern Corridor and Britomart for trains.
North Shore
I think any idea that will relieve the traffic problems should be given a go with in a realistic budget. The planners involved are really doing a great job with what they have and its always easy for the pubic to mouth off on issues that they know nothing of. Well done for the efforts to date.
Fady
In 2020? Too late. Will harbour bridge handle the traffic till 2020? That should be done in conjunction with the Rugby World cup in 2011.
Andrew
Auckland will regret a tunnel. Shangahai, Hong Kong and even Sydney sees their tunnels quickly reach capacity. Also I believe that by the time this tunnel is built the Harbour Bridge will be due for replacement. The old coat hanger feels like it is made form No. 8 wire. It's already bent and out of shape, another 20 years isn't going to do any favours. They should build a replacement low maintenance bridge, 10 lanes plus bus lanes, cycle lanes, multi layer if needed.
John W
Look any attempt by the powers-that-be to build a tunnel or bridge is good. Not sure why they want to wait for 2020 though we need it now. Personally I think the proposed tunnel position is wrong. Why build it near the existing crossing? As an alternative, there is a reef (Te Tokaroa I think) running out from Pt Chev (ie. West of bridge) which is most suitable for a causeway. All it needs is a high bridge on the North side for the yachts and you're done. Why is this never considered? Cheaper and better.
Larry (New Lynn)
The aim of the second harbour crossing should be to reduce traffic and congestion, not to increase it. A heavy rail link from Britomart, under the harbour and up along the Northern Motorway will provide more capacity for the same capital expense. If this was combined with reduces wharf charges for cargo from the port entering and leaving by rail, then a large portion of the container traffic through the city would disappear. Light rail has the disadvantage that it competes for street space with the existing vehicular traffic, as well as it's tracks being a nightmare for cyclists and motorcyclist to cross.
Ian (Mt Albert)
Can you dig a bit deeper and publish the full costs of reclaiming and remediating the land under and around the oil tanks. I have heard that the land is saturated with oil, diesel etc and will cost over $1 billion to remedy. What is the ACC / ARC saying that will cost?
Erik Kiwi in Europe
More apartments will benefit only developers and purchasers. Transport needs are of increasing urgency and this opportunity cannot easily be replaced by other options. The forward thinking option is to create a tunnel to cater for future transport needs, and not only for road traffic but include light rail to link up with the existing network. In addition, extend the rail network from the Onehunga branch line to Auckland International Airport. Then Auckland will have the bones of an effective modern public transport system, that will benefit all Aucklanders.
NeillR
It seems pointless to have another harbour crossing in an almost identical location to the current one. Surely it makes more sense to put a second crossing to the east of the CBD, that can link up with the port motorway entrance and the Eastern highway (if the council ever comes to their senses and builds that). One day Auckland will suffer a natural disaster, and it can only be hoped that the enduring myopic attitude doesn't mean that the city's infrastructure will be destroyed as a result of poor planning and a single point of failure.
Samuel
For some reason politicians are like dogs worrying sheep. Once they tasted blood they keep on going for it. They tend to go for projects of white elephant proportion just so they can put a plaque to immortalize their name on it. Dick Hubbard is no exception. Definitely another crossing is importance of national proportion, a person with any common sense wouldn't argue. I have lived in Auckland for twenty years. I've seen the problem since then, politician are just too blinked once they are in power. This is of the highest priority. Wake up, you're playing with thousands of lives. Get real. Business in Auckland relies on North Shore people and vice versa, not unless your logic is the same as that of john banks, livelihood first then you can dream later. People of Auckland region don't take this lying down. Don't be a sheep listening to those people if they are deaf and blind they don't deserve your vote come election day.
G man
I see again that people are talking about an additional crossing in the vicinity of the existing harbour bridge. I do have some questions regarding this, namely, given talk that that the harbour bridge is 'at capacity' at ~160,000 vehicles/day, and the CMJ is already running 250,000 VPD, fully expanded, and with fewer lanes than the bridge, why divert additional traffic into the CMJ by locating an additional crossing in the same position i.e. Northcote Point to Tank Farm? Surely prudent planning would be to avoid the CMJ choke point and Tank Farm option any thought to that or is this process overrun by NIMBYs? Unfortunately I believe that he whole location process has been hijacked by vested interests, be it roading contractors/authorities/local body politicians or residents all too happy to see a motorway built anywhere but near them, with little regard to what actually is best. Building more roads all headed to the same spot is akin to having all of Auckland's power lines end at the Otahuhu sub station opps done that. As a note, I use the bridge daily commuting to the city from the shore, only rarely is the bridge the problem, in fact the traffic is usually free flowing with the CMD and Tristram Ave the bottlenecks incidentally this highlighted on Transits own feasibility study information package on page 15 showing afternoon traffic stalled headed southbound to the CMJ.
Auckland strategic security
I believe a tunnel will provide an alternative access to the rest of the North Island and can be viewed as a strategic security measure let alone taking the pressure off the harbour bridge.
JH
A tunnel is a daft idea what a waste of prime waterfront land! I was impressed with the recent plans for the Tank Farm area.
C.scoble, (Auckland via Western Australia, working)
To even suggest a tunnel emerging at Bayswater is pure lunacy. If all the feeder roads were as wide as Bayswater Avenue is, then yes, it would be an excellent idea. This is not the case however and one would quickly find that the vast amount of money spent on such a project would only benefit a small portion of motorists. Why? Because the massive traffic jams that would occur when you came out of the tunnel at Bayswater would cause people to stick to the bridge for a quicker journey home and the only people that would use it would be the residents of Bayswater, Belmont, Hauraki and Devonport. Even though I grew up in the area, I don't believe that the massive amount of money that would be spent on this would be justified. How about some fresh ideas and action from our council leaders instead of recycling old ones?
Andrew
Development of Auckland's transport infrastructure should take priority over any considerations of commercial property development. Accordingly, all plans for Tank Farm should go on hold and Transit, North Shore City, Auckland City and the ARC should all sit down and talk to one another. Obviously, Tank Farm is geographically a good fit for a public transport network between Britomat and Auckland's other rails lines and the North Shore, where the busway could eventually covert to rail. I could also envisage a National Waterfront Stadium with an underground rail station being situated on Tank Farm with still enough room for a sizeable park on its (Tank Farm's) northern tip. That's more exciting and visionary than a bunch of commercial property blocks.
Chris
I cannot see this tunnel happening, this council, and future councils, are not prepared to commit to anything which will improve the traffic flow, now or in the future. And with the typical "not in my back yard" approach of those living in the way of this development I am afraid this project is doomed from the outset, current power pylons issue a very good example. It will need a catastrophic failure to the current harbour bridge to prompt them into the typical kiwi knee-jerk reaction to actually get moving on what has become an absolute necessity 10 years ago already.The harbour bridge is ageing, cracks in the clip ons are already surfacing due to the extra load it has to carry, it was not originally designed to carry this kind of load.Must we wait until it does fail and create a major impact on the infrastructure before we get any action on this? Council members, stop for a moment eating your free lunches and sipping your lattes, and think what the impact will be on the regions economy and transport. All the millions spent on your bus lane uber traffic solution will instantly become another white elephant of wasted tax payer money.
woomack
An excellent idea - now make it happen and don't talk about it for the next 20 years. Dilly dallying and not stepping forward to finalise decisions is why the traffic is so bad today.
John
The sooner the Tunnel is started the cheaper it wil be in the long run.If constructions doesn't start till 2020 then 3 Billion might end up only starting the project.Can Auckland traffic hold off till 2020? I don't think so.
Jack (Auckland)
Tunnel through the harbour?? Sounds interesting..what is even more interesting is the budget for the project... its no matter of millions but billions already. I'm sure Aucklanders need a solutions for all the traffic that is there, not sure if such a project is a solution though. By the time its built I am going to be old anyway and probably wouldn't care less. For the kids and grandkids may be. Oh well..
Isaac Broome (Onehunga)
Yes, lets get on with it and do the tunnel. The two projects will tie in together nicely but the harbour tunnel must include rail to the North Shore. Convert the North Shore busway into a rail line and have an underground rail tunnel connecting Britomart with the harbour tunnel. Rail can move considerably more people, more quickly than any other transport mode, and when it is electrified it is clean, quiet, fast and reliable, and not vulnerable to high oil prices. Buses can collect people in the suburbs and feed into the rail at various points.
Arron
Will never happen. Progressive places like Australia or Singapore just get on with building infrastructure. In Auckland we debate, debate some more, get some committee to spend 10 years to draw up a report, and then set a 30 year time-line to complete a cheaper, third-world alternative that will already be obsolete by the time its built (e.g. Eden Park).
Gail Carpenter
Sounds like a full blown "pipe-dream". A hole in the ground to bury the 'smokers' tax dollars. Imitate mass public transit = remove the brainless idiots from the streets. Less air/water pollution = less people killed/injured in vehicle accidents. Everybody wins = the ecology wins.