Jump to content


Photo

Queens Wharf Dolphins - Give us more ammo


  • Please log in to reply
235 replies to this topic

#21 Fish

Fish

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,545 posts

Posted 31 January 2019 - 10:59 AM

On POAL, actions speak louder than words.

Acknowledging the duplicity of their masters, who on one hand say they don't support further encroachment into the harbour, but on the other hand demand higher dividends.


  • 0

#22 MarkMT

MarkMT

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 990 posts
  • LocationLake Zurich, Illinois or Waiuku, NZ, depending on how I feel. And snow, especially snow.

Posted 31 January 2019 - 11:17 AM

I don't think I've seen this elsewhere... from one of the appendices to the consent application

 

6.1.3 Recreational vessels

 

Recreational vessels tend to transit along rather than across the harbour. As with the cargo vessels, they naturally remain to the north of the transit line shown in Figure 7 to take the shortest route to their destination and to ensure they are clear of the fixed hazards such as the wharves. The faster power-driven vessels also aim to take advantage of staying within the 12-knot limit area for as long as practical and so remain in that area.

 

A further consideration for recreational vessels is the Port Security and Customs Area shown on the Auckland Restricted Area leaflet, which increases the tendency to stay towards the centre of the harbour channel. The skippers should also be aware of the restricted water near the ferry terminal basin. They certainly will be aware of the increased traffic due to the ferries, and the concentration of this traffic at the entrance to the basin, and this will be a further factor encouraging them to remain clear of the area.

 

If making way under sail against the wind, sailing craft tack (zig-zag) across the harbour and so could be minded to sail near the dolphins. However, in doing so they will encounter disturbed wind causing it to lose strength and become unstable. Sailors therefore typically aim to avoid this area to stay in a more consistent wind that makes for easier and more efficient sailing. The instability in the wind also discourages vessels from sheltering from strong winds in this area.

 

While seeking clear wind is often reason for sail craft to stay in open water, reduced current near the shore can be a reason to approach the shore. In the case of the port area of Auckland Harbour, while there is some retardation effect on the tidal flow as a craft approaches the shores, given the piled design of the wharfs in the immediate area of the proposed dolphins, that retardation effect is not as strong as may normally be expected. As a result, for sail craft, there is only limited benefit to be gained by approaching very close to the end of Queens Wharf (even if this were allowed).

 

Given the ferry traffic in the area of the Ferry Basin, other commercial traffic emerging from the port areas, the designated safety restricted area off the ferry basin and the existence of the port security area, recreation craft should not be close in to the port areas. Also, given the limited benefit in terms of reduced current, and for sail craft often disturbed wind, recreational sail traffic will have little reason to come close to the area of the dolphins, there should therefore be little reason for interaction between recreational craft and the dolphins. 

 

https://www.auckland...-Navigation.pdf

https://www.auckland...Num=CST60323353


  • 0

#23 MarkMT

MarkMT

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 990 posts
  • LocationLake Zurich, Illinois or Waiuku, NZ, depending on how I feel. And snow, especially snow.

Posted 31 January 2019 - 11:21 AM

And the reason I found that is that I was trying to find something that explained more clearly how the vessels themselves are moored relative to the dolphins...

 

Attached File  Screenshot-Microsoft Word - 3572363 Navigation Safety Rev 0.11 30 Aug 18 - Google Chrome.png   427.36KB   1 downloads


  • 0

#24 Zozza

Zozza

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 802 posts

Posted 31 January 2019 - 11:30 AM

Let them do the dolphins in the proposed area, but then sign a moratorium of no more harbour creep for 30 years.

See if they have the balls to sign that moratorium.


  • 1

#25 Veladare

Veladare

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,226 posts

Posted 31 January 2019 - 11:41 AM

Yea sorry to hijack the thread.
 
In saying that they know they need to move, they do but will never say that.
 
 
 
There have been several large studies conducted by various parties, one funded by PoAL, another by NZIER (I think), another by a private guy (Will see if I can find his name) with expertise who decided to take a look. (I have heard him speak now twice where he was the invited speaker. Do not think he is aligned any which way)
Off top of my head I think Ive read or listened 4, maybe 5 studies in last 10 years. All agree it needs to move within 30 years
 
They ranged in scope and motive, but the private guy was by far the most detailed and also had no political or ulterior motive, he was just interested so far as I could tell on seeing if it needed to be moved, and if so, where could it be moved to
 
Long and short of it is
 
1. Port is running out of space and now cant expand inside its allowable footprint due to political and public constraints.
2. Northport is complete pie in the sky. The rail cant carry TEU and def cant carry cars. It would also have massive increase in carbon footprint as everything would need to move by truck to Auckland
a. I agree and anyone who believes in Northport as an option is either incompetent, has absolutely no idea how transport works or is politically corrupt.
i. (Though I would personally retire from the port moving there)
3. Kaiaua
a. Shippers preference as ships can continue down east coast
b. $6-8bil. Plus $6-8bil of additional roading to cater for the distance back to Auckland and congestion
c. More trucks on the road
d. Loss of a lot of farm land for distribution centres
e. Prob be not that friendly to those birds that think we are Russia, though that probably could be migrated as other ports have. Saw examples where birds had habitats merged into sides of the ports to great effect
f. Iwi issues
4. Manukau
a. Not the shippers preference
b. Need for ongoing dredging of the bar (not a major apparently)
c. Channel is 24m deep all the way to Onehunga
d. Best option is to build new port of large area of mudflats
e. $5-7bil to build plus $1bil of roading
f. Puts freight direct into current infrastructure and established freight hubs
g. Need to expand freight hubs onto mud flats
h. Bigger Iwi issues
 
My preference is for 4, as it is going to the cheapest, fastest, have less impact on all sorts of things, and fits closest into existing infrastructure and areas where the freight hubs already exist. It will also result in less people dying when they fall asleep and slide under the front of one of my trucks.
But that is just my opinion.
As to where they want to move it.. I havent yet asked that question... but I will once there is traction

  • 0
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may lead you to think people are laughing WITH you.

#26 Knot Me... maybe

Knot Me... maybe

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,115 posts

Posted 31 January 2019 - 12:16 PM

They are not perfect in any shape or form, and I clash with them over decisions they make on a regular basis, but they are also not blood sucking vampires intent on stealing the f**king harbour, no matter what the merchants of doom and death sometimes peddle both here and in the media.

Totally agree, even more so after all this Dolphin action. They do have plans to 'fill in' a section of wharf, which is already got piles and crap in it and no boats ever go, including their own, but as far as we are aware they have none that push things more into the harbour beyond a line from wharf ends.
 
It's the Council wanting the dolphins not PoA. The council want them because the Cruise lines said they want them or they will not come to Auckland.

 

 

On POAL, actions speak louder than words.
Acknowledging the duplicity of their masters, who on one hand say they don't support further encroachment into the harbour, but on the other hand demand higher dividends.

I am of the understanding that when the PoA was set up it was written into the founding documents that the council can not direct or tell the PoA what to do, even though they are the sole shareholder. If they could then we are pretty sure the PoA would have been told to give up Cook, or Marsden, which would then become the new cruise ship terminal. That is the longer term plan but the PoA have said it's about 10 years away from being able to let that wharf go.
 

 

And the reason I found that is that I was trying to find something that explained more clearly how the vessels themselves are moored relative to the dolphins...

Don't forget there is plans to build a over the water park on the inside of Princess between it and the Ferry buildings. That will affect how far in ships can be moored.


  • 0

#27 Adrianp

Adrianp

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,418 posts
  • LocationThe Pacific

Posted 31 January 2019 - 12:27 PM

And the reason I found that is that I was trying to find something that explained more clearly how the vessels themselves are moored relative to the dolphins...

 

attachicon.gif Screenshot-Microsoft Word - 3572363 Navigation Safety Rev 0.11 30 Aug 18 - Google Chrome.png

Why do they park the boats 40m from the end of the berth? Even if it needs dredging and relocation of the tugs, surely they should be looking at using this space rather than expanding into the harbour?


  • 0

Formally Freeeeeeeeeedom but we've got our new boat - Lady Nada - https://sailingladyn...wordpress.com/ 


#28 SloopJohnB

SloopJohnB

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,527 posts
  • LocationPatumahoe

Posted 31 January 2019 - 01:39 PM

Sometimes logic does not prevail.

 

Turn the ships around so the propeller wash does not wash out under Quay Street as per the ferry wharf, cut back the walkway between the water and Quay Street especially now that Quay street is to become a pedestrian only area.

 

Would it look spectacular to have the bow of a ship overhanging in to Quay Street.

 

No dolphins required.

 

Attached File  20190131_1432091.jpg   1.03MB   0 downloads


  • 0

"With age comes wisdom .... and with wisdom comes the knowing when to avoid perfection!"


#29 muzled

muzled

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 613 posts

Posted 31 January 2019 - 02:05 PM

good lordy, how many people does it take to get this stuff through the bureaucracy, must be costing bazillions in paperwork alone!

 

https://1drv.ms/f/s!...FXwaGnSXOkg-aJ8

 

21 different people on the applicants evidence, all on how many hundreds of dollars an hour? 


  • 0

#30 waikiore

waikiore

    Advanced Member

  • Marine Forums Only
  • PipPipPip
  • 996 posts

Posted 31 January 2019 - 02:17 PM

Unfortunately Zozza someone signing that now will hold little water as soon as the Port is signed over to another 'owner'


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users