![]() ![]() Cable stayed bridges are quite popular these days, as they are strong, stable and self-supporting during construction, which makes them fast and cheap to build. We quite like the design, the triangular cable towers are vaguely reminiscent of volcanic cones or perhaps sails on the harbour. We were reminded of these when leafing through some of the obscure old reports so I wonder if most people even knew this was an option? Designed well they are more than just function.īelow are some of the renders from the NZTA study, so take a look for yourself. One of the main reasons for this is the view it would obviously represent a dramatic visual change, which many people would be fearful of.īut would a bridge option be all that bad? Bridges all over the world can be some of the most stunning and iconic features of cities. The main reason for selecting a tunnel rather than a bridge was the result of public feedback around 5 years ago on the council’s Auckland Plan, and I’d say most of that feedback took place without considering the huge cost impact of their decision. That’s roughly how much public subsidy is paid each year to top up fare revenue on the North Shore bus network. ![]() Again $16m a year, every year, is significant. That level of saving is nothing to be sneezed at, after all the entire cost of the Waterview tunnels project is $1.4 billion!Ī bridge would also be considerably cheaper to operate and maintain – about $4m per year vs $20m per year (in 2010 $). According to the last study by NZTA in 2010, a bridge option would be around $1.4 billion cheaper. So if we’re going to build a road crossing that doesn’t actually do much, perhaps it’s time to reconsider a cheaper bridge option. About the best we’ll get is some bus lanes – AT and the NZTA have been suggesting that light rail could possibly go over the existing bridge, but my understanding based on conversations with various staff is that this is unlikely to be a realistic option. And yet, because of changes they’ll make to how the existing bridge is used, it’s likely the extra crossing won’t even provide any additional capacity to the road network. Instead, the current most likely outcome is that we’ll spend $4-6 billion on a tunnel and massive interchanges at each end. It could be designed to leave space so that a future road crossing could be built if still needed. We believe that after Skypath, the next crossing should be a rapid-transit-only crossing, providing those travelling to and from the North Shore with a complete and attractive alternative to the current bridge. ![]() As regular readers will know, we’re not exactly big fans of another road-based harbour crossing being a priority. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |