Jump to content

Another 85 meters


Recommended Posts

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.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2017/11/GB_20171123_ATT_6765_PLANS_WEB.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.....  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This link gives a pdf version of Riggers link

http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2017/11/GB_20171123_ATT_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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the dolphins were put in without the walkways at least we could sail around them when there's no cruise boats there, the walkways are just to make it easy for Ports to use them.

They run a friggin port for f**ks sake, get in a damn boat & go out there to use it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

POAL ACC Panuku AT have all had a hand in the planning fiasco that the harbour is now very much the poorer for.

During the discussions to secure Westhaven Marina back into public ownership a overarching waterfront governance body was mooted to no avail.

The whole harbour is fast becoming a piecemeal mess.

Have a close look at Councils decision to site the AC bases.

They are battle weary of the whole western reclamation tank farm area.

The failed court action to have Mobil remediate the heavily polluted tank farm area has the Council shouldering the entire costs.

The present bulk storage leaseholder has Council over the barrel regarding vacating the area sooner rather than later.

So much so that Council did not communicate with them at all regarding the AC base planning options.

Link to post
Share on other sites

YNZ are too busy trying to negotiate a good deal on Council controlled land for the high performance center. Can't see them doing any advocacy for their constituents that may also rock the boat with regards to acquiring themselves the new gilded HQ.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no Mooring Dolphin class at the Olympics so they have no interest.

We should release a story to nzherald that the class has been created. Guarantee they'll run with it without verifying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting and informative article on the dolphin issue from McGredy, Winder &Co (and copied here with permission)

 

 

 

Queen’s Dolphins – A Year in the Making

 

What a difference a year makes. One of the very first things His Worship Phil Goff did upon storming into office last year, before he was even sworn in, was to put an immediate halt to the building of a dolphin for cruise ships attached to Queens Wharf by a gangway. He had campaigned unambiguously against anymore incursions into the harbour, and this wasn’t going to happen on his watch, not on your life. It was a powerful and highly effective display of strength, clarity and determination of purpose.

 

Less than a year later, the dolphin proposal was back, and it had grown from one dolphin to two and the extension into the harbour from 75m to 85m. Worse, what had originally been an interim solution was now to be consented as a permanent feature.  And Mayor Goff? Well he had morphed from saviour of the harbour into Dolphin-Phil, the number one extension advocate. A change of heart he heralded with a towering speech to close the debate, in which he bellowed about jobs, and the poor and down-trodden that he had battled on behalf of for his entire life (n.b. these were his dramatics, not ours). And then the Council, that is otherwise so allergic to extensions into the harbour, dutifully voted 14-5 to support a hefty extension into it.

 

In our view, the dolphin decision was both entirely questionable and made through a rather shoddy process.  In the midst of the Mayor’s 180-degree, it had looked like the problem would go away when the Waterfront Plan refresh came up with the wonderfully named inner-dolphin (which would have been tucked under the existing wharf). The Port, however, managed to find another maritime expert who assessed that the solution was neither workable or safe due to tide and wind conditions.  And so, the Dolphin returned. The case put forward to justify the encroachment into the harbour was, to be honest, rather weak, containing a number of holes. But as it turned out, plenty strong enough to

convert the Mayor and enough of his colleagues. At the heart of the argument of those advocating in the interests of the cruise industry was the economic and employment case. The cruise industry has an estimated regional economic impact of $220 million a year, associated with 4,000 jobs. These figures come from Market Economics, the same consultants that estimated the marginal economic benefit of the dolphin at $2 million a year. To put that into context, that is 0.002% of Auckland’s current approximate GDP. Otherwise known as a rounding error.  In the debate, of course, advocates of the dolphin seized on the much bigger, industry as a whole, figures arguing that much of that would be at risk in a dolphin-free harbour. Which is simply nonsense, and certainly not something you will find anywhere in the 150 pages of reports that were provided to

councillors for their decision making. There were a number of other pieces of poetic license evoked during the debate.

 

Councillors had been told that the 348m Ovation of the Sea (which, last season, became the first quantum-sized ship to visit Auckland), isn’t returning after its scheduled visits this and next cruise season because it can’t berth. But, of course, in its remaining visits it won’t be berthing either. Which makes you wonder, really, doesn’t it?  The reality, according to industry insiders, is that the ship tends to ply Chinese and Vietnam ports and its appearance on routes involving New Zealand was the result of a dispute with the Chinese Government. A dispute that has now been resolved.  Similarly, councillors have been told that the 345m Queen Mary II (another visitor last season) is not returning to Auckland because it can’t berth. Curiously though, it will visit both the Bay of Islands and

Akaroa, where it will moor and tender. The attempted justification for this was that Auckland is a hub port and ships need to berth at a hub port. Again, disingenuous. If the QMII can visit two New Zealand ports without berthing at a hub while in our waters (which is what it will do), it could actually have visited Auckland without berthing as well.

And it went on. The dolphin is designed to facilitate visits by the next generation of quantum-class vessels (360m) - Oasis of the Seas, Harmony of the Seas and Allure of the Seas - which could possibly be heading our way in five to ten years’ time. What wasn’t mentioned at the meeting was that these vessels were commissioned, again, to predominantly ply South East Asian and Mediterranean routes.

 

But, hey, why let facts get in the way of a jolly good and ripping maritime yarn, or of perceived wealth and riches for all. The process of decision making also involved some alarming aspects. During the meeting it became apparent, thanks to work by Cr Chris Darby, that Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei had not been consulted or engaged with about the new proposal (or, it would seem, dolphins at all, ever). This is the Iwi that has Ahi Kā over the Waitemata Harbour and has always had very strong views on matters such as this. That they were ignored as part of this decision making is unfathomable, not to mention hugely inappropriate. Ferry operator, Fullers also wasn’t talked to as part of the council family’s work on the issue. If they had been they would have told of 250-ferry sailings a day from the East that will be affected by this extension into the harbour. That is 90,000 movements a year to justify, in five to ten years’ time, the possibility of three additional cruise ship visits. Again, this was only uncovered thanks to the efforts of Cr Darby.

One last interesting aspect to this that wasn’t dwelt on at the meeting, Queens Wharf is half owned by the Government which could, therefore, have a say on the dolphin extension attaching to it if they choose to. At the very least, we know that the leader of that government holds march in the street strength views on encroachments into the harbour.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...