Garth Falconer: Auckland harbour bridge - Let public offer its side of debate

The Auckland Harbour Bridge has largely carried the burden of linking the central city with the North Shore for almost 70 years. Photo / Michael Craig

OPINION:

Earlier this month, the Minister of Transport announced that he and Waka Kotahi would like to hear the public’s view regarding a second Waitematā crossing.

My hopes for a robust and open consultation process on what may be the largest single infrastructure project in our nation’s history were dampened though as I looked at the document on Waka Kotahi’s website.

Briefly, it states that over a two-week period, there will be four drop-in sessions at four farmers markets; two on the city side and two on the north shore.

A basic information sheet introduces the rebranded Waitematā Harbour Connections project and we are invited to fill out a rudimentary online questionnaire.

That seems the sum total of public engagement, as the document then states that an appointed team of experts consisting of three engineering and one architecture firm, working with a staggering budget of $63 million, will provide us with the selected second harbour crossing option sometime in the middle of next year.

A crash on the Auckland Harbour Bridge causes widespread congestion throughout the supercity motorway network. Photo / Waka Kotahi NZTA, File

The public needs and deserves a much greater say.

I am sure most of us appreciate that the planning and delivery of nation-building infrastructure projects is difficult, but this is no blank sheet.

The Government’s well-funded arm, the New Zealand Transport Agency (Waka Kotahi) has been working with its army of consultants on the planning of an additional harbour crossing for more than 30 years. This has been largely an in-house process, offering the public little information or input.

Since 2008, the agency has promoted a tunnel as its preferred option, and in November 2020 it released its first business case.

At the end of this 129-page document, experts formed a matrix which determined that out of several options, a tunnel was still the clear favourite.

Many industry experts consider the tunnel option to be a monstrous money pit compared to other more efficient and considerably more cost-efficient options. It has only been in the past two years that rapid public transport and walking or cycling provisions have been promised, backing the community-led SkyPath project.

An artist's impression of the proposed Sky Path pedestrian bridge along the existing Auckland Harbour Bridge. Photo / Supplied, File

True to its word, the Labour Government in 2018 instructed Waka Kotahi to implement the consented and peer-reviewed project which was costed around $55m and would take four years to build.

But Waka Kotahi dumped the SkyPath design and appointed its own consultants and rebranded it the Northern Pathway. It apparently thought it knew better.

For the past three years, Waka Kotahi has worked without public input, to eventually propose a $700m steel structure alongside the Auckland Harbour Bridge. Then, less than two months later, the scheme was hurriedly scrapped by an embarrassed Government.

A considerable sum - $51m - had already been spent on detailed designs for the scheme, as well as the requisitioning of a row of houses on Northcote Pt.

Given all this, it wouldn’t be unreasonable for the public to cast a vote of no confidence in any Government-led campaign for a second Waitematā harbour crossing.

To build trust and dispel the fear that this latest incarnation is merely a tick-box publicity campaign on its predetermined way to funding a tunnel, it is vital that the engagement process be urgently addressed.

Could this be a possible design for the next Waitematā Harbour crossing? Some experts seem to think so. Photo / Supplied, File

The consultation process needs to be transparent and offer communities ample opportunities for authentic and meaningful input. From the outset, there should be a clear and well-resourced programme of extensive and ongoing public engagement across the entire programme. This needs to be backed by a stock of resources on the information that has been generated for everyone to access.

Importantly, the assessment criteria for selection need to be thoroughly examined as it creates the decision-making framework. The criteria used in earlier iterations were too broad to lead to an accurate outcome.

For example, the visual and landscape effects should be extended to include the harbour and city form, the impact of disruptions needs to be seen from an ecological, as well as an economic lens.

Sustainability aspects of the design should include its ability to allow for future adaptation in transport modes. Cost differentials need to include risk, operations, and the duration of implementation. Extraneous options should be identified and eliminated to limit confusion, and to ensure discussions can focus on the best from the myriad of options. And an independent review panel should peer review the process and findings.

Garth Falconer. Photo / Supplied

Applying such accuracy, it would be interesting to see whether a $15 billion tunnel emerges as the best option against a $2b bridge.

It is critical that the final design appreciates that the Waitematā harbourscape is a complex and sensitive environment. Rangitoto and the Auckland Harbour Bridge softly enclose a large open space, echoing each other’s form like bookends. Any additional crossing must complement this stunning scape.

There is little doubt of the need for an additional harbour crossing for resilience and missing modes of transport. But a single strong option must be arrived at for the good of the city and environment, and the people of Auckland should be the ones that drive that, in a truly open and robust forum.

• Garth Falconer is the director of Reset Urban Design, and author of Living in Paradox (2015) and Harry Turbott: New Zealand’s first landscape architect (2020), and former design lead of the SkyPath project.