Jump to content


Photo

Another 85 meters


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 raz88

raz88

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 357 posts
  • LocationAuckland

Posted 29 November 2017 - 05:23 AM

This time extended from queens wharf

https://thespinoff.c...arf-extensions/
  • 0

#2 rigger

rigger

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,494 posts

Posted 29 November 2017 - 06:06 AM

That article needs some corrections, the Golden Princess has been to NZ before. The weights talked about are not weights. FYI the ovation of the seas displaces closer to 78,000 tonnes not the 168,000 claimed in article.

A council ddocument that may be of interest.
http://infocouncil.a...5_PLANS_WEB.htm
  • 0

#3 MarkMT

MarkMT

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 595 posts
  • LocationLake Zurich, Illinois

Posted 29 November 2017 - 06:28 AM

Considering the generally appalling state of 'journalism' in NZ, this is a pretty decent piece of work, though I would have liked to see a scale drawing with the dolphins in it. And I couldn't quite figure out who exactly developed and pushed the new proposal. It seems to lie outside both of the two plans described in the article, the Council's own 3 month-old masterplan and POAL's one month-old plan.

 

But regarding the supposed economic benefits of more and larger cruise ships, a different article in the Herald about the benefits of the America's Cup (though that's a separate issue of course) also seems relevant here: http://www.nzherald....jectid=11948387

 

As for the value-added injection and the jobs created: to a first-order approximation, the net number of new jobs created in Auckland, with its already stretched construction and tourism industries, will be about zero. The workers needed will be bid away from other jobs, or imported as new immigrants. As a result, there will be no significant real output increases, the extra spending will be soaked up in higher prices.

 
Higher prices are harmful for domestic New Zealand customers and travellers but beneficial to the bottom lines of New Zealand and foreign owned businesses. It's a trade-off. My expectation is that, overall, there will be net economic benefits from holding the Cup in Auckland but that they will be quite small — below the costs to which national and local government are being asked to contribute.

 

Point is, these kinds of claims of economic benefits are often based on dodgy assumptions that fail to consider the flow-on costs, especially opportunity costs, as well as the flow-on benefits.


  • 0

#4 Priscilla II

Priscilla II

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts

Posted 29 November 2017 - 06:35 AM

Wynyard wharf is adequate in length to berth these monsters but now a portion of that has been committed to the Cup .
The bozos in council continue to wreck the harbour and it is definitely time for this to stop.
  • 0

#5 muzled

muzled

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts

Posted 29 November 2017 - 06:56 AM

I'm not sure I can think of anything worse than using my leave to get on a ship with 9000 other people...

 

Seems pretty daft that Queens wharf is tied up for years as a car park.  But I guess the port is the goose that lays the golden egg so they have the council by the short and curly's.


  • 0

#6 Simon

Simon

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 29 November 2017 - 07:58 AM

Actually the returns from the Port, if we properly factored in the returns of the operation against the true market value of the land, are pathetic.

 

I feel sorry for anyone sailing between Westhaven and North Head - the narrowest part of the channel just became 85 metres narrower.  And about 2/3 of the ferries that currently skirt the end of Queens Wharf - ie the most congested part of the entire harbour - are now going to be 85 metres further into the channel.

 

Because the Port has been able to sell Queens as the only cruise ship option, it also clears the way for their 5 story car park building on the wharf, and the further "only 15 metre" extension off the end of Bledisloe.  You have to admire the port - a cunning political operation dressed up as a business.....  


  • 1

#7 native

native

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,448 posts
  • LocationThe Shore

Posted 29 November 2017 - 09:53 AM

For those that sail every week on the harbour we know its already screwed over so badly, what about our voice?  Losing more harbour so that  visiting fat arsed 'mericans and badly dressed euro tourista in giant cattle trucks can make downtown retailers and bar owners richer, no thanks

 

If they must have dolphins then why not submersible ones?


  • 0

#8 Puff

Puff

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,544 posts

Posted 29 November 2017 - 10:45 AM

If they must have dolphins then why not submersible ones?

Exactly, there is no reason why it cannot be on the seabed and lifted when they need it other than their desire to do it as cheaply as possible.

 

And the "only 15 metres" ignores the fact they will be parking a ship on the side of it.


  • 0

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"


#9 Fish

Fish

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,799 posts

Posted 29 November 2017 - 11:17 AM

This link gives a pdf version of Riggers link

http://infocouncil.a..._6765_PLANS.PDF

 

This is the Council Minutes from the meeting of the 23rd Nov. Attachment E is the relevant bit.

I'm sorry, but what a cluster f*ck. They are going to extend effectively the longest wharf, at the exact point all of the ferries have to go round it and turn in to get into the Ferry Terminal. It would be like putting a one way contra-flow right infront of the Britomart bus terminal...

 

Further, the 'economic analysis' is a joke.

It outlines the cost of building the dolphin, then says "if you get all these cruise ships in you'll make loads of money" (over enough time). There is no assessment of impacts to the utility of the harbour (i.e. other harbour uses) and the associated loss of amenity to the community.

 

Further, and this is the crazy bit, Auckland Council pay for consenting and building it, POAL collect the fees and revenue from it, and only return this to Auckland Council as a dividend. No wonder we are told POAL is so profitable, they don't pay for their own capital works.....................................................................................................................

 

POAL aren't even handling the consent, they are getting Punuku to do that. And yes the mere fact you have to go and work out who Punuku is should really help you understand what is wrong with this whole picture....

 

The consent for the dolphin is to be combined with the entire consent for the re-development of the waterfront. This is bureaucratic speech for "bury the fucker so no member of the public can find it and object to it". The waterfront re-development consent will get a certain amount of submissions supporting it. I'll bet you a good bottle of whisky this will be re-cased to appear a large number of submissions support the further encroachment of the harbour.

 

Seriously, the Council presentation (Attachment E) looks like an armature hour junior school report. It is a shoddy lightweight piece of work.


  • 0

#10 muzled

muzled

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts

Posted 29 November 2017 - 12:14 PM

What did Panuku used to be called?  Akl Development?  The whole renaming of that dept was just to get it off the radar, probably a smart move if you look at it from a very cynical viewpoint.

 

Akl council should be renamed Auckland Corruption.

 

What are the chances of the Stop Stealing Our Harbour guys getting any traction on this?


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users