KEY POINTS:
Transit NZ is considering laying the Auckland end of a $3 billion harbour tunnel below the proposed Tank Farm redevelopment.
The tunnel could emerge through a portal next to the southern end of the $320 million motorway tunnel which Transit intends digging through Victoria Park by 2012 for
harbour bridge traffic.
Here is a selection of Your Views:
D
Just spend the money on subsidising public transport for the next 10 years get people out of their cars, gas is getting to expensive anyway. Can imagine the oil companies rubbing their hands in glee, at the possibility of more vehicles on the road? Looking at the map, don't know why they just don't move the bridge or build another bridge to line everything up, surely someone can come up with a design to fit the proposed area environment, gotta be cheaper. I thought Auckland was volcanic area as well, great trapped underwater during a 1 in a million chance earthquake. Why not go the whole hog and route the tunnel under the city and come out at the Grafton gully.
Ms Auckland
I think this kind of big money is better spent on a long overdue Auckland Rapid Rail Scheme, with city trains, underground rail and the like to reach most parts of Auckland. Such a project will indeed help reduce traffic on the roads considerably to the benefit of all Aucklanders. A tunnel or bridge will just increase traffic and call for yet another bridge or tunnel in not so many years in the future.
Vernon Wall
When will we learn not to repeat the mistakes of others. First the Reserve bank follows Muldoon on an idiotic spree to support the dollar, doomed to fail from the first instant, now some idiots want to fleece the taxpayers with cross harbour tunnel. Was no one paying attention to how the contractors profited from the Sydney tunnel where costs blew out several fold. Just another gimmick to extort payments from the taxpayer in favour of international contractors, so third world. And what happens to a catastrophic leak, the tunnel floods and that means drownings, an explosion, the repercussions are firstly a pressure wave end to end will possible integrity compromise and flooding. What of the annual expense to pump fresh air into the length of the tunnel for safety and ventilation and the restrictions on load volume and safety evacuation access. At least with a bridge the ventilation is free and is failsafe, the possibility of explosion is vented upward at source and therefore vehicles along the road corridor are not affected or not so affected, a valuable safety measure. Flooding is unlikely, carriage volume (i.e. large loads), is less inhibited, safety access is no less inhibited but does have extraction by aerial either airlift or crane and vessels mounted equipment can be brought into use. Maintenance is accessible and item by item, replaceable. In light of the advantages of a bridge it is difficult to see why an identical bridge is not aligned to the west of the existing bridge and dovetailed into the existing motorway corridor as a west bridge travelling north and east bridge travelling south option. A dedicated bus and service vehicle lane should exist on each bridge, but forget rail, bikes, and pedestrians, no capital justification exits for the additional expenditure required. Like flat taxes, a decent bridge is sound logic reduced to an illusion on the back of pious party politics and green tinged ideology based on defunct technology.
MadMatt
Any tunnel should be for buses and heavy rail that would link to Britomart and an underground loop. World oil supplies are peaking meaning the cost of driving will increase further. People want a working public transport alternative. Look at the public transport Australian cities have (which still has problems) then look at Auckland's.
Mary
A tunnel is a brilliant idea. Should have been implemented years ago.
Rex
Christine Rose speaks sense, let's have more like her. Spend the money on public transport, walkways, cycleways etc. Private cars take up far too much room to be taken seriously for future commuting plans. As long as people insist on one-person-per-car, then let them suffer. There are enough roads now, just too many selfish people all using the roads at the same time and getting in each others way.
Hamilton
I want to get to my parents north of Auckland without snarl-ups, traffic jams, or being intimidated by "Auckland drivers". Stop mucking around guys! Just solve the traffic problems. Now not in 5, 10, 15, 55 years time. This in competency has gone on for long enough.
Spend the money now! Why does the tunnel have to feed traffic into the centre of the city? Most of us want to get through or around (not in) the inner city.
Jo
Don't be short-sighted guys. Why do you think people want out of Auckland? Give options and have a vision for solving traffic problems. Look what has happened because people in the 60s thought Mayor Robbie's vision was too expensive? You're still paying for the lack of go-ahead planning. Traffic solutions will only get more expensive the longer you leave it. Spend some money and help the greater development of the area.
CJWecke
A tunnel is long overdue. Cars numbers are still increasing.
Gerry
This extra harbour crossing is long overdue, only because people are starting on different times to go to work or businesses have moved their base does not mean to say that we do not need another crossing. Stopping this is only showing the short sightedness of the people saying this. You cannot stop growing as a country or city unless you want to kill yourself.
Ben
The tunnel option should continue despite this apparent traffic decline. Although the option I prefer would be from the Takapuna/Devonport interchange to the end of State Highway 16 at the port. That option frees up traffic along Fanshawe Street Interchange and Approaches as well as gives a loop and connection to SH16 for those going straight through (hence public transit isn't an option), bypassing the city centre and not wanting to get caught up in that bottleneck central motorway piece from the bridge to Wellington St. If the tunnel and mass transit stations at either end of this tunnel are designed properly, you get a second back up option to bypass SH1 and the Bridge for private through traffic and a light rail/subway/shuttle bus option for city/shore commuters with tolls as a disincentive. So designed properly, $3b well spent and regained rather quickly in gained economic efficiency.
Chris
A tunnel is just another artery for more vehicle traffic to enter a zone that already cannot physically handle what comes into the CBD everyday. For some reason, all consideration is given to the increase of vehicles when in fact we should be trying to reduce it. The answer could lie in developing a ferry system as operates in Sydney. Auckland used to have a more extensive ferry system, why not encourage it again. The idea must surely be to reduce the number of vehicles entering the CBD. The CBD is a finite size, and some would say traffic levels are already unsustainable. More roads equals more cars. We have to start thinking laterally on this. Park the car and catch a ferry.
Neil (Auckland)
The $3 billion but have been adjusted for inflation otherwise it's a ridiculous figure. They have be taking into account at least 20 years before it goes through numerous committees, resource consent processes, etc. If we are lucky, the construction can started in 2030.
Brandon Clarke
If a second harbour crossing is to be undertaken, I think it should come into the bottom of Grafton Gully, not into the Wynyard/Franshawe area. The Grafton Gully now links into Spaghetti junction giving traffic the ability to head south or west. It's also able to feed into the rail hub more easily, and would not have to merge with the city-bound bridge traffic. This would draw traffic away from the Tristram Ave and Barry's Point Road interchanges giving Takapuna to Devonport residents an alternate route that did not require them to add to the congestion on the approaches to the bridge. It would also give traffic bound for the southern half of Shore City an alternate route down Grafton Gully and through the tunnel and up towards Takapuna along lake road. I would envisage a Bayswater to Grafton gully route, with associated work to feed the traffic on the northern approaches to the tunnel.
Richard
This response is typical of government agencies we just need to move ahead and do it, rather than spend years debating the issue. This type of mentality is one of the reasons Auckland now has a significant traffic issue all talk and no action, and meanwhile the problem goes on and on.
Ralph
The real reason that the traffic flows on the bridge have declined is because traffic is being restricted from entering the Northern motorway from adjoining suburbs. Congestion in suburban streets feeding the motorway has got out of hand. We regularly endure an hour just getting down Onewa Rd before we even reach the motorway.
H Dare
It is totally ridiculous to consider spending so much money on a tunnel. Peak oil will impact on future vehicle use bringing the necessity to invest more heavily in public transport. $3b could fund a lot of public transport. If another crossing is needed I favour the beautiful new bridge design recently featured in the Herald. This would cost a lot less than $3b and would not impact on future Tank Farm development.
> Next
