The short listed options

Option 1: Esmonde to Britomart

• Passenger transport only, in a new tunnel or on a new bridge between Esmonde and Britomart, with possible connections at Onewa and Wynyard.
• General traffic on the existing Auckland Harbour Bridge.
• Walking and cycling on either a new bridge or the existing Auckland Harbour Bridge (with appropriate modifications to the existing bridge.)

Option 2: Esmonde to Britomart and SH16

• Passenger transport in either a new tunnel or on a new bridge across the harbour, with tunnels to landside connections between Esmonde and Britomart. Possible connections at Onewa and Wynyard.
• General traffic in either a new tunnel or on a new bridge (as well as on the existing bridge) with tunnels to landside connections between Esmonde and SH16 at either Wellington Street (Port and Westbound) or Newton (Westbound only). Possible connections at Onewa and Wynyard.
• Walking and cycling on either a new bridge or the existing Auckland Harbour Bridge (with appropriate modifications to the existing bridge.)

Option 3: Esmonde to Britomart and Grafton

• Passenger transport in a new tunnel between Esmonde and Britomart with a possible connection at Onewa.
• General traffic in a new tunnel between Esmonde and Grafton (as well as on the existing bridge) with a possible connection at Onewa.
• Walking and cycling on the existing Auckland Harbour Bridge (with appropriate modifications to the existing bridge.)

·    The options have been gathered from an original long list of 159 options from all the major investigations carried out since 1997, as well as other options identified by the partners and previous suggestions from the public.

·    The long list included options such as in vehicle guidance systems, ferries and mono rail, as well as connection points as diverse as Highbury, Takapuna, Waterview and Tamaki Drive.

·    The shortlist represents options for further investigation and is not a final decision. The shortlist has now gone back to the partner organisations for consideration.

The process

·    The shortlist is now with each partner organisation for consideration. The board and/or transport committees of each of the partner organisations will review the options for further investigation.

·    The study’s objective is to recommend options and define where a crossing will go. This will ultimately enable land use planning and development to be integrated with an additional crossing and provide certainty for communities who may be affected.

·    The study is about the location and form of an additional crossing. Issues around design, construction and funding will be dealt with in the future. Producing a shortlist of options is a significant step forward.

·    From here, the next step is to evaluate the options in order to agree a single preferred option by 31 March 2008. Once the study is complete, further work will be required to support the process to protect the corridor of the preferred option and address design, construction and funding issues.

·    Public consultation is expected following consensus among the partners on a preferred option.

Why does a route need to be protected for an additional crossing?

·    A connected and cohesive transport system will support economic growth in the region.

·    Auckland’s vision is for more sustainable transport. This means creating more opportunities for walking, cycling and passenger transport.

·    The current bridge already carries more than 160,000 vehicles per day (that’s nearly 60 million vehicles a year.)

·    A practical alternative to the bridge is important not only for direct cross harbour travel between North Shore City and Auckland City, but also for region wide connections. While alternatives do exist, they involve substantial detours and increases in journey times.

·    Demand for cross harbour travel is forecasted to grow significantly as the region’s population grows.

Options that did not make the short-list include:

·    Crossings west of the existing bridge did not create a strong public transport connection with the CBD. This helped eliminate Te Atatu, Rosebank, Waterview, Pt Chevalier, Meola and Western Springs.

·    Bayswater/Stanley Point and the wider Devonport peninsula are not identified as growth nodes in the Regional Growth Strategy and any crossing connecting to those locations would have major adverse social effects.

·    A route through the middle of Shoal Bay had the most adverse environmental impacts.

·    A crossing to Resolution Point (near the Parnell Baths) would create severance issues between the CBD and Tamaki Drive and be a more expensive, longer crossing option.

·    Tunnelling a connection through to Panmure / Glen Innes would have significant adverse environmental effects and the highest cost.

·    A crossing to Highbury (Glenfield Road) had high adverse social effects and cost

·    A bridge to the east of the CBD is unrealistic because of the required height clearance for ships.

·    Simply linking harbour's edge to harbour's edge isn’t enough - connections to the wider road network were stronger at Esmonde, Newton and Grafton than from crossings to Onewa, Westhaven, Queens Wharf or Tamaki Drive.