ANZAC Bridge Pushed


The group pushing for an iconic Auckland Harbour Bridge crossing to be built to commemorate Anzac is using this year’s Anzac Day on Sunday to continue to push its case.

It’s now brought forward its suggested timeframe, calling for work on such a crossing to be started next year.
And it continues to reject the NZTA recommended option of a tunnel.

The group’s chairman, ex-councillor Richard Simpson says hat a new tunnel, which is being considered as an equal option to the new bridge in the Government’s 20-year National Infrastructure Plan, had “little commemorative significance.”
“Of the two options, only a bridge could be the iconic structure that Auckland needs,” he said. “This is Auckland’s best opportunity to make a global architectural statement, just as Sydney’s Opera House and Bilbao’s Guggenheim Museum have done.”

Anzac bridge at night as imagined by group

“Come 2015, it is vitally important that we stand tall with Australia in recognising our cultural heritage. The construction of a new, world-class bridge is the ideal way to do that.”

Mr Simpson said that if construction was to begin by 2015, planning work would have to begin within the next 12-18 months.
“An international bridge design competition and proper master-planning for the waterfront will have to be carried out first. That means the initiative has to be progressed soon – it can’t just be left on the back-burner.”

The group has had “informal talks” with the transport minister and would ” continue to build the technical, financial and environmental case for the new bridge over the coming year.”




  1. Jeremy Harris says:

    Sigh, what is the point in only beginning construction in 2015, we commemorate the centenary by putting at the water and saying, “the piling is there”…

    The design is not iconic, it destroys the tank farm, reduces network resilience by meaning we don’t gain a 2nd crossing and it can’t take heavy rail… It is a dumb idea, so naturally Key and Joyce are for it…

  2. Matt L says:

    This group should bugger off, we have already spent millions on studies to determine the best option and they keep saying a tunnel is best. They also want to remove the existing bridge which defeats the entire purpose of having ANOTHER harbour crossing. If we did build this it would just be a case of NZ doing things on the cheap again rather than doing them right.

    A few of the reasons we shouldn’t build a bridge.
    It will destroy tank farm development
    There is no way the local residents will let the land around St Marys bay be sold to developers.
    It still gives us a single point of failure in our network.

  3. Kiwipom says:

    I don’t see the connection between building a bridge and the soldiers that died representing our country. I could understand it being an ANZAC bridge if it linked NZ and Australia!!!!

    Its also really ugly in my opinion

  4. anthony says:

    Yawn! this ANZAC bridge is boring me. just call the tunnel ANZAC and then we’ll all be happy.

  5. Brent C says:

    This style of bridge is becoming more and more popular around the world. A different and unique bridge would be awesome, however they could have arranged that for Manuaku Harbour as well. Or is that not good enough?

  6. ingolfson says:

    NZTA is currently starting another study into the harbour crossing. Thanks for wasting our tax money in another new way, minister.

    Also, I would be amazed if the new study suddenly “found” that a bridge (which they ruled out for a lot of reasons just two years before) is the best thing since sliced bread, and should be built instead of a tunnel. Environment Court, please reserve some time, here we come.

  7. James B says:

    OMG! Another study I remember doing an assignment based on a previous study when I was in school nearly a decade ago. I’ve stopped caring about whether it is a bridge or tunnel. Just build something please and put us all out of our misery.

  8. Stew J says:

    Fine if they want to build an Anzac bridge then build it from Devonport navel base to the City. Build it out of welded together Guns and make it a footbridge. As for the rest of us we want the tunnel with Rail and we want it now.

  9. Andu says:

    Ever get the feeling that Auckland is just a big experiment for ministers et al to just piss about and waste time? Why must everything be such a huge battle?

  10. Cam says:

    These guys and Snapper should form a support group and start working through how to let go. Honestly they need to just go away, the study was done, the recommendation was made and it wasn’t for a new bridge for those good reasons mentioned. Why is Joyce wasting money on another study? I can only conclude he didn’t like the recommendations and wants them to change.

  11. James B says:

    I suspect that this is what would be classed as a huge political risk… If it doesn’t come off correctly, e.g. budget or time overruns then it could cost the Transport Minister a job. The report that I read 10 - 15 years ago concluded that the tunnel option from Northcote point to Wynyard Quarter was the best option as has every study since then. Who wants to bet that this latest report will just confirm the tunnel option again.

  12. jarbury says:

    These guys and Snapper should form a support group and start working through how to let go.

    Ha! Classic.

    The ANZAC bridge is a stupid idea for many reasons, most of which have been mentioned above. Number one reasons would be: the point of another crossing is to get ANOTHER crossing.

    What’s the hurry anyway? The harbour bridge actually isn’t the pinch-point on the network as it has 5 lanes in the peak direction, the busway is becoming increasingly popular, traffic on the harbour bridge is relatively steady over the past few years, higher oil prices probably aren’t too far away, surely other parts of Auckland deserve a bit of attention (Howick/Botany/Flat Bush etc.) and so on…..

  13. kano says:

    Tunnel option? now thats boring and unimaginative.

  14. karl says:

    Well, if you personally have a few hundred millions or up to several billions to waste on a worse product just because you think it makes a better artistic statement, feel free to spend them ;-)

  15. Anthony M says:

    I highly doubt that people would want to have ethier two harbour bridges or or a historical one being distoryed.

    Auckland, the most debatable city in the world. -_-’

    honestly, no idea is perfect, just get the idea that suits the future in the LONG TERM.

  16. Nick R says:

    The tunnel is the best option. For one it would be largely invisible rather than creating the issue of having two bridges or demolishing the existing bridge.
    Secondly we can keep the old bridge but perhaps pull off the clip ons once they have failed completely. The bridge looks much better without the clip ons.
    Thirdly, and new bridge means a new or expanded motorway at some location at the waterfront. Even going from bridge to tunnel would need a big dead zone where the transition was. There are better uses for prime waterfront land. The tunnel on the other hand is proposed to start way back at Spaghetti Junction. This gives the opportunity to actually remove some of the existing motorway that has been bypassed.

  17. Paul Swift says:

    At a meeting last night at the Northcote Point church hall, the evidence suggested a fairly basic solution:
    (a) existing bridge would survive for 100 plus years if big trucks were kept off it.
    (b) rail is the only strategic way to solve commuter traffic congestion
    (c) the so-called Anzac Bridge would continue to overload the current SH1 route and Spaghetti Junction
    (d) trucks and buses could be sent under the harbour in a tunnel - and emerge on the city side at eg Stanley Street and the city centre
    (e) This would save the existing bridge for cars - plus a walking and cycling lane.
    (f) The new construction could be built in phases - - truck/bus tunnel now
    - rail tunnel once the inner city loop is built - connecting with Britomart.

    So the main objectives


Leave a Comment


XHTML: You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>