Beca report prompted Auckland Harbour Bridge rethink
The Auckland Harbour Bridge could reach its ultimate load capacity within a decade, according to a recent report on the bridge carried out for the New Zealand Transport Agency.
The report - which assessed the effect of future traffic load growth on the bridge and written by Beca Infrastructure – found that without any load management, the bridge would reach load capacity within 10 to 20 years.
Previous estimates made in 2005 predicted the limit would not be reached for 20 to 30 years.
Even with long term load management measures in place, the life of the bridge would only be extended by another 20 to 30 years.
These management measures include early morning incident management, early morning closure of any proposed walkway or cycleway and daytime differential temperature control.
The report focused on the extension sections of the bridge but also found the middle truss bridge would reach load capacity with unrestricted traffic within 10 to 15 years, although further strengthening is possible
The extensions are currently being strengthened, with that task due to be completed next year, making them as strong as possible without changing their structural form.
Yesterday, the NZ Transport Agency Board announced it had approved $41 million of additional funding to complete strengthening work on the box girders supporting the bridge's outer lanes, while also agreeing to lodge notices of requirement to protect the route for an additional harbour crossing.
But despite the Beca report recommending an assessment of further strengthening of the truss bridge to provide additional load capacity, there was no sign of this in the NZTA release.
Signup to free NBR email alerts here
Back to home
Back to top
Print
Email
Share
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Scoopit
NBR SERVICES
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Sign up for NBR subscriber content or email alerts
Latest
Comments and questions6
That is all predicated on existing assumptions about traffic volume growth, influenced by thinking on average vehicle occupancy.
If carpools were allowed on the busway as originally promised and now seemingly forgotten, we could move a thousand vehicles off the GP lanes and reduce traffic on the bridge. This would be achieved through flexible carpooling (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq5F3CcSXfA for a presentation to the Economist Carbon Economy conference in Washington DC recently.
Less traffic equals longer bridge life!
I must be thick, but please have NZTA or their Beca Infra authors explain just how peak traffic load on the bridge increases, if the engineering management policy is clearly one of jamming access flows before the bridge, so as to only release the same flows day in day out? In 1983 I proposed ways of improving vehicle flow off the bridge by using Victoria Park as a free flowing roundabout (like Basin Reserve) and closing Cook Street off-ramp and placing an overhead roundabout at Onewa Road, but the Chief Engineer rejected this initiative on the basis that they knew best and did not want traffic build up on the bridge, even if the pre-bridge jamming held economic costs for North shore motorists. This is clearly a scare-monger report intended to achieve more funding! PS. And if north-bound truck loads are a problem then send them via the NW motorway and the Greenhithe bridge. Dah!
Any major failure of the bridge would reek havock with the economy and the pollies and civil servants know this Their risk managment is appalling.
Its one of let worry about when it happens. They are neglegent beyond belief.
We should have had the 2nd crossing over Meola reef to link with the NW and ring route 25 years ago This was planned in the 1970s and blocked by the thick head governments since then
These people couldnt plan their way out of a paper bag and it shows. They have gouged plenty of taxes to build the crossing several times over and wasted it all on dumb ideas.
Time to get a new broom to clean it up and get on with the 2nd crossing NOW
Nz roads are sooo crap.
jok has got it in a nutshell.Why this almost pathalogical parananoid fixation we seem to now have that any new roading project or water crossing has to go underground? Tunnels are unable to be enlarged when their carrying capacity is reached and overseas they have been the scene of horrendous traffic accidents and resultant fires with rescue services often unable to reach victims in time and construction and maintenance costs often far exceed the overland options. And whats the sense in replacing an 8 lane bridge with 6 lanes of tunnel?
Couldnt agree more, Meola reef route is the only way to go. The current lot of so called planners have a SH1 fixation and will not consider any other route. The past 30 years of consultations have been a complete sham and a waste of time and money.
Lets have some clear thinkers in the in the hot seat and consign this current lot to file 13.
Post new comment or question
To share this article, click on a service below