Bridge the gaps on crossing opinions
Earlier this month, the Minister of Transport announced that he and Waka Kotahi would like to hear the public’s view regarding a second Waitematā crossing. My hopes for a robust and open consultation process on what may be the largest single infrastructure project in our nation’s history were dampened though as I looked at the document on Waka Kotahi’s website.
Briefly, it states that over a two-week period, there will be four drop-in sessions at four farmers’ markets; two on the city side and two on the North Shore.
A basic information sheet introduces the rebranded Waitematā Harbour Connections project and we are invited to fill out a rudimentary online questionnaire.
That seems the sum total of public engagement, as the document then states that an appointed team of experts consisting of three engineering and one architecture firm, working with a staggering budget of $63 million, will provide us with the selected second harbour crossing option sometime in the middle of next year.
The public needs and deserves a much greater say.
I am sure most of us appreciate that the planning and delivery of nationbuilding infrastructure projects is difficult, but this is no blank sheet.
The Government’s well-funded arm, the New Zealand Transport Agency (Waka Kotahi) has been working with its army of consultants on the planning of an additional harbour crossing for more than 30 years. This has been largely an in-house process, offering the public little information or input.
Since 2008, the agency has promoted a tunnel as its preferred option, and in November 2020 it released its first business case.
At the end of this 129-page document, experts determined that out of several options, a tunnel was still the clear favourite.
Many industry experts consider the tunnel option to be a monstrous money pit compared to other more efficient and more cost-efficient options. It has only been in the past two years that rapid public transport and walking or cycling provisions have been promised, backing the community-led SkyPath project.
True to its word, the Labour Government in 2018 instructed Waka Kotahi to implement the consented and peer-reviewed project which was costed around $55m and would take four years to build. But Waka Kotahi dumped the SkyPath design and appointed its own consultants and rebranded it the Northern Pathway. It apparently thought it knew better.
For the past three years, Waka Kotahi has worked without public input, to eventually propose a $700m steel structure alongside the Auckland Harbour Bridge. Then, less than two months later, the scheme was hurriedly scrapped by an embarrassed Government.
A considerable sum — $51m — had already been spent on detailed designs for the scheme, as well as the requisitioning of a row of houses on Northcote Pt.
Given all this, it wouldn’t be unreasonable for the public to cast a vote of no confidence in any Government-led campaign for a second Waitematā harbour crossing.
To build trust and dispel the fear that this latest incarnation is merely a tick-box publicity campaign on its predetermined way to funding a tunnel, it is vital that the engagement process be urgently addressed.
The consultation process needs to be transparent and offer opportunities for input. From the outset, there should be a clear and well-resourced programme of engagement. This needs to be backed by a stock of resources on the information that has been generated for everyone to access. Importantly, the assessment criteria for selection need to be thoroughly examined as it creates the decision-making framework. The criteria used in earlier iterations were too broad.
For example, the visual and landscape effects should be extended to include the harbour and city form, the impact of disruptions needs to be seen from an ecological, as well as an economic lens.
Sustainability aspects of the design should include its ability to allow for future adaptation in transport modes. Cost differentials need to include risk, operations, and the duration of implementation. Extraneous options should be identified and eliminated. And an independent review panel should peer review the process and findings.
Applying such accuracy, it would be interesting to see whether a $15 billion tunnel emerges as the best option against a $2b bridge.
It is critical that the final design appreciates that the Waitematā harbourscape is a complex environment. Rangitoto and the Auckland Harbour Bridge enclose a large open space, echoing each other’s form like bookends. Any additional crossing must complement this stunning scape.
A single strong option must be arrived at for the good of the city and environment, and the people of Auckland should be the ones that drive that, in a truly open and robust forum.