In 2016, an add-on structure providing a walk-and-cycleway called SkyPath received Council funding approval and planning consent, but was not built.

[11][12] As early as 1860, engineer Fred Bell, commissioned by North Shore farmers who wanted to herd animals to market in Auckland, had proposed a harbour crossing in the general vicinity of the bridge.

[13] In the 1950s, when the bridge was being built, North Shore was a mostly rural area of barely 50,000 people, with few jobs and a growth rate half that of Auckland south of the Waitematā Harbour.

The latter features were dropped for cost reasons before construction started, the First National Government of New Zealand opting for an 'austerity' design of four lanes without footpaths, and including an approach road network only after local outcry over traffic effects.

One of the main spans was almost lost during stormy weather when the barge began to drift, but the tugboat William C Daldy won a 36-hour tug-of-war against the high winds.

[13] Initial plans for the bridge were for an extremely slender structure, only 2.9 metres thick, due to the competing specifications from two stakeholders: the National Roads Board specified the gradient and locations where the bridge could launch from the shore on either side of the harbour, while the Auckland Harbour Board required an opening of 43.5 metres above the high tide point.

Norman argued that the Canberra was extremely unlikely to use the only major dock west of the bridge at the Chelsea Sugar Refinery, so the Harbour Board agreed to a smaller opening.

[13] When this happened, the Auckland Harbour Bridge Authority enquired if the National Roads Board would take over operations if the toll booths were removed, which they agreed to.

[13] Some critics have alleged that the routing of State Highway 1 over the bridge was motivated by the need to create toll revenue, and led to a decades-long delay on finishing the Western Ring Route around Auckland, significantly contributing to the need for a massive motorway through the city centre of Auckland and severely damaging inner-city suburbs such as Freemans Bay and Grafton.

The selection of the company was considered a bold move at the time, barely 20 years after WWII and with some considerable anti-Japanese sentiment still existing.

[citation needed] Auckland City Council's Transport Committee requested Transit New Zealand to investigate the future of the clip-ons as part of its ten-year plan.

[31] This was changed in July 2007 to a bylaw banning vehicles of 13 tonnes or more, based on the high level of voluntary compliance during the previous months.

In October 2007, a 2006 report from Beca Group surfaced in the press, noting that the clip-ons were at risk of catastrophic, immediate failure in circumstances such as a traffic jam trapping a large number of trucks.

[38] In March 1982, the Ministry of Transport and Auckland Harbour Bridge Authority conducted a week-long traffic blitz in an attempt to improve the standard of driving.

In the late 1980s, a number of fatal head-on accidents occurred when vehicles crossed lane markings into the path of oncoming traffic.

In 1990, a movable concrete safety barrier was put in place to separate traffic heading in opposite directions and eliminate head-on accident.

[29][citation needed] As part of the Victoria Park Tunnel project, the moveable barrier has been extended southwards to the Fanshawe Street onramp.

After the early 1990s increase in public transportation patronage in Auckland, the Ministry of Works and Development investigated if the 'clip-ons' could be used for a light rail system, which they found was feasible if the lanes were used exclusively for this purpose.

[47] A proposal from the Auckland Regional Council (one of the proponents) to open up part of the clip-on structure for a walking / cycling trial use over several summer weekends, to show whether it would attract enough users, did not go forward.

[48] Following years of campaigning a Harbour Bridge crossing, known as Skypath, was promised funding by the Labour Party in the lead-up to the 2017 general election.

[54] Their campaign has attracted the support of a diverse array of organisations, calling for Waka Kotahi to liberate the lane now to give Aucklanders more affordable and sustainable transport options, and that it would be a key symbol of climate action.

No accidents, violence or arrests were reported,[56] and protesters left the bridge approximately an hour later, many having crossed to the North Shore and back.

[58] NZTA representatives noted that they were disappointed at what they considered the broken word of the organisers of the protest, and remarked that it would take 30 more years before walking and cycling could likely be provided (see also "Second Harbour Crossing" below).

[59] The group proposes to raise the majority of the funding via a loan backed by small tolls, of the order of NZ$1 for regular users.

In the meantime, Council had already provided in principle approval for a public-private partnership funding model, in a unanimous support vote earlier in 2016.

[65] The rally called for a trial of reallocating a traffic lane for walking and cycling on the bridge over the summer[66] and included speeches by Auckland Central MP Chlöe Swarbrick and former associate minister of transport Julie Anne Genter.

The report revealed that motor traffic volumes have declined, leaving space on the bridge to reallocate one lane for walking, cycling, and wheeling "without significantly affecting motor traffic" [51] Bike Auckland continues to advocate to Waka Kotahi to Liberate the Lane, stating that Waka Kotahi's Waitematā connections project will take too long to deliver a walking and cycling connection across the Harbour.

AJ Hackett operates a 40 metres (130 ft) bungy jump experience and a guided bridge climb over the arch truss.

In 2008, a study group narrowed down around 160 options to a multi-tunnel link approximately one km east of the bridge, with up to four individual tunnels for motorway, public transport and rail.

[92] Temporary repairs were effected using a locally fabricated replacement member, pending a full engineering analysis and design of the long-term solution.