It's as Auckland as ... well, more than the Skytower and almost as much as Rangitoto. But has the harbour bridge reached the end of the road? John Landrigan investigates.
Heading north in the family Holden, packed for camping, was always exciting for a 10-year-old. Five hours after leaving home
we would approach Auckland Harbour Bridge.
Back in the 1980s it was the biggest structure we'd seen - well, we did live in New Plymouth - and the only one that Dad had to pass change out the driver's window to use.
As well as the impressively steep gradient, its giant span was about as long as some of the towns we'd just meandered through.
Architectural marvel? Perhaps. Built to last? If we keep using it, apparently not. Fulfilling its objective? Debatable.
As often as the cars to- and fro- across "the Coathanger", conversations around the region's barbecues and coffee machines turn to what needs to be done to improve our ability to get from one side of the Waitemata to the other.
Now The Aucklander can reveal another chapter to throw into the concrete and steel mix of our city's beloved icon.
By Government decree, the bridge, having just celebrated its 50th anniversary, will be priced for removal and the surrounding feeder motorways assessed for future development. That's development as in housing, shops and offices, not roads.
The reason? Transport Minister Stephen Joyce has chosen to ignore strongly-argued recommendations from five major regional organisations for a road-rail tunnel from Downtown Auckland to the Shore. Instead, he wants to open up debate about another bridge.
Reports of the current bridge falling to concrete cancer or some other catastrophe, fuelled by the problematic state of the "Nippon clip-ons", are exaggerated, says the agency charged with maintaining it. But it's hard to ignore the thought that something needs to be done when we're spending $86 million to patch it up and this same agency talks of its "economic life", its "future viability", of it becoming "maxed out", and the "resilience of the network" or of it having a "finite lifespan".
In 2008, the NZ Transport Agency combined with Auckland Regional Council, Auckland and North Shore City councils and Auckland Regional Transport Authority to find an alternative. The tight five commissioned a $1.3 million report from Sinclair Knight Merz consultants and whittled 160 options down to just one preference.
Four tunnels, they chimed, will alleviate the strain on the bridge - two road tunnels with three lanes in each direction and two separate single-rail tunnels. The rail tracks would cover 4km from Esmonde Rd to Britomart; the road tunnels roughly 3km from Esmonde Rd under the soon-to-be-developed Wynyard Quarter to Fanshawe St.
Treasury estimated the cost to be as high as $6 billion. The Transport Agency puts the bill between $3-4 billion, subject to more "detailed engineering".
More consultants, to be named early next month, will be paid another $12 million to assess traffic flow, environmental and economic impact, planning and engineering for a tunnel and bridge.
This follows studies conducted in 1988, 1997, 2002 and 2003 to find an alternative.
And after being part of "finalising" a preferred tunnel route in 2008, Tommy Parker - the Transport Agency's state highways manager for Auckland and Northland - says these consultants will also assess:
- if a bridge is cheaper than tunnels
- if thousands of hectares of prime waterfront land at the bridge's entry and exit points at St Marys Bay and Onewa Rd can be redeveloped
- dismantling the harbour bridge.
Does that mean knocking it down, you ask? Not according to Mr Joyce.
Despite saying, "There are no actual plans to dismantle the existing bridge", he does see a need to appraise its removal "to cater for advocates of a larger replacement bridge" and to "better understand all parameters".
Auckland City Mayor John Banks, North Shore's Andrew Williams and Auckland Regional Council chairman Mike Lee are not impressed. They believe burrowing under the foreshore and seabed is the best way forward.
