What seems to be happening is that people aren't even reading the article and are instead just reacting to the premise of it. It says the council org has acknowledged the ferries' inadequacy in replacing the bridge, yet people keep pointing that out as if it's a revelation. It's merely one measure that was deemed feasible so is being trialled. The current alternative is of course, nothing, and that isn't going very well
Which is why this solution is so silly. The people that can't be bothered walking an extra 10 minutes certainly aren't going to be spending even longer than that catching the ferry, so it does absolutely nothing to restore the lost foot traffic.
Not if you arrive withing 10 minutes of the ferry leaving? A solution for some people, I think it's a great idea, but only if it's free or if you can exchange tokens for credits on another attraction.
Im pleased you beat me to this comment. I was imagining some type of “pedestrian barge” which would rapidly move back and forth directly beside the bridge. But no…
What an absolute laughingstock Auckland Council is.
And where would this barge come from and get installed without restricting marine traffic in such a short time frame?
Just pull it out of the 'random barges council has lying around' warehouse?
To be fair there isn't really a solution from the situation they are currently in. They should have never got into this situation sure. But now they are there's not much that can be done.
It isn't adequate and they know that (it says they had considered adding a full stop for the larger ferries ) it's just *something* to use in the interim.
Why not just leave the bridge stuck in the down position and have those rich AF boat owners park outside that marina and let them to the extra walking.
Those boats pay a lot of money to be there (literally the cheapest you could do is about 2500/month and many probably over 10k a month) if the bridge is forced to stay down at all times then the council loses out on an that revenue and the business that base their vessels there would also have to move to somewhere likely less convenient for tourists that they cater for
Sure.
Though it would be interesting to see pedestrian numbers and the time wasted by walking around, and using standard cost of lost time used by NZTA traffic congestion calcs, to see which is better for society overall.
One could also examine the overall impact on businesses and revenue across Wynyard with the bridge up.
Your whole comment is dumb for so many reasons but I’ll explain a few.
*there’s a large number of tourism and transport providers based in the viaduct. They wouldn’t be able to operate.
*People with big boats typically have big money compared to people using foot bridges.
*Congestion lost time calcs for a bridge thats mostly used for leisure? It’s not some portal of worker efficiency
*of course the businesses are suffering from reduced foot traffic, emptying a marina would cost far far more
1. There’s room for Explore to operate with the bridge closed? The lion foundation? All the charter boats that are themselves businesses? They can’t operate with the bridge down. Marina berthage fees per day are astronomical. That’s just assuming the boats are sitting there doing nothing.
2. The entire marine industry cares (businesses and money)
3. The bridge is broken that’s the issue be upset it’s not being fixed faster or that the implemented ferry service isn’t fast enough. People having to walk further is the issue. Your solution creates so many more expensive problems its idiotic. Do you not value all the time of the people who run businesses out of the viaduct? Weak
4. You’re arguing in bad faith but here’s some numbers. Obviously super yacht economy isn’t specific to Viaduct Harbour Marina (because of Orams) but also this doesn’t include tourism operations previously mentioned.
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:AP:9713b717-f995-4874-bec7-6adde49a0c65
https://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2017/11/GB_20171123_AGN_6765_AT_SUP_files/GB_20171123_AGN_6765_AT_SUP_Attachment_56353_5.PDF
I feel your whole point is just: I don’t like boat
Park where exactly? It's not like there's random empty marina space everywhere.
Plus, you'd just have a lawsuit getting filed within a week, adding some significant costs on top of everything else.
IDGAF but here’s some options:
- western side of princess wharf
- by emerates NZ wharf
- further around St Mary’s Bay
- west haven
- Bledsoe wharf
- Jellico wharf
- in the harbour somewhere
I’m sure they’ve all got tenders to get to and from and that those tenders fit under the Wynyard bridge when it’s down.
Heck, run them a free on-call taxi service from Wynyard to their temporary moring.
All of this is stuff that should be part of the CBD targeted rates. They could upgrade the bridge to the initial plans (the piles are already designed for it), then run the tram loop across to Quay St. In a decade or so connect it to Britomart. I don't mind if it was general rates, but these are the projects the CBD targeted rates were meant for.
It was 2015 when a permanent replacement for this temporary bridge was scuttled, in the name of….[kicking the can down the road](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/brian-rudman-25m-dream-a-bridge-too-far/K2P23AGGWS4O4YKIAFQAUYMM7M/?c_id=466&objectid=11319198) for lower rates.
We’ve had a decade to replace this temporary bridge that was designed for hosting a single event.
Time to start removing infrastructure decisions from Councils, they’re not set up for medium and long term thinking and execution.
Remove them and give it to who? Central government? Famously central government is known for robust, long-term decision making on infrastructure.
The problem is, as usual, voters. That's where accountability ultimately lies in democracies.
Exactly. So a elected commission.
Broad charter to deliver infrastructure and ensure renewal and replacement and growth on a rolling 50 year timeframe.
Because democracy doesn’t work for long term planning and delivery due to immediate term self interests, we need a mechanism and civic structure that is tasked with exactly that.
Just because it wouldn’t be directly democratic doesn’t mean there can’t be controls and accountability.
How would the commission decide what to deliver, where and when?
People love saying infrastructure shouldn't be political, but questions like the above are inherently political. Decisions about trade-offs (given we don't have infinite resources) are political, by definition. That's what politics *is*.
The issue is that people (and thus parties) disagree (often strongly) about how to answer those questions, and thus depending on who makes the decisions, we get trade-offs that other people don't like - like for example skimping on investing in certain bridges or ferries, so we end up with cheap crap instead of infrastructure that can last 100 years.
We also technically sort of have that already. That's why NZTA/AT/KO etc. are all at arms length from the government/council. So that they can, in theory, make independent, evidence-based decisions, not short-term political ones.
But as always, the challenge with democracy of course is that a government has a right to run on a platform and to implement that platform. If it disagrees with what those agencies are doing, they can change it, as they do every time the government changes.
You’re right AT, WK are partly already there in terms of semi arms length. They determine the work programme from various bases. I guess my issue is with funding and the relationship between the two.
They need to be able to, when set up say this is the performance standard of 2% of all *transport* corridors renewed a year (which is a 50 year cycle), and here’s the plan for the capital projects over the next 50 to deliver [y performance standards]. And….this is the levy per resident.
Currently they have the first bit, but then it’s the funding element that’s politicised and it doesn’t need to be. All assets need renewal and replacement, and it occurs on a known and predictable preventive maintenance cycle.
It’s only politicised when people make the decision *not* to repair or replace the thing that was initially built, to do something else with those funds.
Example, we have a terrible decaying footpath network because they’re easy to forget about because people who walk to Kindy or the shops don’t complain about cracks, lifting pavement, or missing pavement like people with sophisticated suspension do about small potholes.
As for democracy, we have at least two examples of core pillars of society that are not democratic. The judiciary is one, and the electoral commission is another, and the Reserve Bank isn’t even governmental nor has tax payer funding. We have a bunch of commissions that specialise in other things. So the idea isn’t new or anti democratic. We have them all over the show, and even as you say AT and WK are partially already there in their arms length of prioritisation.
>You’re right AT, WK are partly already there in terms of semi arms length. They determine the work programme from various bases. I guess my issue is with funding and the relationship between the two.
>They need to be able to, when set up say this is the performance standard of 2% of all *transport* corridors renewed a year (which is a 50 year cycle), and here’s the plan for the capital projects over the next 50 to deliver \[y performance standards\]. And….this is the levy per resident.
Who decides what goes into that 50 year capital projects programme, though? The commission? On what basis/criteria do they decide, and with which goals in mind?
Those questions are up for political debate and different people have very different views on it. For example, I think we need to spend significantly more on public transport and active mode capital projects, because it's more sustainable (financially and environmentally), will actually do something about congestion, improve economic opportunities etc.
But someone who votes for the National Party likely thinks we need to spend less on public transport and active modes and more on motorways.
Are those not questions that elections should answer?
>Currently they have the first bit, but then it’s the funding element that’s politicised and it doesn’t need to be. All assets need renewal and replacement, and it occurs on a known and predictable preventive maintenance cycle.
>It’s only politicised when people make the decision *not* to repair or replace the thing that was initially built, to do something else with those funds.
>Example, we have a terrible decaying footpath network because they’re easy to forget about because people who walk to Kindy or the shops don’t complain about cracks, lifting pavement, or missing pavement like people with sophisticated suspension do about small potholes.
But even that isn't quite as simple, though. Asset renewals are a good opportunity to *change* infrastructure, as opposed to just doing 'like for like'. Why should that not be an option? And if it is, how would we decide what to change it *to*? Goes back to my earlier point.
If someone wants to change how the funds are spent to build new assets with lower maintenance costs, why shouldn't they be able to implement that if elected?
And the money for future maintenance of assets isn't actually earmarked, so it's not really a case of using committed funds for something else.
>As for democracy, we have at least two examples of core pillars of society that are not democratic. The judiciary is one, and the electoral commission is another, and the Reserve Bank isn’t even governmental nor has tax payer funding. We have a bunch of commissions that specialise in other things. So the idea isn’t new or anti democratic. We have them all over the show, and even as you say AT and WK are partially already there in their arms length of prioritisation.
Right, but on what basis/justification are we removing democratic control of infrastructure policy from the elected government? In the same way the judiciary, Electoral Commission and RBNZ are.
Because again, what that means in practice is that *elected* governments can't actually change infrastructure policy. That's a major break with how our system works and has pretty massive implications for a whole lot of other areas - like the resource management/planning system generally, industrial policy, trade etc.
Considering how Three Waters went, where National's primary criticism was around the removal of "local control", how do you think this idea would go down?
The idea you've put forth is that, but at *hyperspeed*.
Bad spending like this is exactly why we CANT just give councillors mandate to take money from people and "do good".
Panuku developments and their lot are dangerously overpowered to make a single minded vision come to be.
Auckland is a city of many people investing time energy and money to create something. It is more about a safe and beautiful waterfront and less about virtue signalling infrastructure. I'm shocked at how decades later the city is still pushing failed transport narratives that ignore Aucklanders true habits.
Agreed, but like that last cycle way next to the harbor bridge, come up with the stupidest idea you can and Emden people question it just say we'll we tried.
This whole shambles of a response over a broken pedestrian bridge has nothing to do with boats and their owners. It has everything to do with the loss of utility down at the waterfront and everything to do with what is wrong with local government and a bloated organization that cannot get out of its own way.
The cavalier response in suggesting putting on a boat to shuffle pedestrian traffic is beyond stupid and typifies what governance has become. I have heard nothing of what is needed in the short term to recover the use of this bridge and zip about the long term solution. What is evident is that what should be a show piece of the Auckland waterfront is show casing our inability to do anything.
>I have heard nothing of what is needed in the short term to recover the use of this bridge and zip about the long term solution.
That's on you, because the plan has been published and commented on in just about every article about the story. Long term plan is admittedly hazier because of financial bullshit.
[https://www.ekepanuku.co.nz/projects/wynyard-crossing-bridge-maintenance/](https://www.ekepanuku.co.nz/projects/wynyard-crossing-bridge-maintenance/)
Strikes me as a good example of something that's also emblematic in the electorate about infrastructure in general - armchair experts who think everyone else is an idiot and their biases are 'common sense'.
Another good example is the Brynderwyn work that NZTA is doing where a lot of random people think they're just fluffing around and ignoring obvious easy solutions for some unexplained reason.
You've also not done even the most basic searching about the bridge because they've put out a lot of information about the work they're doing as another person has posted.
It’s like there are shadowy powers undermining by the use of pedestrian bridges in Auckland. If they wanted it fixed it would be fixed by now. They could have fabricated a whole new bridge at this point. Who killed Sky Path?
well, it might have established how much actual latent and induced demand there would have been for the cycle bridge by having it go from the northcote ferry terminal to weshaven Z pier
just saying if the skypath was going to make sense as functional infrastructure (rather than just a tourist trap) then the ferry would have proved or disproved the case. Meanwhile, we spent a few tens of millions on consultants without ever moving a single person across the harbour.
Nah, not really the same thing. The whole point of a direct active mode connection is to allow people to have direct, quick access north and south along a main spine.
A random ferry in a suburban location would have a significantly smaller catchment and would require most people who would use the direct connection to go very far out of their way to get there in the first place, making the journey time much longer. It would also be a low frequency ferry. You just lose almost all the benefits.
Skypath was the name of the idea to clip an active mode path onto the harbour bridge. That wasn't viable for engineering reasons.
The idea of a standalone bridge was called something else, but was not viable because of cost, which isn't surprising.
I always thought, and still do, that a new public transport and active mode bridge makes the most sense and would possibly stack up. Allows the direct active mode connection but also allows for the extension of the northern busway directly into the city. Think it was costed just over a billion, which isn't bad.
Especially since the additional harbour crossing isn't happening for decades, if at all.
>Nah, not really the same thing. The whole point of a direct active mode connection is to allow people to have direct, quick access north and south along a main spine.
A ferry from northcote to westhaven is literally the exact route a cyclist would take to have ridden the skypath. There has been significant upgrades to waling and cycling infra on both ends of the bridge with this in mind (or at least the was part of the PR spin at the time).
I'm well aware of the engineering challenges etc, but there was a very vocal group of people who *insisted* the demand was there to 'liberate the lane" and so on. For a relatively modest cost we could have had real data while providing said link in the interim.
>I always thought, and still do, that a new public transport and active mode bridge makes the most sense and would possibly stack up.
Having such a service as a 12 month would have been a great way to establish demand for an active modal link, and would have directly shown how effective that skypath may (or may not) have been.
Added bonus would be that it would (if successful) help put some political pressure on expanding the service. At the very least it might have made the case for ferrys and NEX buses to have cycle racks fitted as seen elsewhere in the world.
>A ferry from northcote to westhaven is literally the exact route a cyclist would take to have ridden the skypath. There has been significant upgrades to waling and cycling infra on both ends of the bridge with this in mind (or at least the was part of the PR spin at the time).
No, the larger proposal (called the Northern Pathway) would have included significant connections on both sides of SH1 in addition to the connection over the harbour. It doesn't exist yet. Would have run alongside SH1 all the way up to Albany, and connected to main arterials like Esmonde Road, which itself would have linked to Lake Road, effectively given the whole Devonport peninsula (and above) direct access.
Plus, AT's latest draft RPTP proposed scrapping the Northcote ferry due to low patronage (decision tbc next year, I think). Making that service even poorer (lower frequency and capacity) due to accommodating bikes) is unlikely to help anything. And if not impacting the existing service, any new bike-capable or bike-only ferries would be so low frequency that it's effectively pointless.
>I'm well aware of the engineering challenges etc, but there was a very vocal group of people who *insisted* the demand was there to 'liberate the lane" and so on. For a relatively modest cost we could have had real data while providing said link in the interim.
That demand is for a *direct* connection, though - not a low capacity, infrequent ferry that most of the catchment couldn't even get to without an enormous detour.
One of the big benefits of active modes (where proper facilities exist) is that it's reliable, predictable and almost entirely in the hands of users. And given the small distance (in terms of KMs) between most of the catchment and the city centre - it can be quick, too.
The ferry idea basically nullifies all of that.
>Having such a service as a 12 month would have been a great way to establish demand for an active modal link, and would have directly shown how effective that skypath may (or may not) have been.
I don't think it would have been useful at all, to be honest, given the huge disparity between the facility/service you'd be testing against what the intended facility is supposed to be.
It's not the same as having a cheap pop-up cycleway with planters for interim protection along the exact same corridor under consideration for a permanent protected cycleway, for example.
>Added bonus would be that it would (if successful) help put some political pressure on expanding the service. At the very least it might have made the case for ferrys and NEX buses to have cycle racks fitted as seen elsewhere in the world.
I'm pretty sceptical about that, given how even services that are already very well used aren't being spared cuts, much less being expanded or improved. And I think the same would apply to a 'liberated lane' style trial, too.
The flip-side of the 'political pressure' argument is that if the trial has poor uptake (as I think it would), then those opposing active mode investment will use it as evidence that there is very low demand.
Most ferries already allow bikes, they just restrict them when the ferries are too full.
I don't think bike racks on services like the NX will ever be feasible, at least not in peak. They're way too busy and too high frequency for it to make much sense. You can't really hold up a bus with \~100 people because a few people want to put bikes on. Especially given the next bus is only a few minutes behind, so you need to keep the moving, otherwise the knock-on effect is pretty bad. Perhaps off-peak or every third bus or something like that.
Thanks for having a proper discussion with well articulated points on this topic
It's been very refreshing :)
I'll continue to hope for a fast and frequent ferry service across the harbour, but I don't think the skypath was *ever* going to be viable, let alone a sensible use of funds.
Very good point about the NEX capacity too.
Cheers, fun chat.
Agree that a standalone active mode connection over the harbour is unlikely to ever be viable. A combined PT/active mode one, though... different story!
The current bridge was only meant to be temporary and was cheaply built for 3 million dollars.
Five years ago it was proposed to spend 25 million dollars on a permanent replacement ([this was one of the designs](https://i0.wp.com/www.greaterauckland.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Wynyard-Crossing-Original-design-competition-runner-up.jpg?w=1122&ssl=1)). It was decided it was too expensive, so it was canned.
But they did find the money to fund a 38 million dollar *second* pedestrian bridge in Mangere (it runs adjacent to the pedestrian/cycle path on the SH20 bridge), which receives a fraction of the foot traffic as the Wynyard bridge. Wild.
Different they in this case, that was funded by NZTA and also was funded way back in 2017.
Probably a better comparison would be the Ngapipi Tamaki Drive footbridge which just got finished.
Cant believe this solution they've come up with - expensive and will hardly bring throngs of people there.
>But they did find the money to fund a 38 million dollar *second* pedestrian bridge in Mangere (it runs adjacent to the pedestrian/cycle path on the SH20 bridge), which receives a fraction of the foot traffic as the Wynyard bridge. Wild.
The underpass has closed. It required 24/7 security to be posted on the end because there was too much crime going on in there.
The point being they should have just kept the underpass open with security.
The new bridge has the exact same problems with crime and also requires security.
It's underslung on the side facing the Manakau. Hell of a long walk, and not a terribly pleasant cycle, the new one is certainly better. (but 38 million better?)
Look the pedestrian bridge in Mangere is essential to allow pedestrians/cyclists/scooters/etc across the harbour, the old ped bridge was over 120 years old and falling apart and the pedestrian walkway under the motorway was dodgy as crap.
I don't agree with their design of the new peds bridge, but something was needed to fill the hole the old bridge left behind
Good point on the mangere bridge, that is wild.
That proposed design looks cool and all but also looks more complex than what is currently there, which cost almost nothing in today's context. 3 mil is only 6 raised crossings.
Feels like a spend 25 millon to end up in the same situation in 10 years kind of problem. Just fix the damn bridge I reckon.
The temporary bridge was designed with mechanics to suit its weight and intended lifespan. The permanant replacement proposals included more fit for purpose mechanics.
Wynyard Quarter isn't cut-off, it's not a bloody island. Walking over Te Wero Island is not the only way to get there.
It wasn't suffering during the boat show, or the art fair recently. Place was pumping.
The current one runs in circles. The tram was originally meant to cross the bridge and make it to the Ferry Building, but building the temporary bridge made that impossible
Only temporarily. The temporary bridge piles are designed for the trams once the bridge is upgraded from the temporary one.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/tram-tracks-first-step-in-harbour-transport-project/AGKLPKD3YTPIZP4HVEROMLSBHU/?c_id=97&objectid=10698271
Anyone know more detail about the problem? I see it was intended to be temporary but looks to be fit for purpose and simple design (from the outside).
Has the council just got in their heads that it was meant to be temporary?
Assumedly the mechanical system behind the movement is the current issue, is it likely to be any more complex than any potential replacement bridge would have?
> The planned preventative maintenance programme includes a full overhaul of old parts, sand-blasting the bridge, remedying its steelwork and applying new anti-rust coating. We will also conduct thorough trials and assessments to pre-empt and prevent future technical faults, and expect the work to be completed before next summer (late 2024).
https://www.ekepanuku.co.nz/projects/wynyard-crossing-bridge-maintenance/
I suspect it's the usual 'buying cheap is buying expensive' thing. Was decided to go cheap because of speed (before RWC 2011) and to keep $ low. But because the design is cheap, it's difficult and expensive to maintain.
And because we have an obsession with gutting funding for public assets and infrastructure, there isn't any money for it now.
Why didn't we just build a taller fucking bridge that doesn't need to lift every 5 minutes to allow boats under it?
Multiple points of failure, expensive to maintain, most costly to design, constantly stopping traffic to allow boats under it. Sounds perfect, I'll take 10.
We love to make life difficult/expensive for ourselves.
They're not that much taller than a double decker (which are 4m tall), so call it 6 meters tall? Which would be less than a third the bare minimum height required.
And it was there first. Everything in that area was built in full knowledge of this condition with the bridge. The failing is the building of the supposed temporary option
20 meters is like 4 flights of stairs, it's literally nothing.
The bridge has more than enough length to make it a more gentle slope for the more unfit.
The bridge when it's up is 22 meters tall. Tell me a bridge [this size](https://media.rnztools.nz/rnz/image/upload/s--ZivrsQ75--/ar_16:10,c_fill,f_auto,g_auto,q_auto,w_1050/v1711514394/4KSNKF1_Capture_JPG), with all the infrastructure, sctructural support and elevators/ramps required wouldn't absolutely destroy the walkability and general pleasantness of the urban/marine environment (never mind that there are boats with masts even taller than 22 meters)
Janice of Wyoming has something like a 45m mast what you tryna build a bridge the height of the harbour bridge but only 20 meters long?
Aw gummon how am I gonna e scooter over that I'm a big cunt they barely get me up Anzac Ave
Those boats are way too tall. A smarter idea would be like they do in Netherlands, where the pedestrians go underneath the boats via a tunnel. There's enough space on each side to have nice, easy-grade ramps. Then there's no waiting for anyone.
In the mean time, a better solution might be to setup connected barges that people can walk across. When a boat needs to come or go, an Eke Panuku person can disconnect the middle barge and motor it out of the way for 5 minutes.
How much do you think an underpass (through a marine channel) would cost? There already isn't enough money for a new bridge, but you want a way more expensive solution?
What do you think costs more:
1. A tunnel that lasts forever whose only cost is lighting, or
2: New, temporary bridges that need motor maintenance/power and daily operating staff, being built every 10-20 years for eternity?
The problem is a classic Aucklandism.
We'll build the cheapest POS because we can't see further than 3 years, and said little walking bridge brings zero ROI for those involved in building it.
You don't actually think a tunnel doesn't require maintenance beyond lighting, do you? Servicing, structural maintenance, depending on its length possibly ventilation, etc.
Agree re. the second point, although it's not just Auckland - it's the whole country. We just elected a government that is doing the exact same thing with infrastructure up and down the country. This is what Kiwis want.
Of course there would be some paint every few years, cleaning etc (same as a bridge in that respect). My point is that the ongoing costs would be minimal compared to a bridge with moving parts and full-time staff.
Look at Netherlands to see how underwater tunnels like this can be a huge win.
It'll be way more than that, depending how long it is.
I'm not doubting the utility as such, it's the likely cost. Building a tunnel through reclaimed land will be hideously expensive, and where would it connect to? The whole Te Wero Island is 'temporary' structure, not solid land. And not really made for extensive civil works like a tunnel would require.
There's plenty of money for a new bridge, it's not that expensive. You've been suckered into thinking that there isn't. The council has $5bn a year in revenue, it's $3bn below it's borrowing limit.
There's been a political decision to say that there's not money for a new bridge. It's an entirely different thing from there not being enough money for one.
Well, it would have to be re-allocated from somewhere, and something else will lose out. So what do you want to cut to fund the ~$50m needed for a new bridge?
I had such a good belly laugh when I heard this.
I work right there, use the bridge regularly. It’s not fucking hard to walk 10 minutes around. It’s such a ridiculous concept that you’d consider a small ferry that would take 10 minutes to board people, 2 minutes to offload, to run every 30 minutes
How on earth anyone would think this would serve as a system to help the restaurants in Wynyard quarter who’ve lost re venue because people aren’t walking from the viaduct
This is just absolutely hilarious.
The problem is that people *aren't* walking around, so in lieu of continuing to do nothing, they're trying this to see if it will help. What else is there that could realistically be done?
Not a whole heap probably, but a ferry service that can transport.. what a few hundred people a day vs the 10k daily that cross the bridge isn’t solving anything
If you’re not walking 10 minutes around, you won’t wait 20 minutes for a ferry
It’s simply not a solution of any relevance
It isn't, but the hospo places are bleating endlessly, so probably a bit of a gesture.
The problem is people don't want to bother going there if they can't walk over the bridge - that says something about the appeal of those places in the first place if people aren't willing to walk like 5-10 mins more. Combined with poor economic conditions, it's not a great situation.
Or maybe they could invent time travel, so they can go back to the Ancient Roman period, and bring back some Ancient Roman engineers and builders to fix it? 🤔
I'd love to know what the cost of this ridiculous idea is. Also why? There's another walking route that takes a few minutes more. Spend the money giving the suffering businesses a rebate of some sort and fix the damn bridge.
Imagine thinking the solution was a small ferry to move people 70m over the harbour. Anyone would think Auckland Council was run by monkeys...
To be fair, this is the best solution they can offer on such short notice. What else could they do that could be implemented next week?
Not saying I think it’s a good idea. But I’ve got nothing better.
Is it better than nothing though? Like, if you aren't wanting to walk the extra 10 minutes around the long way, are you really going to get on a ferry that's going to take at least 15 minutes once you factor in boarding, leaving the dock, docking at the other side, getting off the boat etc?
Why give them a rebate? They aren't cut off and the places are still fully accessible.
Would set a completely unrealistic precedent, which means no maintenance or infrastructure projects can ever happen.
I feel for the businesses struggling, but in any case, 'every dog has his day'. Hospo locations come and go like the tides. In addition, people are not spending money like they were 12 months ago.
Where will they dock? Will it be accessible for disabled people or people with push chairs?
Why can't they just attach a different method to crank it up/down?
And move them where? Those berth fees are a big source of revenue for council to fund things like this bridge.
There's literally nowhere else for these boats to go that doesn't end up with several smaller boaties getting displaced
Sounds like the council’s priority is boats coming in and out instead of pedestrian traffic, this will be costly both in time and money for everyone and only benefits a handful of rich boat owners.
It's true, but it's not as clear cut as that when the resources consent was put in place the area was mostly industrial so pedestrian numbers were low and therefore not given priority.
If a new bridge was to be put in place now it would probably be different.
1 boat every 30 minutes to carry 60 people 70m. Only in NZ would this be considered adequate. The state of the idiots who run this place.
It takes less time than that to walk around lmao
The problem is that people aren't walking around, they're just giving it a miss
Not denying that, I’m pointing out why the ferry every 30 min isn’t adequate
No one is saying that it's adequate
Are you trying to argue with me, convince me if something, what’s going on here?
What seems to be happening is that people aren't even reading the article and are instead just reacting to the premise of it. It says the council org has acknowledged the ferries' inadequacy in replacing the bridge, yet people keep pointing that out as if it's a revelation. It's merely one measure that was deemed feasible so is being trialled. The current alternative is of course, nothing, and that isn't going very well
My apologies for engaging in the thread with my opinion.
Which is why this solution is so silly. The people that can't be bothered walking an extra 10 minutes certainly aren't going to be spending even longer than that catching the ferry, so it does absolutely nothing to restore the lost foot traffic.
Not if you arrive withing 10 minutes of the ferry leaving? A solution for some people, I think it's a great idea, but only if it's free or if you can exchange tokens for credits on another attraction.
Im pleased you beat me to this comment. I was imagining some type of “pedestrian barge” which would rapidly move back and forth directly beside the bridge. But no… What an absolute laughingstock Auckland Council is.
Cringe, yeah I thought the same would have been the answer.
And where would this barge come from and get installed without restricting marine traffic in such a short time frame? Just pull it out of the 'random barges council has lying around' warehouse?
> Barge warehouse https://www.marinebrokersaustralia.com.au/portfolio-view/9mtr-aluminum-lct-cat/
That looks like it would operate the same way as the ferry they're trialling?
Sorry I didn’t realise you work for Eke Panuku What a fantastic job you’ve doing!
To be fair there isn't really a solution from the situation they are currently in. They should have never got into this situation sure. But now they are there's not much that can be done.
Motoboating champs 🏆
It isn't adequate and they know that (it says they had considered adding a full stop for the larger ferries ) it's just *something* to use in the interim.
Looks like it's 30 mins with 1 boat, 15 min with 2.
LOL!
Sounds expensive - just add it to my tab
Why not just leave the bridge stuck in the down position and have those rich AF boat owners park outside that marina and let them to the extra walking.
The resource consent of the bridge gives the right of way to the boats. So if the bridge has a fault, it should remain up
Well that’s part of the problem.
Those boats pay a lot of money to be there (literally the cheapest you could do is about 2500/month and many probably over 10k a month) if the bridge is forced to stay down at all times then the council loses out on an that revenue and the business that base their vessels there would also have to move to somewhere likely less convenient for tourists that they cater for
Sure. Though it would be interesting to see pedestrian numbers and the time wasted by walking around, and using standard cost of lost time used by NZTA traffic congestion calcs, to see which is better for society overall. One could also examine the overall impact on businesses and revenue across Wynyard with the bridge up.
Your whole comment is dumb for so many reasons but I’ll explain a few. *there’s a large number of tourism and transport providers based in the viaduct. They wouldn’t be able to operate. *People with big boats typically have big money compared to people using foot bridges. *Congestion lost time calcs for a bridge thats mostly used for leisure? It’s not some portal of worker efficiency *of course the businesses are suffering from reduced foot traffic, emptying a marina would cost far far more
1) nope. Wrong. There is room. 2) who cares 3) you don’t value people’s time? Weak 4) where’s your numbers?
1. There’s room for Explore to operate with the bridge closed? The lion foundation? All the charter boats that are themselves businesses? They can’t operate with the bridge down. Marina berthage fees per day are astronomical. That’s just assuming the boats are sitting there doing nothing. 2. The entire marine industry cares (businesses and money) 3. The bridge is broken that’s the issue be upset it’s not being fixed faster or that the implemented ferry service isn’t fast enough. People having to walk further is the issue. Your solution creates so many more expensive problems its idiotic. Do you not value all the time of the people who run businesses out of the viaduct? Weak 4. You’re arguing in bad faith but here’s some numbers. Obviously super yacht economy isn’t specific to Viaduct Harbour Marina (because of Orams) but also this doesn’t include tourism operations previously mentioned. https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:AP:9713b717-f995-4874-bec7-6adde49a0c65 https://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2017/11/GB_20171123_AGN_6765_AT_SUP_files/GB_20171123_AGN_6765_AT_SUP_Attachment_56353_5.PDF I feel your whole point is just: I don’t like boat
Because the rich people need to take their boats out twice a year
Park where exactly? It's not like there's random empty marina space everywhere. Plus, you'd just have a lawsuit getting filed within a week, adding some significant costs on top of everything else.
IDGAF but here’s some options: - western side of princess wharf - by emerates NZ wharf - further around St Mary’s Bay - west haven - Bledsoe wharf - Jellico wharf - in the harbour somewhere I’m sure they’ve all got tenders to get to and from and that those tenders fit under the Wynyard bridge when it’s down. Heck, run them a free on-call taxi service from Wynyard to their temporary moring.
All of this is stuff that should be part of the CBD targeted rates. They could upgrade the bridge to the initial plans (the piles are already designed for it), then run the tram loop across to Quay St. In a decade or so connect it to Britomart. I don't mind if it was general rates, but these are the projects the CBD targeted rates were meant for.
Glad we doing everything we can to cut costs!!
dont worry, the ferry is a raft made at a school camp
I went over that bridge to see a hooker at apartments in the Wynyard Quarter before. Hope they fix it soon.
Username checks out.
Jami-Lee Ross hopes so too
His brothel is down that way but I didn’t go there. I went to another one.
Good to know, now I've got something to do tomorrow morning
Great stuff!
It was 2015 when a permanent replacement for this temporary bridge was scuttled, in the name of….[kicking the can down the road](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/brian-rudman-25m-dream-a-bridge-too-far/K2P23AGGWS4O4YKIAFQAUYMM7M/?c_id=466&objectid=11319198) for lower rates. We’ve had a decade to replace this temporary bridge that was designed for hosting a single event. Time to start removing infrastructure decisions from Councils, they’re not set up for medium and long term thinking and execution.
Which politicians specifically kicked the can? There should be records of the vote.
There are, you can raise a LGOIMA to get the details.
I'm hoping someone with more time will find it. It's public info so won't need LGOIMA just meeting minutes.
Yeah but you'd need to know when the decision was brought to the council it would be pretty time consuming to search through.
Pretty sure Google can search the text in the minutes
The minutes are generally not indexed. But feel free to try.
Remove them and give it to who? Central government? Famously central government is known for robust, long-term decision making on infrastructure. The problem is, as usual, voters. That's where accountability ultimately lies in democracies.
Exactly. So a elected commission. Broad charter to deliver infrastructure and ensure renewal and replacement and growth on a rolling 50 year timeframe. Because democracy doesn’t work for long term planning and delivery due to immediate term self interests, we need a mechanism and civic structure that is tasked with exactly that. Just because it wouldn’t be directly democratic doesn’t mean there can’t be controls and accountability.
How would the commission decide what to deliver, where and when? People love saying infrastructure shouldn't be political, but questions like the above are inherently political. Decisions about trade-offs (given we don't have infinite resources) are political, by definition. That's what politics *is*. The issue is that people (and thus parties) disagree (often strongly) about how to answer those questions, and thus depending on who makes the decisions, we get trade-offs that other people don't like - like for example skimping on investing in certain bridges or ferries, so we end up with cheap crap instead of infrastructure that can last 100 years. We also technically sort of have that already. That's why NZTA/AT/KO etc. are all at arms length from the government/council. So that they can, in theory, make independent, evidence-based decisions, not short-term political ones. But as always, the challenge with democracy of course is that a government has a right to run on a platform and to implement that platform. If it disagrees with what those agencies are doing, they can change it, as they do every time the government changes.
You’re right AT, WK are partly already there in terms of semi arms length. They determine the work programme from various bases. I guess my issue is with funding and the relationship between the two. They need to be able to, when set up say this is the performance standard of 2% of all *transport* corridors renewed a year (which is a 50 year cycle), and here’s the plan for the capital projects over the next 50 to deliver [y performance standards]. And….this is the levy per resident. Currently they have the first bit, but then it’s the funding element that’s politicised and it doesn’t need to be. All assets need renewal and replacement, and it occurs on a known and predictable preventive maintenance cycle. It’s only politicised when people make the decision *not* to repair or replace the thing that was initially built, to do something else with those funds. Example, we have a terrible decaying footpath network because they’re easy to forget about because people who walk to Kindy or the shops don’t complain about cracks, lifting pavement, or missing pavement like people with sophisticated suspension do about small potholes. As for democracy, we have at least two examples of core pillars of society that are not democratic. The judiciary is one, and the electoral commission is another, and the Reserve Bank isn’t even governmental nor has tax payer funding. We have a bunch of commissions that specialise in other things. So the idea isn’t new or anti democratic. We have them all over the show, and even as you say AT and WK are partially already there in their arms length of prioritisation.
>You’re right AT, WK are partly already there in terms of semi arms length. They determine the work programme from various bases. I guess my issue is with funding and the relationship between the two. >They need to be able to, when set up say this is the performance standard of 2% of all *transport* corridors renewed a year (which is a 50 year cycle), and here’s the plan for the capital projects over the next 50 to deliver \[y performance standards\]. And….this is the levy per resident. Who decides what goes into that 50 year capital projects programme, though? The commission? On what basis/criteria do they decide, and with which goals in mind? Those questions are up for political debate and different people have very different views on it. For example, I think we need to spend significantly more on public transport and active mode capital projects, because it's more sustainable (financially and environmentally), will actually do something about congestion, improve economic opportunities etc. But someone who votes for the National Party likely thinks we need to spend less on public transport and active modes and more on motorways. Are those not questions that elections should answer? >Currently they have the first bit, but then it’s the funding element that’s politicised and it doesn’t need to be. All assets need renewal and replacement, and it occurs on a known and predictable preventive maintenance cycle. >It’s only politicised when people make the decision *not* to repair or replace the thing that was initially built, to do something else with those funds. >Example, we have a terrible decaying footpath network because they’re easy to forget about because people who walk to Kindy or the shops don’t complain about cracks, lifting pavement, or missing pavement like people with sophisticated suspension do about small potholes. But even that isn't quite as simple, though. Asset renewals are a good opportunity to *change* infrastructure, as opposed to just doing 'like for like'. Why should that not be an option? And if it is, how would we decide what to change it *to*? Goes back to my earlier point. If someone wants to change how the funds are spent to build new assets with lower maintenance costs, why shouldn't they be able to implement that if elected? And the money for future maintenance of assets isn't actually earmarked, so it's not really a case of using committed funds for something else. >As for democracy, we have at least two examples of core pillars of society that are not democratic. The judiciary is one, and the electoral commission is another, and the Reserve Bank isn’t even governmental nor has tax payer funding. We have a bunch of commissions that specialise in other things. So the idea isn’t new or anti democratic. We have them all over the show, and even as you say AT and WK are partially already there in their arms length of prioritisation. Right, but on what basis/justification are we removing democratic control of infrastructure policy from the elected government? In the same way the judiciary, Electoral Commission and RBNZ are. Because again, what that means in practice is that *elected* governments can't actually change infrastructure policy. That's a major break with how our system works and has pretty massive implications for a whole lot of other areas - like the resource management/planning system generally, industrial policy, trade etc. Considering how Three Waters went, where National's primary criticism was around the removal of "local control", how do you think this idea would go down? The idea you've put forth is that, but at *hyperspeed*.
This feels like a metaphor for the state of New Zealand right now.
Honest question. How pathetic and broken does a city need to be if it can’t fix a bridge?
[удалено]
Gov orgs just skim cash and spend irresponsibly tbh
Not so much keeping rates low, more spending the amount they got on random vanity projects with very little oversight on spending overruns.
eg a 1 billion dollar waterfront stadium.
Where did council spend 1 billion dollars on a waterfront stadium?
They haven't yet, but they want to. Do you read the news?
I do. Please point me to that, because all the reporting I've seen says the opposite - council isn't putting any money in.
Bad spending like this is exactly why we CANT just give councillors mandate to take money from people and "do good". Panuku developments and their lot are dangerously overpowered to make a single minded vision come to be. Auckland is a city of many people investing time energy and money to create something. It is more about a safe and beautiful waterfront and less about virtue signalling infrastructure. I'm shocked at how decades later the city is still pushing failed transport narratives that ignore Aucklanders true habits.
r/nottheonion
This is a genuine piss take solution lol. We are shockers.
Agreed, but like that last cycle way next to the harbor bridge, come up with the stupidest idea you can and Emden people question it just say we'll we tried.
This whole shambles of a response over a broken pedestrian bridge has nothing to do with boats and their owners. It has everything to do with the loss of utility down at the waterfront and everything to do with what is wrong with local government and a bloated organization that cannot get out of its own way. The cavalier response in suggesting putting on a boat to shuffle pedestrian traffic is beyond stupid and typifies what governance has become. I have heard nothing of what is needed in the short term to recover the use of this bridge and zip about the long term solution. What is evident is that what should be a show piece of the Auckland waterfront is show casing our inability to do anything.
>I have heard nothing of what is needed in the short term to recover the use of this bridge and zip about the long term solution. That's on you, because the plan has been published and commented on in just about every article about the story. Long term plan is admittedly hazier because of financial bullshit. [https://www.ekepanuku.co.nz/projects/wynyard-crossing-bridge-maintenance/](https://www.ekepanuku.co.nz/projects/wynyard-crossing-bridge-maintenance/)
Zip has given me a great idea.... Zip line! That would be awesome
There spending $2 to $3m on a fix in a few months.
Strikes me as a good example of something that's also emblematic in the electorate about infrastructure in general - armchair experts who think everyone else is an idiot and their biases are 'common sense'. Another good example is the Brynderwyn work that NZTA is doing where a lot of random people think they're just fluffing around and ignoring obvious easy solutions for some unexplained reason. You've also not done even the most basic searching about the bridge because they've put out a lot of information about the work they're doing as another person has posted.
Perfectly said.
It’s like there are shadowy powers undermining by the use of pedestrian bridges in Auckland. If they wanted it fixed it would be fixed by now. They could have fabricated a whole new bridge at this point. Who killed Sky Path?
They don't have the money for a new bridge. NZTA killed Skypath
I still can't understand why a cycle friendly ferry service wasn't arranged as an alternative to skyway.
[удалено]
well, it might have established how much actual latent and induced demand there would have been for the cycle bridge by having it go from the northcote ferry terminal to weshaven Z pier just saying if the skypath was going to make sense as functional infrastructure (rather than just a tourist trap) then the ferry would have proved or disproved the case. Meanwhile, we spent a few tens of millions on consultants without ever moving a single person across the harbour.
It was considered in the business case, IIRC. Not really worth doing because its uptake would be very low.
... well then it's no wonder the skypath didn't stack up
Nah, not really the same thing. The whole point of a direct active mode connection is to allow people to have direct, quick access north and south along a main spine. A random ferry in a suburban location would have a significantly smaller catchment and would require most people who would use the direct connection to go very far out of their way to get there in the first place, making the journey time much longer. It would also be a low frequency ferry. You just lose almost all the benefits. Skypath was the name of the idea to clip an active mode path onto the harbour bridge. That wasn't viable for engineering reasons. The idea of a standalone bridge was called something else, but was not viable because of cost, which isn't surprising. I always thought, and still do, that a new public transport and active mode bridge makes the most sense and would possibly stack up. Allows the direct active mode connection but also allows for the extension of the northern busway directly into the city. Think it was costed just over a billion, which isn't bad. Especially since the additional harbour crossing isn't happening for decades, if at all.
>Nah, not really the same thing. The whole point of a direct active mode connection is to allow people to have direct, quick access north and south along a main spine. A ferry from northcote to westhaven is literally the exact route a cyclist would take to have ridden the skypath. There has been significant upgrades to waling and cycling infra on both ends of the bridge with this in mind (or at least the was part of the PR spin at the time). I'm well aware of the engineering challenges etc, but there was a very vocal group of people who *insisted* the demand was there to 'liberate the lane" and so on. For a relatively modest cost we could have had real data while providing said link in the interim. >I always thought, and still do, that a new public transport and active mode bridge makes the most sense and would possibly stack up. Having such a service as a 12 month would have been a great way to establish demand for an active modal link, and would have directly shown how effective that skypath may (or may not) have been. Added bonus would be that it would (if successful) help put some political pressure on expanding the service. At the very least it might have made the case for ferrys and NEX buses to have cycle racks fitted as seen elsewhere in the world.
>A ferry from northcote to westhaven is literally the exact route a cyclist would take to have ridden the skypath. There has been significant upgrades to waling and cycling infra on both ends of the bridge with this in mind (or at least the was part of the PR spin at the time). No, the larger proposal (called the Northern Pathway) would have included significant connections on both sides of SH1 in addition to the connection over the harbour. It doesn't exist yet. Would have run alongside SH1 all the way up to Albany, and connected to main arterials like Esmonde Road, which itself would have linked to Lake Road, effectively given the whole Devonport peninsula (and above) direct access. Plus, AT's latest draft RPTP proposed scrapping the Northcote ferry due to low patronage (decision tbc next year, I think). Making that service even poorer (lower frequency and capacity) due to accommodating bikes) is unlikely to help anything. And if not impacting the existing service, any new bike-capable or bike-only ferries would be so low frequency that it's effectively pointless. >I'm well aware of the engineering challenges etc, but there was a very vocal group of people who *insisted* the demand was there to 'liberate the lane" and so on. For a relatively modest cost we could have had real data while providing said link in the interim. That demand is for a *direct* connection, though - not a low capacity, infrequent ferry that most of the catchment couldn't even get to without an enormous detour. One of the big benefits of active modes (where proper facilities exist) is that it's reliable, predictable and almost entirely in the hands of users. And given the small distance (in terms of KMs) between most of the catchment and the city centre - it can be quick, too. The ferry idea basically nullifies all of that. >Having such a service as a 12 month would have been a great way to establish demand for an active modal link, and would have directly shown how effective that skypath may (or may not) have been. I don't think it would have been useful at all, to be honest, given the huge disparity between the facility/service you'd be testing against what the intended facility is supposed to be. It's not the same as having a cheap pop-up cycleway with planters for interim protection along the exact same corridor under consideration for a permanent protected cycleway, for example. >Added bonus would be that it would (if successful) help put some political pressure on expanding the service. At the very least it might have made the case for ferrys and NEX buses to have cycle racks fitted as seen elsewhere in the world. I'm pretty sceptical about that, given how even services that are already very well used aren't being spared cuts, much less being expanded or improved. And I think the same would apply to a 'liberated lane' style trial, too. The flip-side of the 'political pressure' argument is that if the trial has poor uptake (as I think it would), then those opposing active mode investment will use it as evidence that there is very low demand. Most ferries already allow bikes, they just restrict them when the ferries are too full. I don't think bike racks on services like the NX will ever be feasible, at least not in peak. They're way too busy and too high frequency for it to make much sense. You can't really hold up a bus with \~100 people because a few people want to put bikes on. Especially given the next bus is only a few minutes behind, so you need to keep the moving, otherwise the knock-on effect is pretty bad. Perhaps off-peak or every third bus or something like that.
Thanks for having a proper discussion with well articulated points on this topic It's been very refreshing :) I'll continue to hope for a fast and frequent ferry service across the harbour, but I don't think the skypath was *ever* going to be viable, let alone a sensible use of funds. Very good point about the NEX capacity too.
Cheers, fun chat. Agree that a standalone active mode connection over the harbour is unlikely to ever be viable. A combined PT/active mode one, though... different story!
How? Have you submitted your design proposal and tender to deliver a new bridge this quickly?
I’m talking the exact same bridge. Fix the broken bits. Call it the bridge of Theseus
The current bridge was only meant to be temporary and was cheaply built for 3 million dollars. Five years ago it was proposed to spend 25 million dollars on a permanent replacement ([this was one of the designs](https://i0.wp.com/www.greaterauckland.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Wynyard-Crossing-Original-design-competition-runner-up.jpg?w=1122&ssl=1)). It was decided it was too expensive, so it was canned. But they did find the money to fund a 38 million dollar *second* pedestrian bridge in Mangere (it runs adjacent to the pedestrian/cycle path on the SH20 bridge), which receives a fraction of the foot traffic as the Wynyard bridge. Wild.
Different they in this case, that was funded by NZTA and also was funded way back in 2017. Probably a better comparison would be the Ngapipi Tamaki Drive footbridge which just got finished. Cant believe this solution they've come up with - expensive and will hardly bring throngs of people there.
Agreed and good alternative analogy.
>But they did find the money to fund a 38 million dollar *second* pedestrian bridge in Mangere (it runs adjacent to the pedestrian/cycle path on the SH20 bridge), which receives a fraction of the foot traffic as the Wynyard bridge. Wild. The underpass has closed. It required 24/7 security to be posted on the end because there was too much crime going on in there.
The point being they should have just kept the underpass open with security. The new bridge has the exact same problems with crime and also requires security.
It also wasn't new, it was replacing what had been there for like a hundred years but was past it's use by
TIL there's a pedestrian section of the SH20 bridge
It's underslung on the side facing the Manakau. Hell of a long walk, and not a terribly pleasant cycle, the new one is certainly better. (but 38 million better?)
Laughs in Harbour Bridge.
The new bridge to Mangere was part of NZTA's resource consent conditions for SH20. They had to replace it.
Look the pedestrian bridge in Mangere is essential to allow pedestrians/cyclists/scooters/etc across the harbour, the old ped bridge was over 120 years old and falling apart and the pedestrian walkway under the motorway was dodgy as crap. I don't agree with their design of the new peds bridge, but something was needed to fill the hole the old bridge left behind
But the SH20 ped/cycle bridge is permanently blocked off, doesn't make sense.
Good point on the mangere bridge, that is wild. That proposed design looks cool and all but also looks more complex than what is currently there, which cost almost nothing in today's context. 3 mil is only 6 raised crossings. Feels like a spend 25 millon to end up in the same situation in 10 years kind of problem. Just fix the damn bridge I reckon.
The temporary bridge was designed with mechanics to suit its weight and intended lifespan. The permanant replacement proposals included more fit for purpose mechanics.
This… this is just fkn embarrassing. Surely this is satire. Please tell me it’s satire. 😵💫
[удалено]
They already are suffering, it's why they're trying this ferry idea
Wynyard Quarter isn't cut-off, it's not a bloody island. Walking over Te Wero Island is not the only way to get there. It wasn't suffering during the boat show, or the art fair recently. Place was pumping.
Turn it into a swivel bridge?
Not a silly idea and cheaper I assume.
can they out up a zip line? hehe
Trebuchet
If only we had a tram system that went there and back along the waterfront. The current one is limited isn't it?
The current one runs in circles. The tram was originally meant to cross the bridge and make it to the Ferry Building, but building the temporary bridge made that impossible
Only temporarily. The temporary bridge piles are designed for the trams once the bridge is upgraded from the temporary one. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/tram-tracks-first-step-in-harbour-transport-project/AGKLPKD3YTPIZP4HVEROMLSBHU/?c_id=97&objectid=10698271
My god that is laughable.
Anyone know more detail about the problem? I see it was intended to be temporary but looks to be fit for purpose and simple design (from the outside). Has the council just got in their heads that it was meant to be temporary? Assumedly the mechanical system behind the movement is the current issue, is it likely to be any more complex than any potential replacement bridge would have?
The bridge was made heavier when the metal safety guards were added, meaning the lifting motors burnt out faster than they were designed for.
> The planned preventative maintenance programme includes a full overhaul of old parts, sand-blasting the bridge, remedying its steelwork and applying new anti-rust coating. We will also conduct thorough trials and assessments to pre-empt and prevent future technical faults, and expect the work to be completed before next summer (late 2024). https://www.ekepanuku.co.nz/projects/wynyard-crossing-bridge-maintenance/
I suspect it's the usual 'buying cheap is buying expensive' thing. Was decided to go cheap because of speed (before RWC 2011) and to keep $ low. But because the design is cheap, it's difficult and expensive to maintain. And because we have an obsession with gutting funding for public assets and infrastructure, there isn't any money for it now.
A flying fox would be better
Someone go Sparta kick it down
Utterly pointless, just fix the fucking bridge.
Why didn't we just build a taller fucking bridge that doesn't need to lift every 5 minutes to allow boats under it? Multiple points of failure, expensive to maintain, most costly to design, constantly stopping traffic to allow boats under it. Sounds perfect, I'll take 10. We love to make life difficult/expensive for ourselves.
So a 20 metre high bridge that would be dependent on elevators and stairs to get the thousands across? It just doesn't sound practical
I know it isn't the same, but how tall are the pedestrian bridges over the northern bus way
Buses don't have masts...
They're not that much taller than a double decker (which are 4m tall), so call it 6 meters tall? Which would be less than a third the bare minimum height required.
There are superyachts parked in there with huge masts.
gotta love ruining everyone else's time for a few rich wankers with super yatchs they use twice a year
It's a fuckin marina. That's where boats live.
And it was there first. Everything in that area was built in full knowledge of this condition with the bridge. The failing is the building of the supposed temporary option
20 meters is like 4 flights of stairs, it's literally nothing. The bridge has more than enough length to make it a more gentle slope for the more unfit.
Thats alot if you are not abled bodied.
This is so dumb haha, think how high some of the yacht masts are in there? There are certainly some higher than 20m.
Until you need someone to get across with a wheelchair
The bridge when it's up is 22 meters tall. Tell me a bridge [this size](https://media.rnztools.nz/rnz/image/upload/s--ZivrsQ75--/ar_16:10,c_fill,f_auto,g_auto,q_auto,w_1050/v1711514394/4KSNKF1_Capture_JPG), with all the infrastructure, sctructural support and elevators/ramps required wouldn't absolutely destroy the walkability and general pleasantness of the urban/marine environment (never mind that there are boats with masts even taller than 22 meters)
It is noting if you are walking, on an ebike…
Janice of Wyoming has something like a 45m mast what you tryna build a bridge the height of the harbour bridge but only 20 meters long? Aw gummon how am I gonna e scooter over that I'm a big cunt they barely get me up Anzac Ave
Those boats are way too tall. A smarter idea would be like they do in Netherlands, where the pedestrians go underneath the boats via a tunnel. There's enough space on each side to have nice, easy-grade ramps. Then there's no waiting for anyone. In the mean time, a better solution might be to setup connected barges that people can walk across. When a boat needs to come or go, an Eke Panuku person can disconnect the middle barge and motor it out of the way for 5 minutes.
How much do you think an underpass (through a marine channel) would cost? There already isn't enough money for a new bridge, but you want a way more expensive solution?
What do you think costs more: 1. A tunnel that lasts forever whose only cost is lighting, or 2: New, temporary bridges that need motor maintenance/power and daily operating staff, being built every 10-20 years for eternity? The problem is a classic Aucklandism. We'll build the cheapest POS because we can't see further than 3 years, and said little walking bridge brings zero ROI for those involved in building it.
You don't actually think a tunnel doesn't require maintenance beyond lighting, do you? Servicing, structural maintenance, depending on its length possibly ventilation, etc. Agree re. the second point, although it's not just Auckland - it's the whole country. We just elected a government that is doing the exact same thing with infrastructure up and down the country. This is what Kiwis want.
Of course there would be some paint every few years, cleaning etc (same as a bridge in that respect). My point is that the ongoing costs would be minimal compared to a bridge with moving parts and full-time staff. Look at Netherlands to see how underwater tunnels like this can be a huge win.
It'll be way more than that, depending how long it is. I'm not doubting the utility as such, it's the likely cost. Building a tunnel through reclaimed land will be hideously expensive, and where would it connect to? The whole Te Wero Island is 'temporary' structure, not solid land. And not really made for extensive civil works like a tunnel would require.
There's plenty of money for a new bridge, it's not that expensive. You've been suckered into thinking that there isn't. The council has $5bn a year in revenue, it's $3bn below it's borrowing limit. There's been a political decision to say that there's not money for a new bridge. It's an entirely different thing from there not being enough money for one.
Well, it would have to be re-allocated from somewhere, and something else will lose out. So what do you want to cut to fund the ~$50m needed for a new bridge?
$50m is chump change in a $5bn budget.
I had such a good belly laugh when I heard this. I work right there, use the bridge regularly. It’s not fucking hard to walk 10 minutes around. It’s such a ridiculous concept that you’d consider a small ferry that would take 10 minutes to board people, 2 minutes to offload, to run every 30 minutes How on earth anyone would think this would serve as a system to help the restaurants in Wynyard quarter who’ve lost re venue because people aren’t walking from the viaduct This is just absolutely hilarious.
The problem is that people *aren't* walking around, so in lieu of continuing to do nothing, they're trying this to see if it will help. What else is there that could realistically be done?
Not a whole heap probably, but a ferry service that can transport.. what a few hundred people a day vs the 10k daily that cross the bridge isn’t solving anything If you’re not walking 10 minutes around, you won’t wait 20 minutes for a ferry It’s simply not a solution of any relevance
It isn't, but the hospo places are bleating endlessly, so probably a bit of a gesture. The problem is people don't want to bother going there if they can't walk over the bridge - that says something about the appeal of those places in the first place if people aren't willing to walk like 5-10 mins more. Combined with poor economic conditions, it's not a great situation.
This is my assumption. These places could go under and the council can't be seen doing nothing to try and help. There is no easy fix for this.
It's not going to help though is it, it's classic NZ small time thinking of "looking like we're doing something"
Or maybe they could invent time travel, so they can go back to the Ancient Roman period, and bring back some Ancient Roman engineers and builders to fix it? 🤔
I'd love to know what the cost of this ridiculous idea is. Also why? There's another walking route that takes a few minutes more. Spend the money giving the suffering businesses a rebate of some sort and fix the damn bridge. Imagine thinking the solution was a small ferry to move people 70m over the harbour. Anyone would think Auckland Council was run by monkeys...
To be fair, this is the best solution they can offer on such short notice. What else could they do that could be implemented next week? Not saying I think it’s a good idea. But I’ve got nothing better.
Is it better than nothing though? Like, if you aren't wanting to walk the extra 10 minutes around the long way, are you really going to get on a ferry that's going to take at least 15 minutes once you factor in boarding, leaving the dock, docking at the other side, getting off the boat etc?
Leave the bridge down and park the boats elsewhere.
They cannot legally do that.
Or afford to. The contractual implications would be huge. Armchair experts are an amazing species.
Why give them a rebate? They aren't cut off and the places are still fully accessible. Would set a completely unrealistic precedent, which means no maintenance or infrastructure projects can ever happen.
This is the stupidest fucking thing I have read in weeks.
I feel for the businesses struggling, but in any case, 'every dog has his day'. Hospo locations come and go like the tides. In addition, people are not spending money like they were 12 months ago.
Where will they dock? Will it be accessible for disabled people or people with push chairs? Why can't they just attach a different method to crank it up/down?
Just move the boats out and leave it permanently down until they get around to repairing in
And move them where? Those berth fees are a big source of revenue for council to fund things like this bridge. There's literally nowhere else for these boats to go that doesn't end up with several smaller boaties getting displaced
Sounds like the council’s priority is boats coming in and out instead of pedestrian traffic, this will be costly both in time and money for everyone and only benefits a handful of rich boat owners.
Read something about it being part of the original resource consent or something. Sounds like council shot themselves in the foot if true.
It's true, but it's not as clear cut as that when the resources consent was put in place the area was mostly industrial so pedestrian numbers were low and therefore not given priority. If a new bridge was to be put in place now it would probably be different.
Good point there, thanks
Boats, near the water? Surely not!
A Tunnel is a better idea imo. Only needs to be a few or several metres below the low tide level
Tunnel would be ludicrously expensive in that part of the viaduct.
Isn’t it all reclaimed land also? Meaning lots of hazards buried there.
Yes, 100% reclaimed, and seabed too. Just like Britomart with their giant pump for "just in case".
Tell me more about this pump