KEY POINTS:
Is it time for another harbour crossing for Auckland - something that has been talked about for decades but nothing has ever happened?
This debate has been triggered by the announcement that trucks will be banned from the outside "clip-on" lanes of the harbour bridge, casting doubt over its future as Auckland's transport lifeline.
Already a team of architects and engineers have designed an elegant arching structure to replace the bridge.
This forum debate has now closed. Here is a selection of your views on the topic.
Isaac (Onehunga)
A second harbour crossing is definitely needed and it needs to include rail. The north shore needs to be connected by rail to Britomart and a tunnel would be the most practical way of doing this. Trains can move more people, more quickly than any other mode of transport. With regards to the amount of large heavy trucks using the harbour bridge, surely a lot of this freight could be going by rail instead. New road-rail transfer centres should be established at Henderson, Kumeu and Whangarei so as to enable this.
Kiwi Lisa
Not sure a new crossing from Auckland to the North Shore is needed, but if so a tunnel should be considered as the preferable choice, if feasible. But, no matter what all heavy trucks should be banned from both the present bridge and a future tunnel/bridge, because the wear and tear these vehicles cause is too immense. Huge trucks are also a constant danger in any tunnel, because of risk of fatal accidents and fires. Thus, all heavy trucks should be forced to use the Western Motorway.
Steve Anderson
Yes we need a second crossing, but we don't need more vehicles on the road, which is what a bridge will produce. Auckland must get rail to the North Shore. It would be totally mad to put a bridge or a tunnel to the shore if they don't allow for rail of some sort. A dual tunnel under the harbour would allow for road and rail - the rail link could come straight out of Britomart and head over to the shore from there - very easy! We have built more roads and more highways and all we have seen is more congestion. Rail is the answer. Trams were a great idea as well but someone decided they were outdated and of no use. Look at some of the more advanced cities around the world and you will see rail and trams - and buses only where absolutely necessary. Trams and electrified rail don't produce greenhouse gases and noise like dirty stinking noisy buses do. They don't clog the roads or damage the road surface. Do it right for once and get rail to the shore instead of looking back in 30 years time and saying "We should have built a tunnel in 2007 but we didn't". Be visionary and make a worthwhile change to Auckland's long term transport solutions.
Family vision
I have drawings in Family History for a bridge spanning Birkenhead to the city Birkenhead ( where the family had the family home ( Highbury, now renamed Highpoint named after their English home) for a harbour bridge long before the present bridge was even thought of. Grandparents (WF Hammond, Surveyor & architect from London ) buried in the Birkenhead cemetery, thought to have named Birkenhead but refuted - probably incorrectly) Although it would need obvious upgrade from his conception, point to point details may still have merit.
Dc
The new design looks similar to the bridge in Rotterdam. I think we should go for it!! The current bridge will be past its used by date in 40 or so years so why not start on a better one as soon as possible. Tunnel is another good idea but the cost is a little high! We should have a new icon for Auckland so we can stop looking like a mini Sydney! The new bridge should definitely carry vehicles, pedestrians, cycles and light rail or bus lanes. This bridge would catapult Auckland into the 21st century! (Finally). Plus the bridge would definitely connect the shore to the city and the entire economy would benefit for years to come! Oh hold on.....maybe this is another project that will never happen due to people who continue to live in the past get their way again - just like the water front stadium verses Eden park fiasco! Oh well, there goes another great idea - we could always build a temporary bridge!! Lets hope our so called council representitives make up 'our minds' one day!
Philip Coop
Why do we need a new bridge? Because the old one is full. Why is the old one full? Because there are too many cars.Why are there so many cars? Because everyone uses one to get to work.
Why don't they use public transport like in other similar cities? Because our politicians are so short sighted they cannot figure out that the only way forward is a complete re-think on how to reduce car numbers on our motorways, and a massive investment in public transport. In summary: The commuter has a choice. They will always choose what is in their best interest. We have to make public transport in their best interest. We can do this by: 1. Congestion charging 2. Petrol tax 3. Subsidised public transport 4. Converting existing road lanes to public transport only 5. Education 6. Improve public transport facilities. It's not about a bridge. It's about the fact that I can get around any number of European cities, (size, population, wealth) using public transport very easily compared with Auckland. Don't build anything else, tunnel or bridge, until you have that sorted.
Andrew Montgomery
Excellent concept by these architects. Make it a 16 lane bridge and get rid of the existing eyesore
Pure Local
The bridge looks great - the concept is fantastic. I agree with a new bridge, but some of your readers are right !!! the Ol Coat Hanger is an icon and a part of us - leave it. The new bridge needs to be at the entrance to our stunning harbour ..... time for the folks in Devonport to face facts and run the bridge from the bottom of Barry's Point road - through Shoal Bay and across to the strand ... Nice.
Albert
2nd bridge - yes, bring it on. But before that, don't the govt have any idea or projection as to the population they want Auckland to have in 50 years' time? Don't built a bridge that will cater to the needs of today's traffic, because, by the time you bureaucrats decided to build one, it will be dated even before the first pile goes into the ground. And do it fast, because I am afraid that by the time the bureaucrats agree to go ahead, the cost will double. What was the estimated costs when the idea was first mooted many blue moons ago compared to today's? Think about that, and still talking and no bridge in sight?
Matt
I think a Tunnel linking Port exit to Devenport. Restricted to Electric Cars and peds, bikes etc. (because face it by the time its built thats what we will have) As well as this new bridge would make a perfect combination. Also a subway system linking greater Auckland is in need to. Although it will all be destroyed in a Volcano it should at least be appropriate for a while.
Peter
I can't help feeling that no matter what anyone says about tunnel safety, that I would "feel" safer above water than below, and I wonder how many others have the same feelings. We live in a volcanic zone/fault line and although we haven't had a good quake here in living memory other than the Orewa one a few months ago, it's only a matter of time before we get a "biggie". Additionally, recent fires in Mt Blanc and the Chunnel show what happens when accidents happen in tunnels. Again ... probably very persuasive arguments against the above views but this is my personal feeling. Lastly, the existing bridge is iconic and should stay as a second route ...we don't ever want to be reduced to one avenue again if we do get another bridge/tunnel in the future.
Johntw
A two lane each way tunnel will nothing except reinforce the blinkered devotion to road transport. An elegant eye catching design similar to the beautiful new "sails" bridge over the UK river Severn will help facilitate the eventual realisation that perhaps we should have put in a light rail system rather than the white elephant Northern Busway I think the design looks fantastic
Jeremy
I feel that the thought process behind the harbour crossing is not accurate enough. The existing bridge should stay but only direct traffic into and away from the city ie: the road ends at Fanshawe and cook streets. A second crossing be it bridge or tunnel should bypass the city and connect to the motorway around the existing Cook St exit. This would enable traffic flows from the north into the city to only use the city entry's and all other traffic heading further south or west to bypass the largest bottleneck.
Julie
Love it, we definitely need a new harbour bridge (perhaps two!) that reflects our City of Sails. And it definitely has to cater for light-rail and plenty of cars. In fact we need a light-rail system before we need a new bridge!
Andrew
Very modern, different and artistic. I like it a lot. It would be a huge icon for Auckland into the future. I support combining bicycle, pedestrian, bus and light rail access as well - you'd be insane not to include them. And developing the extra waterfront land is a great idea too. Go for it!
Mark (Nth Shore, Auckland)
A second harbour crossing is required rather than a replacement, although I must say that the proposed new bridge is rather elegant. Removing the existing bridge is removing a landmark, an Auckland icon. Any new harbour crossing must cater for cyclists. Any plan to reduce road congestion needs to include much improved access and safety for those who choose to cycle into the city from the East Coast Bays.
Improving facilities for cyclists will reduce usage of cars, lessen pollution and help build a healthier less stressed population.
John
Finally a visually interesting and forward thinking idea for a harbour crossing. After pillaging our architecture for the past 20 years, losing the opportunity to have a water front venue and building the Aotea Centre, allowing Princess wharf to have a horrible developers structure on it, can we please have something that will beautify and enhance our waterfront. This new bridge will be an iconic structure and a tunnel with its cost overruns will be another white elephant.
Alwin
The heading "Tunnel favoured Option" is a bit misleading. Firstly, who has decided it is the favoured option.Secondly, it is a flawed option as it still directs traffic into Spaghetti junction. It is also the most expensive and most dangerous. One accident it the tunnel will ensure chaos on the traffic system. Dangers are fumes and fires. Access for emergecy vehicles could also be an issue. Auckland needs to start diverting traffic away from SH1. Surely the best options are bridges from Birkenhead/Northcote and the other from Devonport into the city.
Auckland
It would greatly enhance the status of Auckland harbour on the international scene and would impress and attract visitors. The design is elegant and is so fitting for the 'city of sails'. Demolish the old one - its an archaic embarrassment in comparison, very much like the ugly apartment blocks recently throwing up in Auckland and polluting the landscape. It would be a piece of artwork in the harbour, to be proud of.
Matt, Auckland
I am all for a bridge that could potentially carry rail and pedestrians, on top of regular vehicle traffic. The proposed design seems attractive on first impressions, so it could be considered a visual asset. Such matters of opinion I think will make the local body elections more interesting than usual. It seems long term planning is take prominence, for a change.
Marxie
It's a clip-on, lets clip-on. No "new" bridge is needed. We just need to take the existing bridge twice as wide on the Auckland City side over the water, away from any residential properties. By adding extra lanes along the mangroves from the shore side, and new lanes over the marina we reuse the existing infrastructure. This would make the existing bridge south to north while the new extension would be south to north, or for heavy traffic. The mangroves could also allow a new route to Devonport around the waterfront, if needed (the existing on/off ramp from Devonport is the problem). Heavy vehicles could go along to the port without facing the other traffic must like the roads around the San Francisco airport.and the "new look" bridge could be re-styled, get Darren Jessop involved. The traffic benefits aside all existing property owners wouldn't need to worry about the devaluation of their home, and anyone living near the bridges still does so no big deal there either.Don't listen to the property developers Auckland City already owns the harbour.
Chas (Devonport)
Build an 8 lane, low level bridge with a swing section to allow vessel transit, to the West of the present bridge. Vessels would be restricted to a short period in the mornings and afternoons and possibly at night. A bridge is the only answer, as tunnels can only provide for much fewer lanes. A bridge to the West would facilitate a major route to by-pass the Auckland City area, which more and more traffic warrants.
Skpp
Forget the new bridge. A proper rail transit systems should be made from North shore to Britomart to reduce congestion. Helps in lot of aspects, saves gas, time, and faster way of commuting. Does city council always tend to revolve their thoughts against stupid ideas and waste hard earned public money?
Jamie (Auckland)
I work in central Auckland, and used to live on the Shore for a few years. The biggest traffic problem with the bridge isn't capacity, it's the motorway either side of the bridge, and how people use it. The worst traffic occurs when there are more lanes open on the bridge than there are motorway lanes at the other end. For example, heading southbound in the morning, there are 4 lanes open on the bridge (plus 1 bus lane). Approx 80 per cent of this traffic then has to squeeze into 2 lanes with the Vic Park flyover.While most people get into the correct lanes to avoid merging later, some people rush up the other lanes and forcibly push into the queue at the last minute. This forces people in the queue to stop, causing hold-ups for everyone. I've even seen police cars doing this. With better driver education and/or punishments for pushy drivers, we can probably make the existing bridge last a lot longer.
Paul (Wellington)
The notion of a bridge which would be capable of carrying light rail, and bikes, across Auckland Harbour is to be commended. Especially one which has spare capacity. The design mooted appears though to still have steep incline. A design worth looking at for some further thinking is the replacement East Bay suspension bridge being constructed between Oakland and San Francisco. This bridge has virtual a zero gradient.
Melissa
I think this new bridge is an awesome idea. The trucks being banned from the outside lanes of the bridge is a little suspicious and I would welcome a new bridge. I commute into Auckland City 5 days a week from the Shore and I can assure you that the traffic heading northbound is severely banked up to the Victoria Park overbridge. Why not have a decent bridge with not only cars and buses being allowed but bicycles and pedestrians as well! 4 times a day the middle lane divider gets moved to cope with the traffic - Auckland taxpayers have to be paying for it so lets save ourselves some dosh and have a bridge that allows for not only current needs but for future growth as well!
CJ (Cambridge)
I am in favour of Auckland having a second harbour crossing though to and from new points some distance from the existing bridge. eg to Devonport or to near Chelsea and from Point Chev or Parnell. Though costly the tunnel would certainly leave the landscape free of structures and would not disrupt shipping.Whatever the new crossing it should most certainly be a toll crossing so that those who use it, no doubt mostly Aucklanders, would help pay for it instead of the tax payer from regions afar and who never frequents Auckland or has any desire to.
Scott
This is Auckland, New Zealand. If you have any forward looking progressive ideas, will you kindly board at gate 2 for Sydney.
Trains connecting the two major city centres together? Crazy. Dig man, dig like crazy... we need tunnels, tunnels we can name after politicians with ribbon cutting ceremonies, kick backs and back pats. Now that's the Auckland I know.
Lee
What a great looking bridge. World class!
Hawkeye
It looks great, but we need an extra crossing, not to replace the one we have now. An extra bridge and/or a tunnel would be fine by me. But after the stadium debacle, V8 supercars, the speedway, I will not be holding my breath.
Salty Dog
Jasmax has a fine concept and new bridge is necessary, better sooner that later when the catastrophe is in full swing. Anyone who observed the Sydney tunnel debacle and understands the eight times cost of a tunnel over a bridge must be imbecilic and should not hold any office or appointment. Why destroy a useful bridge even with restricted vehicle weights, when a new bridge will add capacity and two will provide emergency service options. Why not reserve the old bridge center lanes for heavy trucks, buses, and police, outer lanes for taxis, people movers, hybrids and public services, reserve the new bridge for cars and trades vehicles. Thank God Nth shore is free from the tyranny of rail and railphiles. Any politician expressing rail notions should be given a Hornby set and carried off .
Rachel
I think it looks cool, simple and sophisticated.
Jayjay
I reckon it would be best if another bridge is built somewhere close to the present bridge as to not extend the travel time for commuters from North shore and back as we all know building a whole new network of routes will take decades to complete (seeking consensus, drawing up plans, debating etc etc.) use the current routes but probably divert the on and off ramp somewhere else. Along with the new bridge, light railway, cycle and walk paths would be a necessity as this gives the commuter options to travel besides "only" driving. (ferry across doesn't sound feasible to most commuters) As for the current bridge dismantle the clip ons and leave the main structure, (four lanes), ban lorries from plying thru the old bridge to keep the maintenance cost down, I believe the main issue with the current bridge is the clip ons, however if that is removed I reckon the 40 years warrant could probably be extended to 80years with no heavy vehicles plying.Also consider the new bridge as a tourist attraction as that generates some sort of an income for the country, what more if a state of the art bridge is built, I have never seen a brochure currently that mentions tour packages for a bridge walk, hey at least we have another pointer to lure more tourist in to this wonderful and beautiful country (I wonder why this has not been the case, maybe because of the aging look of the present bridge, just a thought) Building a tunnel first and foremost doesn't sound right with our geological and geographical surrounding, secondly maintaining a tunnel would also cost more besides the building cost as you would need 24X7 surveillance, thirdly i don't believe it would be healthy for people to work or cycle in a tunnel unless a special ventilation system is introduced,(more cost) yet the thought doesn't sound appealing. To summarise, build the new bridge mentioned, keep the old bridge but with the original design (two lane on each side) and ban heavy vehicles from it. Than we would have two options to take and the traffic update would be more useful to use north shore residents.
Nick
Don't talk about it...just do it! It will definitely get more use than the previously proposed world cup stadium!
Cedric
That's purty ... bring it on. But don't knock down the Coathanger it's a beloved part of our history and heritage. Besides, it will provide a viable alternative, sure get rid of the cheap & nasty clip-ons, restore it to the original design. We can meltdown the scrap and reuse it to help keep down the cost of the new bridge.
Anon
The harbour bridge doesn't need to be replaced, it needs to be expanded. Failing that, we need other methods of getting from the shore to the city by car. Another bridge wouldnt go astray, but replacing is too extreme. Whats everyone supposed to do while they demolish that one and build another? Drive around the long way for a couple of years?
Stuart Henry
So the architects behind this scheme obviously support the idea of a bridge that would destroy the CBD and Northcote waterfronts as we know them. What a frivolous attention seeking statement. Poor form JASMAX - you should know better!
Steve
I to, like many cross the harbour bridge twice a day. It's not the bridge that's the problem...it's Esmond Road & the Vic Park fly over and let's not forget the Newmarket Viaduct - all bottle necks!Keep the existing bridge and build another which will take South & Northbound traffic away from the city..i.e. via Mechanics Bay straight through to the southern mortorway. Those people heading North or South will know they have an expressway without delay, those heading to the city or west take the existing route. We live in the biggest city in the country, let's start moving with the times.
Brett Daniel
Fantastic vision and foresight. Its more environmentally friendly than the bridge-tunnel combo as it supports light rail and pedestrian access. It could be a great 21st century landmark. Probably cheaper to maintain than a tunnel too. Lets do it!
Jules
Simple, elegant, stylish, beautiful, modern. Stunning. Let's hope the stick-in-the muds can see beyond their noses. Let's go for it Auckland and New Zealand. Bring us into the 21st century and beyond!
Jeremy
The bridge is rather silly. You couldn't get the yachts underneath, and there appears to be no train or monorail line
Simon McGrath
Yeah i'm sure we'll get a new bridge - along with that new stadium that I hear was going to happen.
KK (Auckland)
While it is prudent for the Auckland City Council to hire an a group of architects to investigate alternatives to Mayor Hubbard's proposed tunnel, can't Jasmax come up with something more original than a Calatrava copy? Certainly this bridge would put Auckland on the map: it would, in the future, be known as "the city that has a Calatrava rip-off."
New Kiwi (Henderson)
We recently emegrated to New Zealand from Redding California. Mr. Calatrava recently designed Redding's bridge http://www.turtlebay.org/sundial/sundial04.shtml
While the cost was more than the little city had planned for, the Sundial bridge has become an icon of beauty and "class" for the small California town. I applaud Auckland for looking outside of the box in seeking the best architect in the world.
Ben Hapgood
I think it is n extremely good idea. Basically we dont have the money or the council who will ever build a tunnel in the next 1000 years. We dont need two bridges. So the only question is do you want an old, ugly bridge that has had its day... Or a new one that could become an icon of Auckland the world over, as well as revitalizing the city, and providing the adequate transport links required. Not hard really
Gerry (Maroochydore)
Great idea. Go for it! Now not later!!
Dave
I live on the North shore and I think that new bridge design looks great! It sure beats the waterfront stadium as a showcase for the world. A light rail servicing Takapuna/Devonport and Northcote/Birkenhead areas and linking to Britomart via the new bridge is a good idea. The tunnel is a bad idea, not only are they environmentally more destructive but it is awful entering a tunnel with car fumes blowing out of the entrances.
Mont Burnes
Dreamed up? More like copied. This is not based on structures by Calatrava, it is a Calatrava structure. Google him and take a look.'
Andy (Birkenhead)
Looks great, but to be honest I'd like it even if it was ugly but bikes and pedestrians were allowed to use it...
Grant
This is the best bit of thinking I have seen in a very long time in Auckland. A bridge that carries cars, trucks, rail, and heaven forbid cyclists and peds. Come on Auckland city time to move into the 21st century. A tunnel idea is and will be a disaster - costly and it still doesn't cater for anything but cars and trucks. This is great idea let's get behind it.
Gerald88
Very nice indeed keeps with the sailing theme.
Caroline
I love it! It a stylish and contemporary bridge, plus, it seems to be a lot more user friendly. It's about time we had a harbour crossing which catered for cyclists, walkers and most importantly, a train.
Jaybee (Waitakere)
Brilliant! Its about time the city was bold and built something like this, which could become an internationally recognised icon. Sydney did it right in the 1930's with its bridge, and again in the 60's with the opera house. Let's put Auckland up there with an elegant and functional bridge to match the tower.
Lynneil
Fab design suits city of sails well
Shoreboy
I cannot understand why we are looking at a second harbour crossing to ease traffic congestion when this will only encourange more cars to be on the road. We need to think seriously about better public transport. A light rail system linking the North Shore with the city and beyond seems to the obvious solution.The design of the new bridge you have shown seems to provide all the answers, and it is far more easy on the eye than the ghastly grey structure we currently have. I am also sick of us Aucklanders carrying on about how we need this or we need that, but then when it comes to paying for it we don't want to. If it takes a toll road or an extra fuel tax to get it going then just do it!
Hazza (Browns Bay)
We need a way of crossing the harbour with light rail. I think that a good way of doing this would be to build a new bridge or tunnel including light rail and 2 bus lanes. Then the road should run back on to the motorway and the bus and rail should fork off to Britomart. The rail needs to go all the way to Orewa. If Auckland is going to fix the problems up it is going to have to start of with public transport. The Busway needs to be extended to Manakau city and west to Watikere. Then we have got basic public transport set up. I rail fork to Howick would help as well.
Jason
I am liking some of the ideas that have come from this. What about combining the best of them: an eight lane bridge, double-decker with rail lines and bus lanes on one of the decks and all other traffic on the other deck. As for Ethos' idea of banning trucks....get a grip. How do you expect supermarkets and stores to get stocked, or deliveries to be made. The real problem on the roads here are all the petrol-heads in their cars (who think they own the roads) clogging up the highways. Just take a look around you next time you're stuck in a jam....you and everyone else is in a car on your own...what a waste of space. When the council/government finally gets past drawing pretty pictures and doing consultation, and round to some actual building they also need to have a plan of how to make the public transport option too good to ignore. Any new bridge should have tolls for all private traffic (that's cars and trucks) while buses and train passengers should pay nothing other than their
fares.
JT
Forget about it. Larger public developments of this kind, despite being much needed, frighten and confuse Aucklanders and local government. In fact don't be surprised if the local councils propose a car ferry system as a viable, cheaper option. martin One day, people in charge will think long term. If Sydney could build a bridge in 1932 with the vision of pedestrians, trains, bikes and cars, it still amazes me that in Auckland, over 20 years later that a 4 lane car only bridge was built, only to require clip-ons 10 years later. It would be so nice to do a 15 minute bike ride from Takapuna to Brittomart on a designated bike lane, over the harbour. Much better then sitting in a car for an hour! Mind you, with the way the clip-ons are ageing, it will be bikes only anyway before long!!
Kim Hutcheson,(Sydney)
I quite like the design, except a more symmetrical profile would look better. It certainly is an improvement over the aesthetics of the existing Harbour Bridge, which resembles a knot of number 8 fencing wire wrestled together by a bunch of Waikato University students playing drinking games all night.
Gazza
A dukes of hazzard style jump over the harbour would be ace!!! The tourists would love it!
Catherine
I think it looks amazing! It would be fantastic to have a bridge that you can walk or cycle across and having the option for a light railway is very forward thinking.
Lewis Bradly
Go for it Auckland, The design for a new bridge looks fantastic.
Auckland Commuter
I commute over the bridge each day during the rush hour and the bridge is not the bottle neck. Traffic builds up on the approach to and exit from the bridge, not on the bridge itself. This is easily explained, there are more lanes on the bridge than there are on the roads servicing it. To reduce the traffic congestion we need a good rail connection to the North Shore and a cycle connection too. Next is to increase the number of lanes going to and from the bridge. Extra road bridge capacity is not going to help and a new bridge is only needed if the old one is going to fall down.
Macky
I agree to get rid of the current harbour bridge and build a new one...the one we have at the moment is big and ugly and if the new one is more efficient then why the hell not build it, god knows Auckland traffic could use some help.
Julia (Auckland)
I think that we should look at fixing what we already have instead of creating more costs for the taxpayer! Do we really need to make the harbour bridge look pretty?
Jason (Birkenhead)
Any bridge which would carry pedestrians and bicycles is ok with me. I mean, like what were they thinking when they built a bridge you can't walk across? This is the only city in the world I have been to where you can't walk or bike across the major bridge. It is a disgrace to such a beautiful city to prohibit walking and cycling from one major section of the city to the other. The Sydney harbour bridge is older than ours and they have a pedestrian lane, light rail and a bike lane, too! I would love to bike to work to both get there faster and to help ease congestion (not to mention the great exercise!), but I would have to pay for a ferry to make it the short distance across the Waitemata! Come on! The Kiwis love their sport and thousands would use the bridge for biking and walking/running every day! I say rebuild the bridge now.
Ollie
For me, I simply cannot imagine this city without a harbour bridge of some sort spanning the Waitemata. Without it, Auckland would look plain. And with the volatile geologic and volcanic environment unique to this city, I would feel just a tad uneasy driving through a tunnel under millions of cubic metres of ocean. Lets embrace the opportunity to beautify the city above land and simultaneously solve some of our traffic issues.
What_EVA
Designed? Ripped-off the design of the Glebe Point bridge in Sydney more like. If we're going to lie, at least do it convincingly.
Dorothy Harvey
I can only say something we Aucklanders have always known, the present harbour bridge is totally inadequate for the volume of traffic. Mayor Dove Myer Robinson so many years ago had a vision of improvements for Auckland, another crossing being one of them, but noone would support him. We are now faced with a much larger bill and by the time the new bridge is actually built it will be decades overdue. The problem we have is there is so much arguing and worrying about where the money will come from nothing is ever done. It is not a case of 'Should we have another harbour crossing?' It is a total necessity. Anyone using the present bridge knows how busy it is at all hours of the day and the situation will only multiply, as has already been proved, by the almo
