New Auckland harbour crossing

Forums › Off topic › New Auckland harbour crossing

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

1722 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 993

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#3458601 4-Feb-2026 10:17

Agreed. Already now >50% of harbour bridge traffic during the peak is on buses and only going up. Replacing that with some sort of rail solution is a no-brainer.

It would be be cheaper and more efficent to just go for a rail-only solution. For me I think long term an underground rail link across the harbour to link up to a North Shore line along the exisiting busway makes sense. I wouldn't be opposed to a rail bridge if it can be done, maybe a portal near the marina on the south end and reclaimed land along the east side of SH 1 to Akoranga station (similar to how the railway runs along SH 2 in Wellington). That way we can keep the current two bridges vehicle traffic only as it currenly is -- with the removal of buses it should free up capacity for private vehicles. And the improved reliability of rail would attract more people off cars, freeing up even more road capacity.

Handsomedan

7769 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7402

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#3458604 4-Feb-2026 10:26

I'd love to see a Sydney-style rail network with hybrid underground/above-ground track layout and access to every corner of the city, with decent security and quality services, but doubt that would ever happen for a variety of reasons.

As a second inner-city crossing idea, Meola Reef seems to make sense until you get to the North Shore. Once there, you're in the suburbs in a hilly and fairly densely populated part of the landscape. It's also home to some very expensive waterfront real estate that would cost tax payers a LOT to procure at market value.

Handsome Dan Has Spoken.
Handsome Dan needs to stop adding three dots to every sentence...

Handsome Dan does not currently have a side hustle as the mascot for Yale

*Gladly accepting donations...

richms

29098 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10208

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3458648 4-Feb-2026 11:59

I think that a rail and bus dedicated solution is a no brainer on top of any additional car crossing. Having busses get held up when some moron crashes on the bridge negates any benefit of them vs driving.

Richard rich.ms

SaltyNZ

8862 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9539

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3458659 4-Feb-2026 12:48

Handsomedan:

I'd love to see a Sydney-style rail network with hybrid underground/above-ground track layout and access to every corner of the city, with decent security and quality services, but doubt that would ever happen for a variety of reasons.

As a second inner-city crossing idea, Meola Reef seems to make sense until you get to the North Shore. Once there, you're in the suburbs in a hilly and fairly densely populated part of the landscape. It's also home to some very expensive waterfront real estate that would cost tax payers a LOT to procure at market value.

Yes, agreed. The overall project would be ridiculously expensive and cause more problems than it solves. The only one that really makes sense is another bridge parallel to the existing one, primarily for rail. The busway gets converted to rail and extends through Warkworth to eventually join up in Helensville or Wellsford.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

bfginger

1330 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 191

#3459079 5-Feb-2026 14:23

A tunnel has the major advantage of having much greater flexibility for exit points than a bridge including the options of bifurcation and future extensions. Demolishing and motorwayising two suburbs for the sake of a bridge is going to have serious effects. Vehicles in a tunnel won't be buffeted by high winds which will become a bigger issue in the long term. Cheaper doesn't always mean better value for money.

The existing bridge is deteriorating so another car crossing is vital as its maximum safe capacity may have to be constricted in the near term.

gzt

18679 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7809

Lifetime subscriber

#3459085 5-Feb-2026 15:02

bfginger: A tunnel has the major advantage of having much greater flexibility for exit points than a bridge including the options of bifurcation and future extensions. Demolishing and motorwayising two suburbs for the sake of a bridge is going to have serious effects. Vehicles in a tunnel won't be buffeted by high winds which will become a bigger issue in the long term. Cheaper doesn't always mean better value for money.

Completely agree. We don't want to be any more like L.A than we already are. Also, imho NZ's engineering challenges are relatively unique and unique solutions engineered in New Zealand should be considered.

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

gzt

18679 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7809

Lifetime subscriber

#3459086 5-Feb-2026 15:04

With that said - now I'm going to go wild. Three stage plan 10-20 years:

1: Replace existing bridge supports with something better
2: Run rail over those new supports
3. Replace bridge deck and structural components

Stage 3 has additional lanes starting from the outside in, and at no stage does construction impact existing traffic volume. 10-20 year project who cares as long as it keeps running.

tweake

2641 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1137

#3459099 5-Feb-2026 15:32

Handsomedan:

I'd love to see a Sydney-style rail network with hybrid underground/above-ground track layout and access to every corner of the city, with decent security and quality services, but doubt that would ever happen for a variety of reasons.

your not wrong.

the big one is population density. what makes public transport work is high density housing. you move a large amount of people a short distance. auckland moves a relatively small amount long distances.

the other increasingly big factor is there is a lot of nimby's who have the expectation of single level housing, walking distance to shops, even views, not having any buildings next door. basically expect the city to be a town. but also have public transport and all the convenience and attractions of a city. plus aging population means an ever decreasing taxpayer base to pay for it rather than them.

just look at the stink over housing density thats happening right now.

without a culture shift, public transport will continue to be an expensive service.

tweake

2641 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1137

#3459101 5-Feb-2026 15:35

gzt: Also, imho NZ's engineering challenges are relatively unique and unique solutions engineered in New Zealand should be considered.

lol, theres nothing unique about nz engineering challenges. nz is no different to other parts of the world.

all our "challenges" are caused by people.

gzt

18679 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7809

Lifetime subscriber

#3459103 5-Feb-2026 16:09

tweake:
gzt: Also, imho NZ's engineering challenges are relatively unique and unique solutions engineered in New Zealand should be considered.
lol, theres nothing unique about nz engineering challenges. nz is no different to other parts of the world.

Seismic concerns tend to be higher. Geology and vulcanology tend to be substantially different on average. I agree there are some comparable countries and to some extent all projects are unique.

That said, there should be a range of proposals instead of the usual two or three options. I commend Brown for actually proposing something but there needs to be more proposals to consider.

tweake

2641 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1137

#3459105 5-Feb-2026 16:27

browns proposal is just politics. hes just stroking it.

lets wait and see whats worth doing based on real data not old men yelling at each other.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

eracode

Smpl Mnmlst
9332 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6198

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3459176 5-Feb-2026 19:17

SaltyNZ:

The overall project would be ridiculously expensive and cause more problems than it solves. The only one that really makes sense is another bridge parallel to the existing one, primarily for rail. The busway gets converted to rail and extends through Warkworth to eventually join up in Helensville or Wellsford.

And that too would be ridiculously expensive and IMO will never happen because NZ’s population and population density is too small. We will never be able to afford it and the cost-benefit economics (including our third-world civil engineering) would never be viable.

The volume of rail passenger traffic would be fairly small and freight would be unlikely to make it any better.

A lovely pipe-dream - and I would love it too if it was feasible.

Sometimes I just sit and think. Other times I just sit.

Handle9

11924 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9675

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3459177 5-Feb-2026 19:31

tweake:

gzt: Also, imho NZ's engineering challenges are relatively unique and unique solutions engineered in New Zealand should be considered.

lol, theres nothing unique about nz engineering challenges. nz is no different to other parts of the world.

all our "challenges" are caused by people.

Designing efficient transport in Auckland is very difficult. There aren’t many, if any, cities of its size built on an isthmus with similar topography.

When you put the supply chain difficulties of being a small country at the arse end of the world it’s a pretty unique place to design a transport network.

Handle9

11924 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9675

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3459180 5-Feb-2026 19:38

eracode: including our third-world civil engineering

The ease with which New Zealand engineers are hired overseas shows the issue isn’t the engineering. It’s a small population in a big country so you get the best solutions you can afford.

johno1234

3352 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2843

#3459181 5-Feb-2026 20:22

Surely where the bridge or tunnel goes is 100% determined by what it needs to hook into at each end?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5