Simon Wilson: The problem with the PM’s ‘concrete commitment’ to a new Waitematā harbour crossing for Auckland

Transport Minister Michael Wood and Prime Minister Chris Hipkins in front of the Auckland Harbour Bridge ahead of an announcement about new Waitemata Harbour crossing options. Photo / Michael Craig

“This is a concrete commitment to making it happen,” said Prime Minister Chris Hipkins today, seemingly unaware that he might have been cracking a joke. “Spades in the ground” by 2029, he also said.

The good news about this commitment to start construction on a new harbour crossing this decade is that it’s closer to actually happening, with rapid transit (light rail), cycling and walking fully incorporated. Everyone wanting to cross the harbour by any means will benefit. Bring it on.

The bad thing is that four of the Government’s five options involve a tunnel or tunnels. That makes it likely one of them will be chosen, which means that for the next 10, 15, maybe 20 years, Auckland’s carbon emissions will rise, because of all the concrete they will pour.

The Callaghan Institute reports that every tonne of cement, the main ingredient in concrete, produces around 800kg of carbon emissions. Cement contributes 8 per cent of global emissions and in many of its uses, it is very hard to replace.

Therefore, when it isn’t needed there should be a simple decision not to use it, or at least to minimise its use. Tunnels do the opposite of that.

Why is this so important? Because the world is approaching several climate tipping points and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned us the major task in fighting climate change is no longer to hit targets in 2050 or later. We have to reduce emissions now.

In April last year the IPCC stressed the urgency of “immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors”. It repeated the call this month.

I asked Hipkins directly about this. Why the focus on tunnels, when all the modelling shows that will increase emissions in the short-to-medium term? Doesn’t that contradict his Government’s claim that it’s treating the climate crisis as an emergency?

“I reject that absolutely,” he said, before agreeing that short-term emissions would rise. But he pointed to the longer-term benefits of the rapid transit that tunnels will allow.

But rapid transit doesn’t need tunnels. This exact same issue exists with the light-rail proposal from the central city to Māngere. It would make sense above ground. It will drive up our emissions if it remains a tunnelled project.

The most sensible option for a new harbour crossing is to retain the existing bridge for vehicles and build a new bridge for rapid transit, cycling and walking. It could be done quickly and relatively cheaply: probably for about $1.5 billion.

The Government should do two other things at the same time. First, roll out light rail on the North Shore, as required by all five options.

Second, improve the viability of rail freight on the main trunk line running through Helensville to Northland. Auckland mayor Wayne Brown has, rightly, pointed many times to the value of this. It will remove some freight haulage from the bridge and KiwiRail has already done much of the work.

Transport Minister Michael Wood and Prime Minister Chris Hipkins in front of the Auckland Harbour Bridge today. Photo / Michael Craig

Announcing the harbour crossing options today, Hipkins and Michael Wood, the minister for Auckland and for transport, both stressed the need for “all transport options” to be viable. For this, rail freight, rapid transit, cycling and walking are the options that most need promoting.

That will help with vehicle congestion too, as we know from the success of the Northern Busway in managing the pressure on the harbour bridge.

So they could build a new bridge now for transit, cycling and walking, while also enhancing the capacity for rail freight. Then, in the mid-2030s, we’ll probably have a good idea what else, if anything, is still required.

It’s called taking the cheap and easy option, to find out how much of the problem it fixes, before moving to anything more expensive.

Incredibly, this option is not even included among the Government’s favoured five. Waka Kotahi, which prepared them, clearly thinks the big goal is to build a tunnel.

As it happens, the weight of political reality and costs may save us yet.

All five options include walking and cycling on a bridge, either the existing one or a new one. So that’s good.

But option 2, which focuses on this, also adds more bridge lanes for cars. That will just encourage more driving and is a mistake.

Waitemata Harbour Connections Options to replace the existing Auckland Harbour Bridge released 30 March 2023 Scenario 2: New light rail, road and walking and cycling bridge picture supplied

Option 3 is worse. It adds road lanes on a new bridge, while its long tunnel for light rail, which loops under Birkenhead, condemns light rail to the Shore to very slow progress.

Waitemata Harbour Connections Options to replace the existing Auckland Harbour Bridge released 30 March 2023 Scenario 3: New light rail tunnel (red line west of old bridge), new road and walking and cycling bridge picture supplied

But options 4 and 5 are more interesting. Both propose a new bridge for light rail, walking and cycling, and a road tunnel. The difference is the routes.

Essentially, both options involve two separate projects: a bridge and a tunnel. They could be built sequentially, not concurrently.

Waitemata Harbour Connections Options to replace the existing Auckland Harbour Bridge released 30 March 2023 Scenario 4: New light rail, walking and cycling bridge and road tunnel picture supplied

Waitemata Harbour Connections Options to replace the existing Auckland Harbour Bridge released 30 March 2023 Scenario 5: New light rail, walking and cycling bridge and road tunnel picture supplied

With its fondness for tunnels and other recent decisions, the Government now has a serious climate-emergency credibility problem. It could address this if it greenlights option 4 or 5, fast-tracks the bridge, but leaves the tunnel decision for a later day. Holding my breath here.

And option 1, which includes a new road tunnel and another new tunnel for light rail? It’s climate denialism and irresponsible spending and it will take forever. Let’s call it the utter fantasy option. What on Earth are they thinking?

Waitemata Harbour Connections Options to replace the existing Auckland Harbour Bridge released 30 March 2023 Scenario 1: New light rail tunnel (red line east), road tunnel and walking and cycling on the old AUckland Harbour Bridge picture supplied