Comments on: ANZAC Centenary Bridge Information

By: Design01

Design01 — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 07:48:47 +0000

Im pretty sure the design of the actual bridge has yet to be finalised. From what i’ve gathered it is the proposal for “a” bridge + transport options which has been put foward. The only thing certain is it will be cable stayed. I for one would like to see something a little more original rather then based on something someone else has done. Here’s our chance to create our own monument, hopefully something to overshadow that craptastic beehive thing that looks like it fell out of a mini timewarp.

I think keeping the bridge low level is a prerequiste as well if your gonna have a walkway. That harbour crossing can seem at times like a wind tunnel…which is like for 3/4 of the year in Auckland with our notorious weather.

By: Nick R

Nick R — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 01:21:56 +0000

It is very low level too, which makes me think it is just a supported viaduct with the cable stays and the link just fancy trapping for the sake of it.

By: admin

admin — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 05:51:11 +0000

I know a lot of people are huge fans of that Erasmusburg bridge, but I must say I’m not actually. It just feels unbalanced.

By: The Overhead Wire

The Overhead Wire — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 22:56:36 +0000

Oh which btw has LRT on it… http://www.wallpapersenzo.nl/wall/bruggen2/bruggen_17.jpg

By: The Overhead Wire

The Overhead Wire — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 22:54:59 +0000

Looks like the Erasmusbrug in Rotterdam…

http://www.rml2.nl/frans/images/fleurus2009/Erasmusbrug.jpg

By: admin

admin — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:58:29 +0000

Light rail is the proposal, and I agree that would be a mistake. The advantage of heavy rail over the busway is speed and capacity, both of which are severely lessened with light rail.

The cost difference between bridge and tunnel is also less than I thought.

By: dan carter

dan carter — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 15:15:53 +0000

I think it looks awesome, but, from the pictures it doesn’t look high enough for boats to get under, nor does it appear to have the 2nd level for rail.

Agree you’d want the rail system compatible with the rest of the network, it would be nuts to have the bridge ( and presumably the shore?) running on a different system. I’d expect to have some through trains, not just have everything terminate in the CBD. So you start in albany, come through the shore, stop in the CBD and carry on down to manukau. That way with one run you are servicing shore to CBD, CBD to manukau, plus shore to manukau, straight through nice and quick.

Unfortunately looks aren’t what it’s all about and more practical matters must take precedence.

By: rtc

rtc — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 14:06:01 +0000

National will look like an idiots if they support this after blowing 320 million on the Victoria Tunnel which would presumably be closed down as a result of the bridge. Light rail seems to be just a cheap tack on and doesn’t suit at all the trunk line function that rail to the shore would be providing. Besides, the tank farm development is an opportunity that Auckland would be mad to blow by landing a motorway in the middle of it.

By: 5689hfjijkghjkdf

5689hfjijkghjkdf — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:43:25 +0000

I thought I read somewhere this bridge proposal has light rail and not heavy rail. Not a good idea, might as well make any rail link compatible with the rest of the rail network.

By: Jeremy Harris

Jeremy Harris — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:21:19 +0000

I agree, the fact it doesn’t utilised the VPT is another problem, it’s like adding $430 million to the bill…