I'm sure whatever they choose will be the dumbest solution possible.

So, here's my vote for the cheapest option - which is becoming more feasible/desirable every year they delay.

To do a 'proper job' (as Guy Martin would say) - they'd have to look for a solution that both:
(a) added redundancy to the single-point-of-failure)
(b) serviced those suburbs furthest from existing Highway 1
Any crossing would do (a) - so bonus points are only there for a route that starts at HW20, crosses at Meola & continues north, parrallel to 1 until it joins 16.
So - at a wild-ass guess - double the $$ for the bridge/tunnel alone - to also cut a new motorway 10 km through existing suburbs.

I can't see anyone loving this just because it's a 'proper job' - it's got none of the necessary buzzwords (rail, electric) going for it.
It would've been brilliant in the 1970's - when it should have been built.

So the cheapest is to build some piers - 50 m east of the existing bridge - and put in two lanes of 'busway' with a caged pedestrian/bikeway each side (or underneath/on top).
In the immediate time frame - this could be sold as a way to both
(1) get the buses a faster run in their major bottleneck
(2) get them out of the existing traffic lanes
(3) get maximum buy-in for redundancy + public transport + bikes
(4) avoid almost all costs for extra connecting roads

The silver/golden easter egg in this is that when we discover that full-self-driving vehicles have much, much lower accident rates than human driven ones (cars & buses) there will be a push to allow them to fill in the huge (inter-vehicle) gaps on the 'busway'. As this data already exists, and is going to swell into an avalanche, it shouldn't take more than 5-10 years to become blindingly obvious to even the most die-hard 'light rail' dinosaurs. We won't get the new bridge built by then - even if we started today - so it won't just be busses removed from the old bridge.

In peak times, there's no reason that FSD vehicles can't do 100 kph, nose-to-tail over the bridge.
After all - we (the ultra-fallible meat drivers) did until 15 years ago. 
That's going to move more people than 8 lanes of gridlock.

Lower cost and smarter tech.

My understanding (heard on radio recently) is that light rail, cycling and walking are definitely off the table for the new crossing.

pdh:

 

In peak times, there's no reason that FSD vehicles can't do 100 kph, nose-to-tail over the bridge.
After all - we (the ultra-fallible meat drivers) did until 15 years ago. 
That's going to move more people than 8 lanes of gridlock.

 

I've always imagined FSD vehicles driving along the motorway as a sort of centipede, in which each segment is a car.  This makes better use of space and offers some energy saving as the row of cars functions like a peloton.  If cars are aware of each other's destinations, they could organise into sub-chains that break off at the appropriate exits or whatever. 

eracode:

 

My understanding (heard on radio recently) is that light rail, cycling and walking are definitely off the table for the new crossing.

 

Until there’s a change of government then this plan will go in the bin and a new plan will take over. 

Until both sides of politics agree that bi-partisanship isn’t the other side agreeing with my plans we’ll be flip flopping. 

MikeAqua:

 

pdh:

 

In peak times, there's no reason that FSD vehicles can't do 100 kph, nose-to-tail over the bridge.
After all - we (the ultra-fallible meat drivers) did until 15 years ago. 
That's going to move more people than 8 lanes of gridlock.

 

 

I've always imagined FSD vehicles driving along the motorway as a sort of centipede, in which each segment is a car.  This makes better use of space and offers some energy saving as the row of cars functions like a peloton.  If cars are aware of each other's destinations, they could organise into sub-chains that break off at the appropriate exits or whatever. 

 

It all sounds so easy until the real world gets in the way. 

Driverless trains have a massive amount of testing to ensure they are reliable in an almost completely controlled environment. Cars are orders of magnitude harder to control and the idea the vehicle fleet will be autonomous in 15 years time is laughable. 

The reality of quality transport in medium to large cities is multimodal. Trains move large quantities of people quickly across high traffic areas while buses and taxis provide “last mile” services. 

Roads can never scale the same way rail scales. It’s pretty basic maths reallly. 

eracode:

 

My understanding (heard on radio recently) is that light rail, cycling and walking are definitely off the table for the new crossing.

 

THey should at least have a bus lane each direction. Having zero public transport option is no good.

Journeyman:

 

eracode:

 

My understanding (heard on radio recently) is that light rail, cycling and walking are definitely off the table for the new crossing.

 

 

THey should at least have a bus lane each direction. Having zero public transport option is no good.

 

The new crossing will be heavily weighted towards buses. Right now about 50% of people crossing the existing bridge each day are in buses.

That's good. It needs to be a mix of buses and private transport. Pedestrians and cyclists can wait for the next bridge. Light rail is a non-starter imo. Some people seem to have a borderline obsession with light rail everywhere and I just don't see the need for it.

Journeyman:

 

That's good. It needs to be a mix of buses and private transport. Pedestrians and cyclists can wait for the next bridge. Light rail is a non-starter imo. Some people seem to have a borderline obsession with light rail everywhere and I just don't see the need for it.

 

A bridge is a very good example of rail making more sense than buses. The reason for rail over buses is capacity and speed. Light rail can carry ~18,000-20,000 passengers per hour vs a bus lane which can carry 9,000 passengers per hour. 

The northern busway, which was labeled a white elephant when it was built, is forecast to reach capacity by 2030. The scale factor is why rail makes sense on high traffic routes, not because it is some mystical technology. You then bring buses to connect to the rail network which gives you fast core network journeys and flexibility with last mile.

pdh:

 

So, here's my vote for the cheapest option - which is becoming more feasible/desirable every year they delay.

 

To do a 'proper job' (as Guy Martin would say) - they'd have to look for a solution that both:
(a) added redundancy to the single-point-of-failure)
(b) serviced those suburbs furthest from existing Highway 1
Any crossing would do (a) - so bonus points are only there for a route that starts at HW20, crosses at Meola & continues north, parrallel to 1 until it joins 16.
So - at a wild-ass guess - double the $$ for the bridge/tunnel alone - to also cut a new motorway 10 km through existing suburbs.

 

I can't see anyone loving this just because it's a 'proper job' - it's got none of the necessary buzzwords (rail, electric) going for it.
It would've been brilliant in the 1970's - when it should have been built.

 

So the cheapest is to build some piers - 50 m east of the existing bridge - and put in two lanes of 'busway' with a caged pedestrian/bikeway each side (or underneath/on top).
In the immediate time frame - this could be sold as a way to both
(1) get the buses a faster run in their major bottleneck
(2) get them out of the existing traffic lanes
(3) get maximum buy-in for redundancy + public transport + bikes
(4) avoid almost all costs for extra connecting roads

 

The silver/golden easter egg in this is that when we discover that full-self-driving vehicles have much, much lower accident rates than human driven ones (cars & buses) there will be a push to allow them to fill in the huge (inter-vehicle) gaps on the 'busway'. As this data already exists, and is going to swell into an avalanche, it shouldn't take more than 5-10 years to become blindingly obvious to even the most die-hard 'light rail' dinosaurs. We won't get the new bridge built by then - even if we started today - so it won't just be busses removed from the old bridge.

 

In peak times, there's no reason that FSD vehicles can't do 100 kph, nose-to-tail over the bridge.
After all - we (the ultra-fallible meat drivers) did until 15 years ago. 
That's going to move more people than 8 lanes of gridlock.

 

Lower cost and smarter tech.

 

Man - I was with you until the self driving car thing!

Agree with building the bridge for PT and 'self propelled'. If you wanted to get clever you could even over spec the pillars for some planned clip-ons :)

Like the northern busway futureproof it for light rail, so that as mentioned earlier when the busway reaches capacity it's a much lower cost exercise to upgrade.

We have lots of room (8 lanes) on the existing bridge) that can cope with FSD if it ever happens. The inner 2 - 4 lanes can be like high occupancy lanes in America, but FSD lanes - this would also remove the need for the barrier machine.

The point made - the best bridge was one we started yesterday, and the next best is the one we start today is getting more and more critical.

Journeyman:

 

That's good. It needs to be a mix of buses and private transport. Pedestrians and cyclists can wait for the next bridge. Light rail is a non-starter imo. Some people seem to have a borderline obsession with light rail everywhere and I just don't see the need for it.

 

Not sure if this is accruate but I've heard the northern busway was designed in a way that it can be easily converted to light rail in the future. I can see a future where Auckland would benefit from a high capacity light rail backbone up the middle of the north shore connecitng with local buses along the way. I am fine with a bridge that is not light rail from day 1 but I'd hope it can be designed so that it is future proofed for conversion to light rail if it comes to it.

The current northern busway service is already at capacity with fully packed standing room only double deckers on NX1/NX2 running every 2-3 mins at peak so the assertion that light rail is an obsession is a bit strange. In a way current demand already justifies the need for high capacity than what can be provided even with high frequency double decker buses.

KiwiSurfer:

 

The current northern busway service is already at capacity with fully packed standing room only double deckers on NX1/NX2 running every 2-3 mins at peak so the assertion that light rail is an obsession is a bit strange. In a way current demand already justifies the need for high capacity than what can be provided even with high frequency double decker buses.

 

Yeah I'd hate to see what full capacity looks like if it's only supposed to be hitting it in 2030. The buses are crowded and tripping over each other at stations already. Which is a great problem to have! But one that would be greatly reduced if it was rail instead of buses.

Heavy rail beats busses for speed and capacity. 
The sheer ability to move masses of people as Japan demonstrates.
Steel wheels with electric cantanery beats electric busses for efficiency and convenient operation
(no battery problems, weight cost).
So if its capacity to and up North Shore, plus allowance for growth and connection to a wider network.

Light rail more for slower connecting networks to a heavy rail backbone. 
Its most efficient with overhead wires, so just get used to them, and save lithium for other uses.

Handle9:

 

It all sounds so easy until the real world gets in the way. 

 

Driverless trains have a massive amount of testing to ensure they are reliable in an almost completely controlled environment. Cars are orders of magnitude harder to control and the idea the vehicle fleet will be autonomous in 15 years time is laughable. 

 

The reality of quality transport in medium to large cities is multimodal. Trains move large quantities of people quickly across high traffic areas while buses and taxis provide “last mile” services. 

 

Roads can never scale the same way rail scales. It’s pretty basic maths reallly. 

 

Oh, I didn't say it would be easy (or that we'd have FSD within any particular timeframe).  Would require a degree of standardisation that will never happen in the automotive sector (can't even agree on a single charging plug).  But it would be useful and enjoyable, and allow complete single mode independence.  Something public transport can't do.     

More of pipe dream.  That said .... birds can fly en-masse in three dimensions with very little processing power and not collide.  So ... it should be possible.  We have a lot to learn on efficient and effective spatial computing.

Rail won't scale for public transport in this country with our topography and small population.  Within Auckland and Welly, sure.  Probably not within ChCh.  Between regions, with the possible exception of Auckland and Hamilton .... forget it. 

Auckland can't even get a decent connection to the airport going.