Subscribe to RSSNew Bridge Cheaper But Higher BCR (Update)
$3.9 billion for another harbour bridge versus $5.3 billion for tunnels.
In a period of Government budget constraints, which one will the government opt for? Transport Minister Steven Joyce says the government has not formed a view on whether a tunnel or a bridge is most appropriate.
Will it be another bridge?
NZTA’s long-awaited report on the crossing being released today says an additional harbour crossing will be needed within about 20 years to cater for increased growth (208 000 vehicles a day in 2041 compared to 168,000 today). But the report doesn’t make a recommendation for either a bridge or tunnels.
Here is how the costs and BCR stack up.
It says:
“The BCRs excluding agglomeration benefits are 0.3 and 0.2 for the bridge and tunnel options respectively. With the agglomeration benefits as high as $257 million (depending on how the technical anomaly described earlier is resolved) theBCRs could be as high as 0.6 and 0.4 for bridge and tunnel respectively.
“It is not valid to compare BCRs of mutually exclusive projects; instead one must determine the incremental BCR — theratio of the incrementally greater benefits obtained by the incremental costs. Because there are no conventional or WEBsfrom the additional cost that can be included in the BCR, the incremental BCR is zero, in this case, and the focus is onwhether there are other net benefits of a tunnel that are sufficiently greater than the additional $478m (PV, 2010 dollars) incost for the tunnel.”
It is going to be an interesting decision.
The report indicates that a bridge would have a marginally higher cost benefit ratio than a tunnel but also notes that obtaining consent for a bridge is improbable and would probably take a couple of years longer than for a tunnel.
A bridge would be quicker to construct by a couple of years.
A tunnel was identified earlier and widely supported under the old local government structure but the government asked for a ‘rigorous examination’ of costs and economic impacts of both a tunnel and bridge option.
Back in December 2009, NZTA said a tunnel was still its preferred option and that a tunnel was estimated to be around $600m cheaper than a bridge, which was estimated to be around $3b.
Back then, the agency emphasised it was difficult to be precise but did say an advantage with a tunnel is that parts could be built separately at different times, such as a road then rail tunnel whereas a bridge needed to have all components in the one structure. The estimates were based on NZTA’s preferred Tank Farm, Esmonde Rd alignment.
Today the transport minister says: “Both the form of a third crossing and the timing of it will be part of the discussion around Auckland’s spatial plan. This will likely be one of the biggest projects for Auckland over the next 20 years and it needs to be planned and sequenced carefully alongside other investments.
“It’s my expectation that the third harbour crossing will increase the number of lanes across the harbour and also allow for public transport corridors and walking and cycling lanes,” says Mr Joyce.
But while tunnels were suppose to bring us rail, there was no guarantee another bridge would provide any more than bus lanes.
The preferred option in the old Auckland regime
Auckland Mayor Len Brown says he prefers the tunnel option but the study only looks at duel tunnels and hw hopes NZTA will look at single tunnel options for the future.
Tunnelling technologies are advancing quickly and many countries are building combined road and rail tunnels that would future proof our system. The study only looks at duel tunnels and I hope NZTA will look at single tunnel options for the future.
“Whichever option is agreed to, it must include capacity for rail. Sooner or later, a rail link will be required to the North Shore. But more than that, a rail link to the North Shore is required to make the rail network as a whole work properly.”
“Public transport will be a key focus of Wednesday’s Auckland Unleashed summit. Getting our public transport system right is not negotiable if the new Auckland is to achieve its potential as the world’s most liveable city and the economic powerhouse of the nation,” says the Mayor.
Related Posts
- Bridge or Tunnel Report Close
- ANZAC Bridge Group Again Says Scrap Harbour Tunnel Idea
- Bridge Only Has 20 Years Left, NZTA Moves For Harbour Tunnel
- Steven: May Not Be Tunnel, Present Bridge Safe
- Interesting Approach To Funding New Bridge
Auckland, NEW ZEALAND
14 Comments
It will be another road only bridge, done on the cheap. Basically exactly what we got in 1959. God this government is completley devoid of vision or any idea on what makes a livable city.
oh no they won’t!
oh no they won’t!
oh no they won’t!
if they do then im on the next plane to Brisbane.
Looking at the documents both their bridge and tunnel options appear to be ‘gold plated’ with major ‘every which way’ intersections on both sides. I.e. both crossings to have ramps to Fanshawe St, both to have ramps to Cook St and both to have connections to SH1.
They seemed not to have considered the simple and effective option of using the existing bridge for CBD access only and the new crossing for a SH1 bypass only. Doing so would not only lead to greater urban design outcomes, it would also separate commuter flows from state highway traffic, not to mention cut out a heap of intricate and expensive tunneling work.
Intersection at Fanshaw St!? that would be vile, undo the whole point of having the thing underground. Of course wouldn’t want to inconvenience the Takapuna to Viaduct drivers [and drinkers] now would we. Surely that sort of local traffic could be expected to be largely on PT, or the old bridge… they have absolutely no idea about urban form these idiots at NZTA. Why spend 5Billion to just further fill up the city with motorway interchanges and cars….? Maybe there’s been a Y2K mix up at NZTA and their computers are telling them to plan for 1960 not 2060
Our only hope is such a spectacular dust up in Saudi Arabia that oil goes through the roof quickly and perhaps sense will be seen by someone, anyone?
What will the cost be for all of the legal battles brought by the residents of St Marys bay and all the mitigation needed to placate them? You can guarantee that they don’t want another bridge landing through there.
What is the impact on Westhaven marina? (some of those boat owners are pretty wealthy so again lots of mitigation needed to avoid costly legal battles)
What impact in monetary terms would the impact of another bridge have on the harbour? (two bridges next to each other like that would look pretty ugly no matter how they were designed, might impact tourism).
If the government went for the cheaper option does that mean they will put the difference into the CBD Tunnel (yeah right)
Building a bridge is going for the cheapskate option that will end up repeating the mistakes of the past and you can guarantee that future generations will question why we didn’t take the opportunity to do it right.
Well the short answer is we don’t need either anytime soon, and my pick is that the relentless rise of oil costs will, over the medium term, leave only the electric rail option on the table. But by then the damage done to our and the rest of the world’s economies will mean we won’t do that either…. Maybe. Mind you they built Sydney’s city rail during the depression.
If I’m wrong about oil, and it ‘merely’ hangs around the USD 100-200 mark, and we still think the car the thing…. well at least leave state highway one in the tunnel until the CMJ, no interchange at the harbour, and don’t connect the existing bridge to state highway at all cityside. It can become a local road. With buslanes. and serving all the City/Herne Bay to Northcote/Birkenhead/Takapuna traffic. City traffic can still leave SH1 at Cook St, and other Shooer to city drivers would use the AHB.
A bit cheaper, much more elegant, of course the rest of the Vic Park is undergrounded [as it should be now]. I don’t see a problem with this…?
But still the better option is to just build the rail tunnel, after the CBD loop and the south western line link the shore buses to the rail stations and see the pressure that takes off the AHB and the city streets.
@Patrick,
Check out the various options proposed, especially render approximately halfway through this document (note huge PDF with all plans)
http://awhc.nzta.govt.nz/eBooks/Volume%202%20%20-%20Drawings%20October%202010/Volume%202%20%20-%20Drawings%20October%202010.pdf
It is enough to make you cry.
We have to stop them.
“Public transport will be a key focus of Wednesday’s Auckland Unleashed summit. Getting our public transport system right is not negotiable if the new Auckland is to achieve its potential as the world’s most liveable city and the economic powerhouse of the nation,” says the Mayor.
Thats good to hear. My only hope is that they will effectively engage with the people to show the benefits that investing in PT can bring
Nick, easy to see where the money goes with those plans… crazy lavish… let’s get the rail through first and see what’s really needed…. they will have to take the line beyond Gaunt St of course….. Note they go to great lengths to join up the traffic lanes, I think the rail is only there for PR… no real intention…..
Matt Yes! big ups to the Mayor, that’s what I want to hear, now where’s the Labour Party on this? Free popular policy going here, slightly used by the Green Party but basically nicely run in and all set to go…..
Just thinking about the wording of the press release, saying a new crossing will be needed within 20 years and that it is essential transport infrastructure, does anyone else think they might try to build this ahead of the CBD tunnel (which they will just call a nice to have)
[...] A tunnel will cost $5.3 billion according to Joyce’s new figures, where previous estimates had all put it between $3.7 and $4.1 billion. A bridge will cost $3.9 billion. This is intriguing as elsewhere in the world recently tunnels have been costing marginally less than bridges. [...]
[...] A tunnel will cost $5.3 billion according to Joyce’s new figures, where previous estimates had all put it between $3.7 and $4.1 billion. A bridge will cost $3.9 billion. This is intriguing as elsewhere in the world recently tunnels have been costing marginally less than bridges. [...]
Apparently Mr Joyce expects if Auckland wants a tunnel Auckland would have to pay the extra. That might be ok if the deal on tolling mitigates it in the favour of local residents perhaps a rebate on tolls for locals since he’s expecting us to pay twice: income tax+motoring charges and again through local rates, whereas people from outside the region benefit from passing through a less congested state highway system.