Some pretty cool design details for the Waterview Connection project have emerged, and are worth taking a look through. Starting at the southern end of the project:
The above picture shows the interchange with Maioro Street.
Shifting further along, you can see how the motorway will look as it passes through Allan Wood Reserve:
It’s good to see that, while the motorway will be running effectively through the middle of a large green space, the leftover parts of that space are going to be really nicely landscaped. While the area is certainly a lot of grass at the moment, it’s not particularly intensively used.
Shifting further west, we see the southern portal of the tunnel:
Artistic impressions of the southern portal look really awesome:
The pedestrian path over the motorway will also be quite nicely designed:
It also looks like quite a lot of thought has gone into landscaping around the northern portal – although this is a slightly outdated design:
The interchange with SH16 is certainly pretty huge, but once again it seems that some thought has gone into the landscaping to mitigate its effects:
The tunnels will be bored with a 14 metre diameter tunnel boring machine, which should be a pretty impressive piece of equipment.
And that’s the rail reserve outlined in red to the east of the motorway?
The rail reserve is to the north of the motorway in the top three pictures, there is no rail reserve in the bottom two as it ends at the western line. One concern that I do have is that they have put a sports field in the middle of rail reserve just to the east of the southern portal which will probably make it tricky if we ever get around to building that section.
Admin – I thought they were going to use road headers to save money (that was what was announced a few years ago at least so may have changed), to get a 3 lane tunnel under the harbour they say they need a 15m wide TBM so I don’t see why they could do the same with a smaller one here.
Yeah NZTA proposed road headers but the contractor prefers a TBM.
“to get a 3 lane tunnel under the harbour they say they need a 15m wide TBM so I don’t see why they could do the same with a smaller one here”
Perhaps an underwater tunnel needs thicker tunnel liners? And therefore a bigger hole to start with.
It’d be nice if the TBMs were available for re-use because there are a lot of other transport routes in the country that would be improved by a tunnel. A tunneled bypass of the slip-plagued Manawatu Gorge would be a good place to start. I recall one of the TBMs tunneling the Channel Tunnel was driven off to one side in the middle, then entombed in concrete.
The 15m dia proposal for the tunnel under the harbour featured 0.9m thick linings, not sure how that compares to Waterview but it sounds pretty thick to me. Presumably that’s due to water pressure under the harbour?
Also the harbour tunnel plan had 1.0m shoulders either side plus internal barriers. Perhaps the Waterview tunnel isn’t quite as accommodating because it’s shorter?
Yes if it could be reused it would be really useful. I imagine that the cutting head would be worn out but hopefully other parts could be reused
It will more than likely sit there, although NZ isn’t New York.
http://www.infrastructurist.com/2011/07/25/the-giant-drill-underneath-park-avenue/
The comments from the project team at the stakeholder meeting indicated that the TBM will be reused to do first the first, then the second tunnel (not fully certain yet whether they will transport back to southern portal, or instead turn around at the northern), but after that, it is unlikely to be reused, as these TBMs are relatively specialised, and the costs to fit to a new project would not be so much cost-saving as could be expected as a layman thinks.
It will turn around and go back.
I have heard it will be dismantled and taken back to the southern portal to start again. They want to remove material from the southern not the northern end.
Interestingly even though that eastern most interchange is massive there is still no way to leave the motorway at that point from SH20. So if your destination is say Pt Chev, you’ll have to keep going to Western springs and double back on Gt North Rd.
And yes, Matt, that’s what I was thinking those sports fields users etc would probably become opponents of plans to finally put the rail line through.
Quite a big-ish reduction in Ak’s housing stock with this…. more motorways, even partly underground ones, makes for lower density.
The small playing pitch and carpark seen in the third picture already exist in Alan Wood Reserve. The carpark seems to have been shifted a bit further west in the plans, probably to make room for the tunnel portal.
I assume you mean the Pt Chevalier interchange, not Maioro Street, which is in fact the easternmost one?
There was never a serious proposal to add ramps to Point Chev (though some submitters fought for it), partly because of the negative effects on traffic flow – adding another set of merges and diverges really “muddies the waters” so to speak, and because the local effects on the surrounds of the Pt Chev interchange would have been even more increased.
Oh, and of course because the designers (rightly in my view) consider this as a regional and/or strategic link, rather than a local arterial, like we built our inner city motorways! It’s mainly to connect southern Auckland with western Auckland, CBD with the airport as an alternate route, and a SH1 alternate through route through Auckland (Western Ring Route).
The ped bridge looks pretty overall but for some odd reason NZTA or their designers persist in sloping in handrails, despite their own design standards saying to have them vertical or even sloping out. By the time you allow for cyclists shying away from the handrail the effective width is narrow.
Bedlam, those are just concept designs, and Cycle Action Auckland has been pushing for better designs for a while, and in most recent bridge designs, the actual NZTA designs didn’t slope inwards like that, or did but retained enough space anyway. Walk/ped bridges on the waterview project will generally aim to retain the 3m clear of the main path.
The cycle lane shown north of the southern portal looks like it won’t have a bridge crossing new north rd. The tunnel goes well below sea level, and will be dug by a pressure balance tbm, which is good for soft ground and under harbours. The southern portal is so much better looking than previously.
Anthony – no, the cycle path was never proposed to have a bridge over New North Road. It already requires a bridge over the rail line, and another further north over Oakley Creek, which is why the whole path was costed at $8 million during the Board of Inquriy process.
At NNR, crossing will either be via the signals Hendon Ave / NNR (though I’d hope we can have a ped crossing on the SOUTHERN side instead for that, as a 3-stage crossing would be ridiculous), and additionally, likely via a yet to-be-defined non-signalised crossing opportunity further south. Auckland Transport are studying this at the moment as part of the consenting for the cycle path.
I think the solution to that is to get the rail line built. That would require grade separation of New North Rd and a bike lane could be included next to the rail line.
Just a small observation- the new motorway will not be constructed from a semi transparent material, so why are the northern structures shown like this?
Are they really planning to have 5 lanes between this junction and CMJ?
The only semi-transparency I can see is for bridges and overhead ramps. I think it is a useful visual aid so you can distinguish between at-grade and above-grade structures.
The shadow in the visuals on the above grade structures give you that- that is what you get looking at an aerial view.
Just found the document on the design of the St Lukes section (Sector 6) and it’s only going to be 4 lanes. So 2 and 3 lanes into 4. Wasn’t there an issue with this on the southern end of this motorway? Are they planning ramp metering?
Typical NZTA approach so later on when it’s a mess they can demand money to widen that motorway too.
Still the whole thing increases the severance ‘enjoyed’ by a decreased number of Waterviewians. Yes all that planting looks great on these drawings but that stream side walkway to try to get to the shops is under four flyovers….and then more, it’s still going to be nasty no matter how much green colouring-in they do, and a hell of a distance through a maze of writhing structures. Unsafe and unpleasant, still who’s going to be doing it? Losers I guess, otherwise they’d be in a car.
And, of course, the very people who can’t use the thing directly are…. residents of Waterview. Or Pt Chev, or anyone not close to Maioro St or Western Springs or further up the North Western. It really is for getting people from Albany to the Airport isn’t it?
It’s to complete the motorway network so we never have to build another motorway and have an alternative to the habour bridge so we don’t have to build another route through there either.
HaHa…. you’re funny. That’s my line too, after this we’re done. Yeah right. The junkies are already lining up their next fix….. This project makes a lot more sense than what they’re already lobbying for, especially the harbour crossings….
I’m actually glad there’s no entrance to the motorway in Waterview – that’s 4 less on and on ramps in the area.
Awful project in IMO and does nothing but entrench car use and destroy public space.
Oh I agree, just pointing out that NZTA’s agenda, wittingly or not, is all about sprawl
It’s to improve the overall flow of Auckland’s Motorway Network, and I think a very important step in mitigating through traffic from Auckland’s CBD. So as projects go this is actually a very important social and economic project. Unfortunately there will always be people affected by these transport projects, including PT projects, but in this case the benefits definitely outweigh the con’s.
Well, benefits outweighing the cons (= positive BCR) SHOULD be the bare minimum for any project (though our minister is busy rewriting even that mandate).
the real question will always be whether the same money, spent in a different project, would have produced so much more benefit that the other project should have been done instead. I reluctantly agree that the Western Ring Route in total stacks up. I just wish it wasn’t the only type of project we are doing at a moment of financial tightness, and after decades of doing similar projects only. While the project in isolation still can stack up, the overall balance is shot to hell.
Did anyone ever explain why the project’s BCR plummeted when they changed from using the ART2 model to using the ART3 model?
Max- this is my view also. This project has become necessary by previous unresolved work, and at least it does join and complete a network, and not just extend and amplify its dominance and create the next urgency as so many other recent projects do. And tunneling is about the highest level of mitigation possible!
And to your much earlier comment about this being a regional project, that too I am in favour of. The interchanges cause the greatest misery on the fabric of city, with both their traffic fallout and land destruction. In fact I would like to see a number of on and off ramps to SH1 closed because of the impacts they have on the quality of the city. Symonds street on ramp and Cook St off ramp for example. I do see SH1 in the city as schizophrenic; can’t decide whether it is about getting little Jack to Grammar or speeding goods and people across the region. It does try to be all things to all people and I think that now that AK is so much bigger than when this project began that it needs to focus on the later task more.
Along with, of course, the completion of a widespread, integrated, and complimentary transit network.
Artistic impressions always do! The reality of course won’t have quite so much soft focus…
The recent projects such as the Manukau Harbour Crossing, Victoria Park have succeeded in my opinion. Maybe they are getting better at the implementation?
Recent projects have been a disaster. Both the Manukau Connection and the Victoria Park Tunnel created more congestion than previously existed when they first opened.
In terms of mitigation, yes this is definitely a raising of the bar.
The MHC was a success, but that’s because 8 lanes across a medium use motorway was far more than ever required. The design elements worked well in my opinion.
How about we wait to condemn VPT project once the whole scheme is implemented and open i.e. 3 lanes in the tunnel and the St Mary’s Bay works finished. I’m prepared to wait to pass judgement….
It’s sad that park areas beside motorways tend to be rubbish-traps more than anything else.
Keith Hay Park? The “park-ish” sections of the Northwestern Cycleway? Arch Hill Reserve?
If the park is “activated” right, and managed rather than neglected, it can work.
How much extra would it cost to build the rail line between the western line and Dominion Road on the reserved alignment at the same time as the motorway?
How much in savings would building the rail line concurrently provide rather than doing it later?
And could the line be utilised in any meaningful way before the Central rail link was built?
To answer some of my own questions:
http://transportblog.co.nz/2011/11/21/the-avondale-mt-roskill-spur/
But feel free to voice an opinion on the costs of bringing it forward to the same time as the motorway construction.
@Matt
I was very intrigued with the idea of The Avondale-Mt Roskill Spur, the idea of low hanging fruit to help the progress of the network. Onehunga as a great e.g. and Manukau being another positive step forward too.
I would hope at a minimum that all the earth works for the track foundation could be done, just insert track and ballast… (signalling, stations)
Getting the spur line done at the same time as the road would be great, then there’s the problem of peak time slots in and out of Britomart (can we just ignore that for the time being?)
I believe that the NZTA offered to build the formation at the same time providing that Kiwirail paid for it which would have meant a case of just putting down the ballast and rails but Kiwirail declined as they don’t want to (and can’t afford to) pay for works that won’t be of any use to them for the time being.
As for peak slots I would probably do the following,
4 trains per hour from Swanson to Grafton then direct to Britomart
2 trains per hour from Swanson to Grafton then on to Newmarket and out South somewhere.
2 trains per hour from Dominion Rd to Grafton then direct to Britomart
2 trains per hour from Dominion Rd to Grafton then on to Newmarket then out to Onehunga (which would need to be duplicated)
Mightn’t Manukau be a better destination for this service than Onehunga?
It would definitely be cheaper to do now. Does anyone know how much we could save?
It could be run as a shuttle to Newmarket or even to Onehunga thus avoiding the Britomart constraint. With a bit of creative thinking about platform allocations at Newmarket trasfering to another service to continue to britomart would be easy (nb. intergrated ticketing should be in place in th 2-3 year it would take to construct).
and look, there’s a family out there enjoying the motorway pedestrian over bridge. How cute.
Why not? I think it will be a very well-used path.
This will most likely be reused, either in New Zealand or more likely sold back overseas I would imagine. These machines are not cheap and although specialized, this type of machine is actually quite common overseas, and it’s not the biggest they have. In-fact in Japan they reuse these machines all the time for there subway infrastructure.
The technology has become much better, the machines are assembled and de-assembled before delivery, assembled once on site and then de-assembled after completion. Any worn parts can be replaced, and the teeth are actually regularly replaced throughout the drilling process.
Gotta say that southern portal sure looks like it got hit with the ugly stick and will surely date within 5 years of its construction.
@Been Benuane – I agree with you re the portal design – it will date very quickly – kind of like the 50′s and 60′s motorway deco art that we all see and love… Better to keep it simple and cheaper. Also, vehicle exhaust carbon deposits will quickly blacken and uglify it unless steam cleaned regularly (which will mean multiple lane closures)
I still have an issue with the large existing cloverleaf at the SH20/16 interchange (actually the Great North Rd northbound to SH16 westbound. This could have been redone into a more conventional style diamond ramp and a lot of the land area needed to accommodate this (and currently inaccessible inside the cloverleaf) could have been used for something more productive.
I can’t seem to continue on the earlier section of this thread about whether the TBM will get turned around or not – however, I was told that even if it gets turned around, material would STILL be removed from the southern end. It would just have to travel along a very long conveyor belt, first north, then back south through the already constructed tunnel. Depending on the costs of dismantling, transporting and re-assembling the TBM, that may still work out cheaper.
“I still have an issue with the large existing cloverleaf at the SH20/16 interchange (actually the Great North Rd northbound to SH16 westbound. This could have been redone into a more conventional style diamond ramp and a lot of the land area needed to accommodate this (and currently inaccessible inside the cloverleaf) could have been used for something more productive.”
Well, that would have driven up the cost quite a bit, for… what? Getting a strip of maybe another 20-30m of potentially habitable space along the Pt Chevalier edge? That space is currently filled with mature trees on relatively steep slopes, so changing it to housing (overlooking a motorway interchange!) would be a big ask, and the locals already living there would likely hate it. So I don’t think there’s a big practical need or benefit from that extra change.
Turning it into an a more vegetated and presumably, at least micro-habitat-friendly area seems a reasonable “fix” for the large dead space in the centre of the leaf. It’s not going to be teeming with wildlife, obviously, but still an improvement to the current grass & dirt style.