Guest Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 Rain has stopped play/work for the day so thought I would attempt to gauge the sailing communities opinion about the Ports of Aucklands amended plans to expand into the Waitemata harbour. I am in no way a hydraulic tidal flow specialist but strongly object to the intended reclamation and view the proposal as having the very real potential to severely alter the tidal flow within the confines of the harbour.What about the negative visual and aesthetic impact along with the physical affects. Any one else concerned about the harbour being irreparably altered to suit the Ports plans to expand?. Link to post Share on other sites
Steve Pope 243 Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 Against!! Rain has stopped play/work for the day so thought I would attempt to gauge the sailing communities opinion about the Ports of Aucklands amended plans to expand into the Waitemata harbour.I am in no way a hydraulic tidal flow specialist but strongly object to the intended reclamation and view the proposal as having the very real potential to severely alter the tidal flow within the confines of the harbour.What about the negative visual and aesthetic impact along with the physical affects. Any one else concerned about the harbour being irreparably altered to suit the Ports plans to expand?. Link to post Share on other sites
otto 31 Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 Against!! snap Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 No fecking way. What a short sited thing to do. Link to post Share on other sites
Adrianp 120 Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 I'm not totally opposed as every $1 of Profit made by the Ports is a $1 the Auckland Council doesn't have to collect from ratepayers. Also, I'm guessing the majority of NZ exports (and the majority of NZs income from these) go through either Auckland or Tauranga ports, so we need these ports to be as efficient as possible. We'll all be racing in the same water, so it's just a few more taticial challenges! Link to post Share on other sites
Fish 0 Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 Strongly against. This is one issue that might actually get me motivated to go and do something. There is significant amounts of flat commercial land around the port, its just cheaper to reclaim some of the most widely used water in the country than negotiate a lease with existing land owners, Ngai something. If the port can't afford the commercial going rate for the land they shouldn't be in the heart if the CBD. I know a place with acres of flat land suitable for shipping containers, just north of Ruakaka. Happens to be right next to a deep water port too, its even on google maps. Marsden something... Link to post Share on other sites
banaari 27 Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 Against!! Snap! Do not understand how further trashing the harbour is even being raised as a possibility. "Bean counters" & "suits" seems the only possible explanation. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 I'm with Fish. Link to post Share on other sites
wheels 543 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 The current Port is ugly enough. I wouldn't mind if it was shifted, but I don't know the area well enough yet to say shift it to..#### The North head area through into opposite the Navy yard is nuts enough now on a busy weekend. Bottle necking that area even further is going to make it plain rediculous. Actually while we are on the subject and I mentioned Navy. That is one outfit that could be shifted to anywhere in NZ. The Land is worth a fortune as well. Link to post Share on other sites
rigger 47 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 On the Northport point, anyone notice the marina that limits the expansion of the wharves there. North Port currently has 585m of berths excluding the tanker berths. Looks like they might get close to 1800m of berths (excl tanker berths). The rail track currently cannot cope with high cube 40 foot containers. The road to Auckland is a major work in progress POAL has ~2800m of berth excluding Wynyard, Princes, Queens & Marsden Wharves They have consent for another (my memory might be out a bit) 300 metre berth + extension on fergusson. Would hate to see Bledisloe extended further. Who will ultimately pay for the rail / rod upgrades?? Link to post Share on other sites
floatsome 0 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 I believe there are super low carriages that can accommodate 40HC's ? I would like to know who is going to pay for Aucklands roads With the increase in freight. Keypad road is just about shagged again. Also, no mention of the extra dredging they will need to do for the larger ships required... Who ultimately decides on the planning permission for the extensions, is it Council or RMA etc? Link to post Share on other sites
Fish 0 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 On the Northport point, anyone notice the marina that limits the expansion of the wharves there.North Port currently has 585m of berths excluding the tanker berths. Looks like they might get close to 1800m of berths (excl tanker berths). The rail track currently cannot cope with high cube 40 foot containers. The road to Auckland is a major work in progress POAL has ~2800m of berth excluding Wynyard, Princes, Queens & Marsden Wharves They have consent for another (my memory might be out a bit) 300 metre berth + extension on fergusson. Would hate to see Bledisloe extended further. Who will ultimately pay for the rail / rod upgrades?? Thanks for the numbers Rigger, one way to take those is to conclude Northport needs the wharf expansions, not Auckland On the question of rail, this is very much chicken and egg. Low slung flat cars do enable the shipping containers to fit through the rail tunnels. The FNDC mayoral candidate that lost the last election was advocating their use. The rail lines across the country are poorly maintained due to lack of freight volume. Increasing rail freight volume will fix this. On the roading side, the motorway to Warkworth is well into the design phase. This means there are flat and fast roads between Auckland and Marsden Pt, excluding the Brywnderwinns, which admittedly is steep and winding on the south side. Yes there will be an additional financial cost to bringing fright from Northport. That needs to be assessed agains the cost of taking up Auckland Harbour, the environmental factors of which don't show on balance sheets. Unfortunately, the decision makers are also POAL shareholders Link to post Share on other sites
Fish 0 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 On a related aspect, I'd really like to know how many navigational / ship movement near misses there have been recently at POAL. There have been two rumours referred to on crew.org but only subtlety and without confirmed fact. Tauranga have had some good ones reported in the media, but nothing reported from Auckland. It's expected things happen, we just don't hear about them. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 I read somewhere that repairing and maintaining a road is about 5x as expensive as same for as a railroad - can anyone confirm? Plus roads are made from oil, so expect the price to go up. During the discussion on sale of SOE's somebody here posted a link to a pdf which was a study of the financial benefits of investing in infrastructure. (tuffyluffy???) If those numbers were to be believed we should be all over building rail services right now - they would more than pay for themselves over time. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/wr-opening ... -go-108818 Kinda sums it up Link to post Share on other sites
Fish 0 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 From the nbr article above. You've got to think, when NZs most right ring newspaper thinks its a bad idea, well, maybe its a bad idea? 1.3% ROI The port, 100% owned by the council, claims a 6% return on investment based on an annual profit of $24 million from equity of $401 million. The claim is nonsense. The port values its land at just $260 million and its wharves at just $147 million, much less than $1000 a square metre. The truth is its land is the most valuable in the country. The council itself values nearby land at about $3000 a square metre. The Ferry Building land, adjacent to the port, is valued at over $10,000 a square metre. There is no doubt that the true value of all the port’s land, which is roughly the same size as the business area around Queen Street, is over $1.7 billion. Were this accurately recorded in the port’s balance sheet, its return on investment would be a measly 1.3%. Ratepayers could get nearly triple that buying risk-free 10-year government bonds. None of this stops the port from brazenly demanding more from ratepayers. Its current expansion plans demand ratepayers invest $1 billion in new roads (including a monstrosity through Grafton Gully that would cut Parnell off from the CBD), $700 million for triple-track rail and over $300 million to dredge the harbour. None of this would appear on its balance sheet. Ratepayers would just wear it. Link to post Share on other sites
Bad Kitty 252 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Move the port & the Navy. Or large parts of both more realistically. The Navy will be dealing with any potential threats from? the Pacific, North, Asia, etc. or penguins from Antarctica? Further North the better really. As for the Ports, keep expanding on NZ's most valuable land, while trashing one of the best harbours in the world? FFS! Link to post Share on other sites
wheels 543 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 So would the expansion be landfilled or is it a pile foundation with concrete over the top so as water flows underneath. Because if it is Landfilled, then the result would be a tidal current that would be horrific at full flow and become dangerous as well as hugely ruff in wind against tide situations. It's bad enough at times now. But that aside, imagine trying to move your boat against the flow. It would be like the channel into Whangarei. Link to post Share on other sites
Fish 0 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 So would the expansion be landfilled or is it a pile foundation with concrete over the top so as water flows underneath. Because if it is Landfilled, then the result would be a tidal current that would be horrific at full flow and become dangerous as well as hugely ruff in wind against tide situations. It's bad enough at times now. But that aside, imagine trying to move your boat against the flow. It would be like the channel into Whangarei. Land filled. POAL have a world leading innovative process for stabilising dredgings with lime to make a fill of sufficient bearing strength. They are very pleased with th process. There is a barge working off the current expansion right now if you want to go for a nosy. Link to post Share on other sites
Terry B 71 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Good editorial in the granny this morning................ http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/ ... d=10878155 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.