The proposed "ANZAC Centenary Bridge"

The Sunday Star-Times reports a group of architects presenting at the Auckland Architecture week 2009 have proposed a design for a new harbour crossing:

In 2005 Richard Simpson first proposed the idea of a new harbour crossing – a bold new bridge that would take a more direct route between the city and the North Shore designed to accommodate pedestrians, cyclists, vehicular traffic and trains.  The design would be the result of an international design competition for a bridge that not only fulfills the functional requirements of connection, but that would also contribute to the identity of Auckland – the greater city and the Waitemata Harbour.  Integral to this initiative are economic and social benefits resulting in the creation of jobs for the construction of the bridge and the urban renewal of the freed-up land on both sides of the current bridge along with others associated with tourism and the creative industries.

The proposed bridge thankfully includes provision for public transport and cycling. The group has made their own case for a bridge over a tunnel under the harbour:

THE CASE FOR A BRIDGE

• Construction cost $2-3 billion compared to $3.7–$4.1b for the proposed tunnel
• Operating cost of 1/5 to 13 of a tunnel (based on ventilation, lighting, drainage and maintenance)
• About 350,000m2 of land valued at around $1b in St Mary’s Bay and Northcote Pt could be sold off after closure of bridge.
• Travel time and distance savings worth about $60 million a year (based on a bridge being 1.2km shorter than a tunnel)
• Estimated tourism benefits: $325 million a year (based on tourists staying an extra night)

Source: ANZAC Centenary Bridge Group

Auckland’s harbour bridge clip-ons could be candidates for “orthopaedic surgery” which would enable walking and cycling paths to be added and could improve their longevity.

The Transport Agency has been given a proposal by engineering consultants working with the Getacross campaign to find ways of adding walking and cycling links without shortening the life of the 40-year-old clip-ons.

The proposal from the award-winning Holmes Consulting Group – for two “orthopaedic diaphragm” beams to be slung under the main arch section of the bridge to support the clip-ons running along both sides of the structure – is being examined by the agency’s bridge engineering specialists in New Zealand and Britain.

It features a load-sharing mechanism by which the main truss bridge would support proportions of peak loads on the clip-ons, reducing metal fatigue by limiting their vertical movements.

Getacross spokesman Bevan Woodward said last night that he understood the diaphragm beams would cost no more than about $10 million to install, although he acknowledged that would be in addition to the price of adding extra structures on both edges of the bridge for walking and cycling.

The Transport Agency last year rejected walking and cycling links estimated to cost up to $43 million, saying the extra “dead weight” of such structures could take 10 years off the economic life of the clip-ons, which it hopes will last for 30 to 40 years.

Mr Woodward said that cost estimate was “grossly inflated”.

Agency regional director Wayne McDonald said the new concept was being thoroughly assessed but it was too soon to comment on its viability.

Neither would it prompt the agency to delay publication next month of a report on the structural capabilities of the clip-ons following a $45 million strengthening project already more than half completed.

He said that was because the Auckland Regional Transport Committee needed guidance by then on when an additional Waitemata Harbour crossing would be needed, so it could decide whether to include that project in its new 30-year transport strategy.

Mr Woodward said his organisation of more than 11,000 supporters welcomed the agency’s consideration of the new proposal, which it had referred to its bridge specialists, Beca and Hyder UK.

But he could not understand a need to rush into decisions about another harbour crossing when a solution might be at hand to extend the life of the clip-ons indefinitely for all users.

He understood Hyder had indicated support in principle for the concept, which was used in overseas bridges.

He said Holmes Consulting had been involved in a wide range of civil engineering projects including motorway bridges and large buildings.

Mr McDonald said the effect of extra loads on the main truss bridge, which he expected to last for at least another 50 years, would also have to be examined.

The Government is waiting for advice from Transport Agency by the end of the year on whether to add the next harbour crossing to its 20-year national infrastructure plan.

Consultants in a study last year for the former Transit NZ and Auckland councils recommended four bored tunnels – two for motorway traffic and two for passenger trains – as the main crossing of the future for up to $4.1 billion.

Former North Shore mayor George Wood has attacked what he calls a “veil of secrecy” over a future Waitemata Harbour Crossing project.

People who would be affected by the new crossing deserved to be treated far better, said Mr Wood, who was mayor from 1998 to 2007.

“NZ Transport Agency thinks it can push through this harbour crossing project on the basis it knows best and we will have to suffer what it offers,” Mr Wood told the North Shore City Council’s infrastructure and environment committee yesterday.

“The community must be told the impact of the crossing on North Shore’s arterial roads and potential adverse environmental, visual and ecological impacts.”

Consultants in a study last year for the former Transit NZ and Auckland councils recommended four tunnels – two for motorway traffic and two for trains – at a cost of $3.7 billion to $4.1 billion.

They recommended three-lane tunnels running 3.9km under the harbour for road traffic between Esmonde Rd in Takapuna and Spaghetti Junction in Newton, and single-track tubes for electric trains linking either Britomart or a proposed underground inner-city rail loop beneath Albert St.

Mr Wood said he had not seen one brochure setting out the broad outline of what the agency proposed.

“Public involvement should happen up front right at the start.”

Mr Wood said people of the North Shore had to lead the fight for progress on an alternative to the Auckland Harbour Bridge after a decade of doubt about the durability of the clip-ons.

A more vigorous approach would be to bring together key agencies in a project team, with a full-time project director and a funding stream from the government for initial planning and development.

Transport Agency regional director Wayne McDonald said North Shore City Council had been in a partnership of five agencies in the project to find a route. Information and plans were on the agency’s website.

No detailed design was done because the crossing could be several decades away.

Transport Minister Steven Joyce said he was seeking advice from the Transport Agency on whether the next harbour crossing should be added to the Government’s proposed 20-year national infrastructure plan.

This would be known by the end of this year.

What a fantastic day for Auckland! After 50 years of having the Auckland Harbour Bridge locked off to all those not in cars, today Aucklanders took back Our Bridge. I was right there at the front of the rally – impressed by the speeches (particularly that of Christine Rose) and heckling abuse at Wayne McDonald of NZTA. There were certainly a LOT of people there, perhaps more than the 2000 quoted by most newspapers.

For a while I thought we weren’t going to get across, as Wayne said “no” as we asked him nicely. But then we shifted down to the Curran Street onramp, found our way through the trees and onto the onramp itself. The police were there but didn’t really try to stop us – the crowd was just too great. First NZTA blocked off the clip-on lanes and then, perhaps because they were afraid of having so many people on the clip-ons, they blocked traffic off from the centre lanes too. So we had the entire northbound side of the bridge to ourselves. Everyone was jumping and yelling, absolutely exhilirated in what we’d achieved. It was a huge egg on Mr McDonald’s face in the end, as I’m sure traffic was absolutely screwed throughout the city. If NZTA had avoided being such idiots they could have easily managed it, but in the end it was their stupidity that led to the entire northbound side of the bridge having to be closed.

Leila and I walked across and back, seeing heaps of people of all ages, with kid, dogs and push-chairs. It was a day when we all celebrated being Aucklanders and celebrated the bridge as linking the city, not dividing it. This is just the start of things to come I hope – a day when the tide turned against our automobile-centric thinking.

As Christine Rose from the ARC said: “Let’s burn fat, not oil!”

What a fantastic day weather-wise for us, and also thanks to all the Aucklanders who turned up to celebrate Our Bridge. And to NZTA, shame on you for being such narrow-minded fools, it is your fault that the whole motorway got shut off, you could have organised this to run smoothly. Shame on you.

Photos here: http://transportblog.co.nz/2009/05/24/our-bridge/