This is only a proposal-based on the original toll, inflation-adjusted, almost 70 years ago.
The suggestion, nothing's hard and fast, comes from an Infrastructure Commission report.
We know there'll be a toll to cross the new bridge, or tunnel, whichever gets built.
The government already told us that.
What we know now is that the both the old and the new crossing will be tolled.
So, there's no avoiding it. If you can avoid it, they don't collect the revenue they need to pay for the new one.
Why $9? They reckon it's the sweet spot that will get enough people using it to make enough to pay for the new build, without scaring everybody off and, again, leaving it short on revenue.
So basically, driving a car over the bridge becomes a luxury item. You'll either need to be a bit rich or as happens overseas, your employer will pay for your car or Ute or truck to cross.
And what about everybody else? Well, when the build the new bridge, it'll have bus lanes and other public transport options that'll be cheaper.
Most people, they reckon, will opt for public transport.
Which is fine, so long as public transport suddenly becomes reliable and more linked-up and bus drivers aren't getting stabbed and bashed all the time.
The other point here is.... is $9 actually that much money in the scheme of things? People cross the harbour by ferry for about that price.
BUT there's a cap to how you pay overtime and you usually haven't got car running costs and petrol etc.
So, driving would become a premium option.
The question then becomes, do you not build because $9?
The answer is simple, of course you do.
if we complain about the cost of building stuff and never build a thing we will continue this death spiral we've been in.
We need productivity growth and infrastructure and all those good things.
They don't come from nowhere. They come from good, planed investment.
What we need is good financial controls on the design and construction. We need a government doing the budget, rather gold-plated version.
And we need that government to agree with the one that comes after it that this is a national interest project.
Mess with the bridge and you mess us.
Then just get on a build the thing.
Ryan Bridge is a New Zealand broadcaster who has worked on many current affairs television and radio shows. He currently hosts Newstalk ZB's Early Edition - where this article was sourced.
9 comments:
Ryan, I am not sure how long you have resided in Auckland, but - in your time there, how many "times" has the subject of an alternative crossing over the harbour and or the need for a second bridge has arisen.
Research that one, NZME staff will be able to track down the data from back files.
Incompetency at the levels of -
- Local Govt, to start with - over the years the incompetence of duly elected has not had the "brightest" enter the Council Chamber, nor determine the "best thing list' going forward.
Failure of Council to pre-plan, on the basis of growing housing in both the North Shore and south toward Bombay Hills has not seen an improvement in traffic management.
- Central Govt, constant failures here to work with Auckland Councils over the years, has led to the current antagonistic attitudes that prevail under Wayne Brown.
As I reside, south of the Bombay's I am going to set up a Company, with an HQ on either side of the bridge, and we will organize walking "Hikoi's" on a regular basis, every day, cost will be minimal, we will give "Koha" to Council, for time spent and we will try to ensure that the Planet is saved, by banning vaping at anytime while crossing the bridge.
The issue is not the bridge construction cost, but the attended gravy train of consultants and useless attendees clipping the ticket at three times the cost of the construction crew. Down south, pre fabricated concrete bridges are constructed in very quick time . Granted it is bigger but still only a bridge.
Just what was the original toll? I vaguely recall 10c suggesing $9 is a return fee. Makes obvious the horrors of inflation and expains the price of gold.Around 1970 when could park free in the city all day I opted for a house in west Auckland to avoid the toll. Had I chosen Norhcote etc would be a few hundred thousand better off.
Lived in Auckland for a few years.
I'd happily pay 9 dollars to STOP Aucklanders coming south of Pokeno.
By my very, very, rough, rough, rough, estimates if the bridge had been tolled all through 65 years or so, from first opening, total dollars collected (inflation adjusted) could come out at north of $20 Billion. Repeat $20 Billion. How many bridges could have been built over time for that sort of dosh?
School holidays January 1959. Visiting Auckland for the first time. Somewhere in my souvenirs I have a photo I took from the ferry. Shows the bridge not long before the final span was positioned.
Wikipedia has long interesting piece here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auckland_Harbour_Bridge
tolling is about ride consolidation and load spreading it's likely that there will be near free time of the 24hr clock.
As such lowering the crossing and travel time by 20 minutes then its a win or free.
Is it to be $9 each way or $9 a day??
Big difference
Can’t see employers giving pay rises to cover 🤦♂️
Part of the $9.00 will be paid to 'tangata whenua' as ongoing rent for using the seabed and foreshore for the bridge and approaches.
Upfront costs for their approval will no doubt force a change in the proposed toll.
No-one has mentioned maintenance cost. Muldoon the bean counter got swamped by Muldoon the politician in abolishing the tolls in the first place. This should not be seen as a tax grab, but user pay. The $9 toll is probably the wrong number, and certainly basing it on today's $ calculated by inflating what the toll was is pathetic. It should be based on the actual cost of resurfacing the unnecessarily steep gradients (to give big
ships the ability to have clearance below the centre span and navigate the proposed dredged channel to the then Harbour Board's land and planned berths, tank farm etc at Te Atatu North (sorry, Peninsula - I grew up in the former) with expensive epoxy based road aggregate surfacing every year. Add in regular bridge maintenance (continuous painting to protect the steel in a marine environment) and inspections of the - at the time - technical advancement of box section "Nippon clip-ons". I would have expected some sort of analysis of what the bridge actually costs to maintain annually (only 70 odd year of records - even when Road User Charges are deducted) which would not only highlight Muldoon's disastrous decision, but that building a bridge is not paid for the day it's opened.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.