Auckland paralyzed by damaged bridge

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Auckland paralyzed by damaged bridge

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

2760 posts

Uber Geek

#2571483 21-Sep-2020 17:29

BillyAnderson:

They can't even manage to properly run the toy train system they've currently got (it's closed yet again for a week for "urgent repairs"), let alone keep trying to add more to it. They would be better off disbanding Auckland's trains and converting the rail corridors to bus lanes instead ... which would also mean less need for many of the bus lanes on the busy normal roads and allow more easily flowing car traffic.

The network is run by Kiwirail, not Auckland Transport, and its state is a result of many years of underfunding and lack of parity with road based funding priorities. Busways, including underground bus interchanges, was investigated as part of the recent CRL funding requirements and deemed to not be the most effective route. Converting it now would just cause even more problems with respect to pollution until a fully green ev fleet is established and then the cost to rip out would be astronomical compared to just fixing it.

Tradepub

Free professional, reference and technical white papers (affiliate link).

antonknee

1133 posts

Uber Geek

#2571493 21-Sep-2020 18:11

Busses are not sustainable long term and will never carry the capacity the train network can. The trains are the backbone of the PT network and play a very important part in enabling the busses.

Our network is not perfect - but it is relatively well designed. The approach we have allows for more services to more places which run more frequently, at the expense of having to change bus or train. This network approach is far more scalable than a bunch of unconnected point to point routes.

What hurts the busses the most is being stuck in traffic with all the cars. The network approach we have needs to be supported with more bus lanes. If your connecting bus is 5 minutes late because it was stuck in traffic, you miss your next bus and it unravels a bit.

Additionally public transport in Auckland has gone from dire to actually pretty good since things like Project DART and New Network have come in.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29691 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2571496 21-Sep-2020 18:12

Possible to build a bridge under the current one? Just stack them!

1101

3121 posts

Uber Geek

#2571800 22-Sep-2020 09:48

Traffic at 1pm & 4pm yesterday wasnt that bad, only 1/4 - 1/2hour longer stuck in the que before the bridge
I was dreading the 4pm commute, but it was easy peasy all the way up to just before the bridge
Ive had considerably worse . I guess many were just staying at home instead ?

Did get the idiots going into the right hand lane on the approach to the bridge in the hope that was going to be faster .
Its the merging of lanes that caused the slowdowns

I do wonder how this is going to affect the clipons: they have had alot of issues in the past, at one time trucks were banned from them .
That bridge isnt going to last forever , and has had serious issues in the past (cracks etc) . We do need to consider a replacement rather than 2nd crossing .

DonH

230 posts

Master Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2571808 22-Sep-2020 09:58

Adding lanes under the bridge isn't an option - it would reduce the clearance for ships too much. That's part of the problem with the cracking in the clipons - they had to meet a minimum clearance and thus were designed shallower than the engineers would have preferred.

People hear what they see. - Doris Day

old3eyes

9111 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2571893 22-Sep-2020 11:42

BillyAnderson:

old3eyes:

Most cities in the world would have put in another 1 or 2 harbor crossings years ago .

Most of those "most cities in the world" have a far high population and a far greater population density. Auckland has a piddly population (by world standards) and is spread out across a massive area (long, but narrow). It really doesn't have enough people to be able to be compared to all these other big cities, let alone run a well functioning, high use public transport system. It isn't helped by funnelling all traffic through the CBD - to get from the north shore to the east, for example, means you have to go to the CBD and then get another bus out again, which means it takes much longer than necessary, but the population simply can't support a bus doing that route on one go.

It was that attitude like yours that we have a small population that got Auckland the narrow gutted 4 lane harbor bridge back in the 1950s. The bridge authority wanted it to be about 8 lanes but the government of the day who was financing it said "No one lives over the north shore so well just make it 4 lanes" We all know how that turned out. This is typical NZ infrastructure building. Build it for today and forget about tomorrow.

Regards,

Old3eyes

GV27

5874 posts

Uber Geek

#2571941 22-Sep-2020 12:41

wellygary:

The definition of light rail is extremely wide,

and from the Mt Roskill- Airport debacle its clear that the government now favours more heavy "metro" type - Canada Sky train, etc, as opposed to an on street light "street car" type - Melbourne/Sydney/Europe etc...

Street-level Gold Coast Light Rail running in a mix of separate corridor and on-street modes was the initial AT proposal. Thanks to the rather dubious actions of the NZ Super/Canadian Pension bid, the proposal is now far removed from what it once was - it's now solely about the airport and how fast you can get people to it, instead of the idea of connecting communities and enabling density. However the relevant minister appears to be unsackable so I can only assume he has some sort of highly compromising photographs of someone important tucked away somewhere.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#2571976 22-Sep-2020 13:14

Benoire:

There is an element of quality within the consultancy market which does create intresting price problems but some of the main issues is the cost of materials and labour. When I left London in 2010, I had just completed a 2km full road rebuild in central london to full structural AC quality (UK Standard approach) for ~$400k alongside a major national rail station... I did 300m of the same type of road cosntruction here and it was $1m for the materials alone. NZ is remote and relies on imported products predominately and is paying through the nose for it, local supply will not really make it any cheaper due to the volume of use.

Yes, but, the cost of shipping is pretty cheap.

Here is an example, Iceland is isolated too..

The Hvalfjörður Tunnel (Icelandic: Hvalfjarðargöng) is a road tunnel under the Hvalfjörður fjord in Iceland and a part of Route 1. It is 5,770 meters (18,930 ft) long and reaches a depth of 165 meters (541 ft) below sea level.

The construction of the tunnel was started in 1996, and completed in 1998 at a cost of about 70 million USD. While the sub-sea tunnel deepest point is 165 meters (541 ft) below sea level, the deepest sea depth is 40 meters (130 ft), and the minimum rock coverage is 40 meters (130 ft).

I saw an estimate to build a similar length tunnel under the Kaimais, I think they were saying it is a 4 billion dollar project. Or, about 40 times the cost of doing the same sized tunnel in Iceland.

I get projects are different , but this cost differential is massive. And, you'd think going under water would have more issues to consider.

Handle9

11165 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2573114 23-Sep-2020 22:37

BillyAnderson:

old3eyes:

Most cities in the world would have put in another 1 or 2 harbor crossings years ago .

Most of those "most cities in the world" have a far high population and a far greater population density. Auckland has a piddly population (by world standards) and is spread out across a massive area (long, but narrow). It really doesn't have enough people to be able to be compared to all these other big cities, let alone run a well functioning, high use public transport system. It isn't helped by funnelling all traffic through the CBD - to get from the north shore to the east, for example, means you have to go to the CBD and then get another bus out again, which means it takes much longer than necessary, but the population simply can't support a bus doing that route on one go.

Auckland would be the 3rd - 4th largest city in Germany. Pretty much every city in Germany of more than a few hundred thousand has light rail / trams / trains.

Functional public transport doesn't rely solely on large populations, it relies on a consistent and planned approach.

Handle9

11165 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2573115 23-Sep-2020 22:40

antonknee: Busses are not sustainable long term and will never carry the capacity the train network can. The trains are the backbone of the PT network and play a very important part in enabling the busses.

Our network is not perfect - but it is relatively well designed. The approach we have allows for more services to more places which run more frequently, at the expense of having to change bus or train. This network approach is far more scalable than a bunch of unconnected point to point routes.

What hurts the busses the most is being stuck in traffic with all the cars. The network approach we have needs to be supported with more bus lanes. If your connecting bus is 5 minutes late because it was stuck in traffic, you miss your next bus and it unravels a bit.

Additionally public transport in Auckland has gone from dire to actually pretty good since things like Project DART and New Network have come in.

Yip. Busways can work quite well but they tap out pretty fast. The northern busway has been a massive success which means it will hit capacity in 10 years. Getting 20 years out of that sort of project really isn't efficient use of the capital and disruption involved in building it. The CRL, while far more disruptive, will allow the rail network to continue to scale.

Handle9

11165 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2573117 23-Sep-2020 22:48

surfisup1000:

Dingbatt:

I will be interested to see what the repair looks like.

Just how much the art of structural engineering for bridges has changed in the last 60 years? Or will they put an over-engineered patch on it while they come up with a permanent solution?
And on top of all that, there is obviously a vulnerability in the structure of the bridge to damage from high sided vehicles. So will we see more protection being retrofitted?

I guess the driver of the truck will be glad they weren’t in a clip-on lane, otherwise they might have had a bit more (sea)water on the windscreen than the wipers could cope with!

The state of engineering has gone backward as it is far more expensive to build anything today than in the past. Even accounting for inflation .

Although, I suspect NZ engineers are particularly poor at delivering good value.

Look at the price of building an underground tunnel in Iceland, vs in New Zealand, for example.

The construction industry is hopelessly unproductive. Depending on what study you read globally productivity has reduced, or stayed static, in the construction industry over the last 20 years.

The reasons for that are fairly complex but the procurement process for complex projects is fundamentally broken. Projects like Transmission Gully or the Christchurch Justice precinct show how screwed up it really is.

Tunnel project are about as difficult as it gets. They almost always end up horrifically expensive and delayed.

JaseNZ

2576 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2573125 23-Sep-2020 23:24

Simple solution. 😀

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding : Ice cream man , Ice cream man

mattwnz

20045 posts

Uber Geek

#2573143 24-Sep-2020 02:31

old3eyes:

It was that attitude like yours that we have a small population that got Auckland the narrow gutted 4 lane harbor bridge back in the 1950s. The bridge authority wanted it to be about 8 lanes but the government of the day who was financing it said "No one lives over the north shore so well just make it 4 lanes" We all know how that turned out. This is typical NZ infrastructure building. Build it for today and forget about tomorrow.

Same thing happened in Wellington with the Terrace tunnel. It was originally supposed to be two tunnels. All it did was kick the problem into the future. Stopping a motorway in the middle of a city was never going to be a great idea long term as traffic increased. Now we are paying for this error, with this bottle necks it causes. The inner city bypass was an attempt to help it, but they didn't build an extra tunnel, and it wasn't a great solution, especially when it comes to urban design.

mattwnz

20045 posts

Uber Geek

#2573144 24-Sep-2020 02:34

Are they better to do a tunnel, or another bridge? At least a bridge can also become a tourist attraction if done well. The Auckland harbour bridge is a pretty ugly looking bridge compared to many around the world, and especially when compared to Sydneys one. The technology with some of the bridges being build these days is amazing. But the advantage of a tunnel is weather won't affect tunnels, unless it floods. Guessing it will be done as a PPP and will be tolled.

1101

3121 posts

Uber Geek

#2573275 24-Sep-2020 10:00

all this talk of a 2nd bridge/tunnel is just that , talk.

No one wants the financial pain involved in paying for it.
Ak Council : has no money, relies on borrowing just to function as is
NZ Govt : has no money, relies on borrowing just to function as is
Average Ak car owner : is struggling as is , with ridiculous cost of rent , power , rates etc.

it should be user funded : tolls and the SIGNIFICANT petrol tax increase to cover paying for it . That would be political suicide . So it wont happen
It will stay a political football , with plans changing every 3-6 years .

If we need it done quickly , at low cost , we need to hand it over completely to a (say) chinese company & china based workers who can & do build these things very quickly.
Tell them just build it , no consents needed , no red tape, just do it .
NZ govt departments , councils, politicians, greenies & locals have to be taken out of the process .
that will never happen . NZ doesnt do things that way
So we'll have 10 years of planning , red tape & committees . Then keep changing the plan & requirements every year or so . Keep pushing out the start date . Massive cost overuns and delays .

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6