KEY POINTS:
Here is an earlier selection of Your Views:
Jeffery Rosie
The idea put forward by the Transport minister for the Auckland city council whilst radical and most probably if it was taken as he suggested ridiculous could have some merits. The proposal to do away with car access over the Waitamata is just not practical at the moment however the need for a focus of public transport across any new structure is also important. His suggestion of a second link which could be a public transport only bridge with pedestrian access could be viable if the Harbour bridge remained to service the needed access way for cars and trucks. I am no expert but it deserves some thought I guess.
Kim Hutcheson
A tunnel would be by far the most expensive option. I would be happy with a cable-stayed bridge design like the Anzac bridge in Sydney. It eliminates the need for a complex exhaust extraction system, is aesthetically pleasing (although most anti-progress Kiwis label any engineering marvel as a "concrete monster", alas) and the view would be great. Also much easier to integrate into the existing above-ground motorway network. (It goes without saying that a crossing is needed).
G
We cannot have a second crossing until the other motorway problems are ironed out. Really, we already have the widest road in the state highway network - the Bridge, all 8 lanes, funneled into the ill conceived and already at capacity spaghetti junction - 6 lanes of motoring bliss, complete with trucks merging from the port at 10km/hr. The traffic statistics show this ill advised piece of motorway having the lowest average speeds and the highest traffic volumes (some would say an ideal place to locate a toll booth Mr Hubbard). Traffic surveys show that we have some 160,000+ vehicles a day over the bridge with 250,000+ going through spaghetti junction. The number of vehicles exiting Fanshawe street in the city is relatively few in comparison to bridge use, suggesting that actual CBD commute is not the major issue. The only way to shift this through city traffic is to bypass the central motorway junction - unfortunately I'm not sure Mr Hubbard, despite is grandstand ing, is prepared to tell the residents of Herne Bay and Ponsonby that their suburb is now designated for motorway expansion as well as residents of Orakei / Remuera..
J Kemp
We definitely need another harbour bridge crossing. I whole-heartedly agree with the sentiments of Mr Simpson; that it should be a lowline bridge permitting road, rail & pedestrian crossing by foot and cycle, like the Sydney harbour bridge. Auckland is a 3rd world city in not permitting pedestrian & rail crossing of its harbour. This is the chance to remedy that deplorable situation & to build both a multi-functional & attractive bridge from which views of the harbour can enjoyed. An Auckland icon of which we can be proud to identified with, like Sydney. I do not support a tunnel.
H
It is past time for a second harbour crossing. The present bridge was designed for more than 4 lanes but was reduced by politicians who knew better than those the experts they had employed to advise them. Why were we surprised when soon it proved to be too small? The "clip ons" were a band aid which already have passed their use by date. Another crossing is needed now. The problem has been canvassed for a long time and there must be many reports. Can our politicians not simply decide on a course of action and implement it. We elect our politicians by majority vote then they listen to the minority, try to decide by consensus in the public arena with others who are not as well briefed as the politico should be and then delay, costing time with escalating costs and denying their users the benefit of the new amenity. Councils are scared of being wrong but with input from experts and their own judgment they have a better chance of being right. If you doubt the above look at the history of the harbour bridge, of the recent debacle of the eastern motorway which one day has to come, of the Auckland rail system, the Onehunga-Avondale road link and the road to Puhoi due to be completed for the millenium. Had our forefathers not had vision forwards we would not have the great city of Auckland today. Some recent mayors and councils did things. We did not like all they did but we now see they were necessary and applaud them.We need a second crossing and we need it yesterday. Can you simply not decide and do it now?
Andrew Atkin
One idea is to build a tunnel for electric cars only. The tunnel would be small not only because it's just for cars, but because you have far less ventilation requirements. It also provides a powerful incentive for people to buy more efficient electric cars. It only needs to accommodate cars because you can leave established infrastructure alone for heavier vehicles - there's no net capacity or access difference for heavier vehicles with my idea.
Taxpayer
Trucks on the main bridge sounds great Suggestion : Double deck all the four lanes across the bridge.This option could be the quick fix that is urgently required.We would gain four new lanes, or three lanes and a rail track. This system could extend north and south as far as is required in both directions. We can then rethink the need for a second bridge or its actual location.
Welly
Let's face it, the transport infrastructure in Auckland is a joke, and there's not enough being done to sort it out, and nor has there been for ages.Second harbour bridge to be built? I reckon they'll build a Bering Strait tunnel between Russia and Alaska before that happens.
RonD (Torbay)
Please, no more welding, to repair the "Clip-Ons". Instead, make them "Stand-Ons". Extend all the underwater buttresses (to the east & west) and build up, under the "Clip-Ons". In fact, if these buttress extensions were even larger, the present 8-lanes could be increased in number (even to include rail-tracks). Infrastructure changes at either end of the bridge would be minimal. The problem with a second crossing, be it bridge or tunnel, would be that massive changes would have to be made to suburbs such as Devonport, Birkenhead, Parnell &/or Herne Bay (including extra "feeder motorways", joining up with SH1).
Thilal
Harbour bridge is fifty years old and may have good life for another thirty or forty years; therefore certainly it is about right time to plan a new bridge or a tunnel. But I do not agree that the traffic is worse because of the incapacity of the bridge. It is mainly because of inadequacy of lanes beyond the bridge, both ways. For example, just passing the bridge - towards the city, four or five lanes shrink in to two lanes each on Fanshawe and southbound. Two lanes for southbound traffic are not enough at all because of the number of people travel on to many quite busy exits thereafter, say up to Mt. Wellington off ramp. Result is traffic backfiring up to the bridge. Similar problem exists in the North Shore too; traffic is usually backfired as far as up to Greville Road off ramp in the mornings, due to inadequate lanes (only 3) up to Onewa Road on ramp. Soon after Onewa Rd., traffic immediately eases because from that point onwards there are 5 lanes.
Larry
A heavy rail link through a tunnel would give Auckland the biggest bang for it's bucks. Traffic over the bridge would be cut by giving an alternative to driving into town. In addition there should be a surcharge on containers leaving the port by road. Making the rail links much more attractive to the transport industry. And, yes please, to a pedestrian and cyclist link across the bridge.
Arron
It will never happen, look what happened with the stadium fiasco.
What will happen is that we will spend the next 10 years debating about the best possible solution. Then someone will actually come up with it (as in the waterfront stadium option) and a large number of spirulina drinkers living on the shore will get up in arms in that the new structure will block their views of some of the glorious downtown apartment buildings in the CBD. Then we will decide to do a further minor (half-arse cheapskate) upgrade of the existing structure and once again be the laughing stock of the developed world.
Vince Jefferson
The three most insidious barriers to transport progress in the Auckland region are: 1) Lack of long-term political will/financing 2) Inability to learn from historical mistakes in other commonwealth/European countries while thinking a kiwi problem requires a kiwi homegrown solution. ) Management resource consent and taniwhas
John Lieswyn
What kind of country do we want to build here? A new, tangled mess of motorways dividing our neighbourhoods and promoting unsustainable transport options, or a clean & green society which leaves behind the minimum environmental and social damage? The bridge was designed for 5 million vpd (vehicles per day) and is carry 12 times that now. This is indictment of lax land use policies which must be tightened now, along with encouragement to build more multimodal transport developments. We must move away from bedroom communities and build real mixed use suburbs so people aren't forced to drive everywhere.
Martin
Agree with the idea of a bridge toll - But it should be at least $5 inbound. Just one way is best.
Le Fox
It's not rocket science, if we have to shift traffic around on the bridge to reduce stress, then it is time to build a tunnel or another bridge.Can you imagine having barges to carry cars & trucks over the gap, like a 3rd world country? Start building now don't think about it, just do it!
Dick for PM
Let's not sensationalise this, says Mike Lee. Of course not, what's there to worry about? Auckland is the economic engine of New Zealand with 1.3 million people, an almost entirely motor vehicle dependent transport system, on the Pacific Ring of Fire, with one rickety 50 year old bridge full of cracks crossing the main harbour. This situation should be a national embarrassment. We're use to seeing weight restrictions on those small creek bridge crossings out in the countryside, but this is New Zealand's largest city, and we're not anywhere near constructing an alternative. Dick Hubbard is absolutely right to raise the issue of Auckland's need for an alternative crossing to provide some security of transport supply should something disastrous happen. It is called leadership and vision, looking to tackle issues before they become fatal. Now will somebody just get on with it!
TM Grant
All the comments about stopping trucks travelling on the bridge seem to have forgotten that trucks are the lifeblood off NZ businesses. The delays they currently face cause everybody to face additional costs on every product. Plus the huge cost of lost productivity for every Aucklander that travels our roads. Unfortunately another crossing is not an easy answer. It would only be able to connect onto our existing overloaded motorways, I believe that the only simple quick solution would be to quickly get into building an effective subway system ( like any international city has) and to keep it cheap enough that people will use it. The current Busway is a waste of money and very short lived. The Diesel Powered Trains going into an underground station in Auckland must be the only one in the world and it was only done because it was the cheapest solution. Unfortunately the people with commonsense don't seem to get listened to.
Del from Planet Earth
Bring back Sir Dove Meyer. I have been away from NZ for over 15 years and upon returning back to reside I find a country that appears to be run by mealy mouthed politicians and over-qualified no-hopers. Let the people decide what they need, we can get instant lotto results, instant TAB results and have to wait for years for what really matters to us. Why? We are definitely a 2nd world country at present and deteriorating rapidly
Berta Metz
In my opinion,Auckland doesnt need a second harbour bridge crossing.
What it needs is an under ground or fast train railway system.
A second crossing will cause more traffic bottlenecks on ether side.
Dean
A second crossing should have been started 20 years ago. This city is heading to be a complete joke in less than 2 years as the population grows forget the anti smacking debate and get on with something serious now.
Richard
Yes please another harbour crossing but in the meantime ban all vehicles from the clipons and only allow them to be used by persons of 100kgs or under no matter if they are walking, running or cycling across. If the technology existed a few years ago to build a tunnel from England to France and then send trains through it why cant they do the same here.Also, apparently there are a number of tunnels running from North Korean to the South which were capable of delivering about 10,000 troops and even tanks should they ever decide to invade. I cannot imagine that getting in some of the North Korean tunnel experts would be that expensive and we could even through in some free food as well. Maybe somebody from the council should approach the 'Dear Leader' to see if he might be interested. May Mr Hubbard could even go and visit North Korea itself since he's always in for a junket and at the same time set up a sister city arrangement as well.
Roger (Japan)
I live in Japan for extended periods on business. I recently heard about how the city council equivalent in Kyoto was building commuter train stations for anticipated use in 30 years time. Unfortunately, NZ local (and National) politicians have little or no vision past their own tenure. Of course another crossing is required. A tunnel seems the best option merging with an enhanced motorway north of the current bridge.
Anne
Auckland needs to and should have a number of decades ago, have a second crossing (tunnel) to the North Shore along with a rail line going up to Silverdale (running on the left of the motorway going north). This would reduce heavy traffic on the road and give the trucks another route without stressing parts of the bridge, which were not designed to take the extra weight in the long term.
Chris
The only reason a second crossing is needed is that the life of the existing bridge is limited. The existing bridge is an eight-lane highway. Ask a traffic engineer how many cars/people can pass over it if they had somewhere to go at each end? If we are serious about reducing traffic then why issue any consents for more office space in the CBD? The apartments in the CBD are affordable housing for many who don't work in the CBD which just adds to the problem. The large shopping malls should have only got consents if they included multi- storey car parks and provision for bus terminals. Incentives should be given for creating employment that moves traffic away from the harbour bridge, i.e. Albany, Swanson, Papakura. The only problem with any of the above is we have too many self interest groups i.e. the big money is still mainly with the CBD and those people dont want to give up their revenue for the greater good, just like the original reason for changing the route from Parnell to the CBD.
Patrick Cheung
Auckland does not need a second harbour bridge because that will just encourage more cars on our roads. In fact, we should focus on "how to reduce the number of motor vehicles on Auckland's road and how to help Aucklanders to commute effectively? A "free" bus service is the only solution and it will attract most Aucklanders to use it daily. Eventually the "free" bus service will reduce a large percentage of motor vehicles on Auckland's roads.
Neville (Tauranga)
if you took half of the trucks off the road and used rail more,it should ease the problem as a lot of the trucks are going up north or back and that should help. Why not build a new bridge beside the one their like Tauranga has to do and one bridge for going over and the other on return trip also put rail with it and you can use it for moving people.
Adam
They should now do what needed to be done from the start. Bulldoze Parnell and Devonport and put a dirty great crossing there, put a eight lane motorway right through Takapuna into Milford and across to link up with the motorway at Sunset road. On the other side, the eight lanes could head up to Spaghetti junction. Perfect crossing, brilliant motorway, minimum disruption to lives of ordinary Aucklanders.
Bigger bridge problems
The bridge has had issues right from the beginning. The biggest problem is it is constructed out of HT steel. This means the original bridge was most likely designed for 100years of useful life due to flex. Then we doubled the weight with the clip ons. This reduced the lifespan by approx half. Therefore we need a new bridge now. However this attempt to finally do something when many engineers have voiced there opinion for years is too little too late. I wonder what will happen when the bridge is unusable.
Vinnie
Yes please! Auckland needs to do something right away now! Not in a month or two but now.
Pete (Japan)
Any idiot can see we need another crossing, same as we need a good rail system to move people. Our whole public transport system is overloaded and costing individuals & country alike. Perhaps the population will remain static - yeah right . Steel, like most materials, has a limit to the number of cycles it can endure before it fails , just bend a bit of wire until it breaks & you'll see. It seems the bridge has a history of such stress cracks and some "on to it" engineer has just managed to convince the boffins as to its demise . A tunnel is a great solution, in NZ we hardly know what one is, every day I drive through one tunnel you could put all NZ tunnels inside & not make half way. They keep the landscape "clean"& can be started and exited wherever convenient .
Chris (West Auck)
Perhaps we could use all our free space to put up some billboards and use the revenue gained to pay for the planning stage for the bridge that we'll never get. This could be our next mayors eastern corridor, western ring road, or Stadium New Zealand. The great part is all the money and time spent on these projects has had very little if any effect on the city.We need cheaper faster public transport. And no mayor.
Ex-Browns Bay
Of course we need another bridge or some other way for people to get to the North Shore and further north. The council is agreeing to create more and more subdivisions and build more apartments in Albany but how are people supposed to get there! Someone needs to do something about the traffic problems -either build another bridge or provide ferries from Browns Bay and Murrays Bay. A second bridge must include a rail facility.
Ian
The problem is not central government on the issue of actually getting anything done in Auckland, be it a new harbour crossing or new roads. The real problem is the absolutely useless organisation, the ARC. I strongly object to paying ARC rates every year. You just have to remember back a short time to the Waterfront Stadium issue, that stadium would have been started by now, if the ARC didn't exist.
James
I think its clear that it's time for us to all leave Auckland. Well at least anyone with half a brain. No point staying in a place that gets nothing from the government. Actually what we should do is shift the government to Auckland. Then some of our problems might finally get fixed and our voices heard!
Jason
What this city (and country) needs is to crush its obsession with the car. I believe tolls are the answer. Slap a toll on the harbour bridge ($1 or $2 to cross in to the city). The rationale can be that it is intended to force driver's (especially those commuting in to the city alone) to stop clogging up the roads and consider alternate ways. It is no good complaining about buses and trucks, they are essential services, the real cause of the jams is the cars. Consider a bus carrying 20 people, takes up the space of two moving cars, the alternate is up to 20 cars on the road. More park and ride, more buses. For those bozzo drivers who just won't give up their cars....fine. Let them cough up the cash for the new crossing.
Bra
Every single person in favour of another harbour crossing - no surprises there, so just get on with it! This time remember to put in a rail line, bicycle lane and pedestrian access! Also, 100% agree with you Amanda - the cost of North Shore public transport is extortionate. Its a no-brainer, why wait for a bus - especially through our wet winter months - when you can travel in your own car for less?
Rob W
Successive local governments for over 30 years have done largely nothing to keep up with, let alone plan ahead for, transport needs in Auckland. Time and time again the councils have failed to take any leadership in this issue. More roads alone will never be enough to put a dent in Auckland's traffic problems and yet we keep hearing about the ideas for new bus services to the city etc. Buses wont fix anything - the only thing they improve is the profit of the bus company. An efficient rail network is still a feasible option for Auckland but it will take a council with some vision and an acceptance that we cannot do it ourselves. We should engage an overseas company like MRT (Mass Rapid Transit) in Singapore to come in and do it for us. If this means giving them a 30-year or large percentage ownership of it, so be it. At least it'll get done in a manner which Auckland's council have proven again and again they are too incompetent to manage.
Jeremy
Tunnels. Seriously. You don't have to buy or rent the land. You dont annoy the residents. A tunnel to Devonport. Another one somewhere else. Or - a monorail. Hi-tech solutions for a hi-tech age.
Caribbigd
It is so pathetic but typically a NZ trait to be so short sighted with anything to do with transport. The original bridge was too small when it was built, the powers to be new that even with the Nippon Clip-on it was just a short-term fix. We could see that by the mid 70's. Talk, talk, talk! Why don't they get off their butts and make a decision that might not be a vote getter but will be something that our grandchildren can look back at as wise decision. Sadly the rest of the country will be upset about Auckland getting too many funds and they will all talk, talk, talk.
Grant Diggle
Those who know the appalling history of the lack of action as regards the harbour crossing despair that it will take a total collapse of the existing structure before anything is done. Aucklanders have suffered 40 years of negligence bordering on the criminal as far as infrastructure is concerned and we see no signs of any real change .Too little too late is all that those who attempt to govern can offer. Memo to those responsible: Borrow the capital, allow private enterprise to build it and recover the costs through a toll spread over the life of the structure. This is user pays in its truest form.
John (Howick)
It's nice to think we will start planning and building a second harbour crossing shortly. The pity is like all things, including the existing bridge, budget considerations will delay it, and then when built, it will be insufficient to cater for the traffic using it. As long as we resist paying, by toll or taxation we will continue to spend all out money on fuel whilst idling in traffic jams.
Whatever happens we need to be sure the roads we do get, connect, rather than terminate. All we seem to have is a series of links to the next bottleneck rather than a network that flows.
Rewi Kemp
"7 years to plan and many more to build new crossing". This is incompetent insanity. We need the crossing now. Get on with it damn you. One year to plan and two to build is quite sufficient. Any more is enrichment of paper pushers at our expense.
Harry Kay
Yes, of course we do. No city in the world of similar size as Auckland has a single crossing across a major water way. But it won't happen. Like so much else it will be talked about and consulted about until the cows come home by our visionless "leaders", in particular the totally unnecessary and useless ARC. We have given up hope of anything worthwhile taking place in this city.
Alwin
Here is a novel solution. Actually use all the taxes, fees etc. gained from petrol and car registrations to actually do something to ease the congestion or build another bridge or two. We do not need more taxation, tolls or levies. Just use the money we are currently paying. It is more than sufficient.
Amanda (North Shore)
I think trucks should be banned from the motorway during peak times altogether - this would put less stress on the harbour bridge too not just the clip ons. The North Shore public transport system is a joke because it costs me less in petrol to drive to work for a month (even in the slow traffic!) than it would be to get a monthly bus pass. I think there needs to be alternative ways to get to Auckland City whether it be ferries from Browns Bay, a crossing accommodating pedestrians and cyclists or a lane for motorbikes only. Stop talking about it and get it done!
Graham
The Toll should never have been removed, the money accumulated by now, (and from continuing tolls in the future) could be used to provide a speedy solution, which could be a new bridge, a tunnel or whatever the "high up's" say it should be. Instead you have back foot planning with no eye on the future..
Alwin
Transit sure have done themselves proud on this one. Now they are going to divert big slow moving trucks into the so-called faster moving lanes to cross the bridge. Once over the bridge the mad scramble of trucks to move off to the slower left lanes and the faster moving cars heading to the eright hand lanes will cause chaos. The bridge has never been the problem for traffic congestion. Anybody who travels the bridge daily will tell you that it is feeder and exit roads in close proximity to the bridge, which cause the problems. Spaghetti junction is another. I agree with the correspondents who say that we need bridges from Birkenhead and Devenport across the harbour. Here is a novel solution, make trucks go through state highway 16 and ban them from the bridge. While on the subject of trucks, I am sick and tired of truckies sitting in the centre lane doing 70kph on the motorway going North. Uselly two abreast and causing huge traffic congestion. How about a sign or two saying that these lanes are reserved for vehicles under 2.5 ton. Transit has no desire to ease congestion. They are the biggest stumbling block to road development in this country and a huge monolith wasting taxpayers money.
Daron
A bike/walking lane would be ideal, and long overdue, either on the existing bridge or a new one.
Mike
I drive to and from town daily from Takapuna, and 'hardly' ever is the bridge itself the actual problem, as soon as it splits into 4-5 lanes it frees up significantly and time spent on the actual bridge is only about 3-5mins. The problems are the on ramps, esp Esmonde road, this on average takes 20-30 min before your on the actual motorway. But if you're really annoyed about it, leave early and beat the traffic, not rocket science
Bryan
Time to bite the bullet! Any bridge or tunnel for road traffic will cost at least $3b (Transit's previous estimate), plus billions more for motorway connections and expansions. Extending rail from Britomart to Albany, and across to the western line at Kumeu or Swanson, will ultimately cost less and reduce greenhouse emissions. Trucks will be able to use the Western Ring Route to get to Albany and Whangarei - SH16 already has a direct port connection, and the distance isn't significantly greater than SH1.
Charlie (Auckland)
You can build a bridge or tunnel pretty much where you like but what are you going to attach it to. The biggest problems are the motorways either side. What other route can you take a motorway on the shore or south.
Aucklander
Ban large trucks on all roads. Most of the dolts that drive these things pay no attention to the road rules or there fellow motorists!
Nzaussie
Trucks,cars what ever. Years ago some of us could see that when the tolls were removed from the bridge it was a recipe for disaster. Pennywise pound foolish. Any major future transport up grades over the harbour would come back to bite us and indeed it has. With the monies saved from keeping the tolls, Auckland could have funded a new bridge, tunnel and a half decent public transport system. I can just imagine the on going discussions between Auckland's excitement machine Dick Hubbard and all the other Council heads. The "what ifs" will continue for the next 20 years. And as usual nothing will get done. Of course the law fraternity will be paid by the public at great cost and still nothing will eventuate. (nothings changed,only the date.) Actually,the best scenario, would be to tell the public there is a major structural fault with the bridge and therefore we urgently need another carriage way. As Dick Hubbard said we would be buggerd without the bridge. Where's Robbie? Borrow some money bring back the Japs, or Chinese, Koreans build a new bridge, tunnell what ever, just do it Auckland. After all by world standards its a Neville Nobody project.
Alysa
This is absolutely ridiculous. Have you seen the way truck drivers drive along the bridge. Forcing them into the insanely too small middle lanes is going to cause traffic accidents. The moveable barriers force cars into a dangerous situation with such narrow roads and no room for mistake, making all the trucks squeeze in their together is just asking for a problem. Trucks should be made to travel across the northwestern motorway.
Barry (Wellington)
Trucks will be prohibited from using the outside lanes of the Auckland harbour bridge.Another ballsup or beatup by Transit.It reminds me of The Terrace tunnel in Wellington where because of short sightedness by Transit we have a three lane tunnel.Who ever heard of a three lane tunnel or the bridge you extend which cannot take trucks.
Phil
For me that 'clip on' has always signified the abject failure of NZers to adequately provide for ourselves. Whenever we need a piece of infrastructure the cheapest short term fix is always the one selected. The original plans for a harbour bridge were for something that would still be transporting Aucklanders without jams even now. Then the country's "leaders" stepped in and gave Auckland something that was too small in the 60's when the bridge was finished. Hence the clip ons. Of course Aucklanders need alternate ways of getting around. The skinny strip called the isthmus will always be a bottleneck unless other harbour crossings East and West of the isthmus are put in. It will never happen of course, not in than land of "Tax Cuts Now and Forever". Still we can daydream.
New Bridge over the harbour
"Mr Hubbard said it was time to decide on another harbour crossing - a project that could take up to seven years to plan and many more to build." Agreed...100 per cent.
RF
I think allocating certain lanes on the bridge to certain types of traffic is a great idea. However Transits' recommendation means that general traffic is now going to be forcibly slower and more frustrated as a result. If trucks use the middle lanes and buses (occasionally) use the 'buses only' lane on the clip-on where are the general traffic to go and how is the traffic supposed to flow? If Transit were serious about traffic flow and long term bridge survival they would restrict one lane to all heavy traffic (including buses) leaving the remaining ones for the type of traffic that uses the bridge the most - cars. Whether it suits their grand plan more cars are using the motorway now and frustration probably causes most of the accidents on our motorway than anything else. Being stuck behind large, slow, smelly on all lanes is just going to make the traffic & problems worse. Transit should be looking at options that benefit users now if they want support for initiatives that look 40 years into the future - and lets face it - all would be expecting alternate options for traffic between the shores to be completed within 40yea