Jump to content

Ports Expansion


Guest

Recommended Posts

I'm as much against port expansion as the rest of you but to be fair, I've had a look at google earth and the expansion plans don't really extend Bledisloe Wharf past a line from the tip to the Tank Farm to the tip of Ferguson Wharf.

Harbour.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

If this land was valued for non port activities, ie move the port,

It would significantly value up more than the present value would it not? That being the case, the return on investment is pathetic, even parking tickets provide more revenue.

Just look at the removal of the port function from Sydney harbour to Botany Bay , the subsequent proclamations that its the "worlds most beautiful harbour" the corresponding increase in tourists blah blah, and I know which way I would rather see our port go...

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm as much against port expansion as the rest of you but to be fair, I've had a look at google earth and the expansion plans don't really extend Bledisloe Wharf past a line from the tip to the Tank Farm to the tip of Ferguson Wharf.

 

Reasonable arguement Sundreamer, if that were the case.

Unfortunately they already have consent to extend Ferguson Wharf and are in the process of doing that right now, i.e. it is under construction.

Dear I say it, Tony Gibson is actually very cunning. they are doing the slowly slowly catchy monkey, where they applied for consent for the current expansion some time ago (10 years?) so the issue goes out of the public eye / people forget about it. One day a barge turns up and starts dumping sh*t into the harbour - all consented a decade ago - nothing you can do about that...

 

This time they slowly move the issue through Council agendas, do 'a little' public consulation, bury their evil plans deep in some 500 page document, get that signed off under some other pretext, then whamo - in ten years time a barge turns up and starts dumping sh*t into the harbour.

 

Before you knwo it everybody thinks the Waitemata was always a river and you need to go to a Museuam to see 'qaint old photos' of the Waitemata actually being a harbour...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ferguson isn't being extended north into the harbour, it's being widened to the East.

 

It's very near the finished size now.

C'mon KM, at least one straight fact, please.

According to the pretty picture on page A14 of yesterday's Herald is going to the North and the East. This is the colour black and white stripes area with the note "Expansion of Ferguson Wharf in Progress".

 

Now I know all journalists are seditious, are trying to bring down the government and are all anti big business, but every now and then they do report a fact.

 

And besides, my point is that they are currently extending Ferguson wharf, they already ahve a resource consent, and they snuck it in so long ago we all knew nothing about it. First I knew was a barge dropping sh*t in the harbour.

Gradual encrouchment, if they are slow enoguh, no-one will notice the harbour dissappear. All of a sudden one day we'll be able to walk from Queen Street to Devonport, and it will be dressed up as a new way of avoid public transport.

Link to post
Share on other sites

fergusson wharf - the northern most dolphin is the approx. limit northward then go east far enough to berth a 350m ship - that entire area is what is currently allowed.

 

BTW - history

1860 Foreshore Map.jpg

1920 Foreshore Map.jpg

1960 Foreshore Map.jpg

1972 Foreshore Map.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice plans Rigger, its amazing to see where the actual shore line used to be.

 

So, politics aside, from a purely logistical point of view, if they are only now extending Ferguson Wharf, and adding enough space to park another 350m ship, which correct me if I'm wrong, is very big - why do they need to extend all of these other wharfs?

 

Is it a case of the unionised wharfies not unloading ships fast enough so they need to park up more ships and just take there time unloading them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it a case of the unionised wharfies not unloading ships fast enough so they need to park up more ships and just take there time unloading them?

 

No, it is the volume of trade.

POAL is pretty efficient with the land it has, 77Ha versus over 200Ha for another of which some 70 is purely used for containers.

 

Take a look at http://www.transport.govt.nz/ourwork/TM ... FT021.aspx

Link to post
Share on other sites

I checked out of there when I read this in response to my picture

 

There’s some important background to this. Ports of Auckland are on recent record saying that their proposed port expansions would not block views. The pictures were produced to show quite clearly that views of the harbour entrance, Browns Island, and North Head are all going to be blocked. This has been verified in the Herald earlier this week. So, the images are accurate. And the loss of views is significant.

 

With respect to the views, more will be lost when cargo, cranes and ships are added. The pictures shown run on the conservative side in this respect.

 

Their picture is taken from Queens Wharf. Complaining that they won't be able to see Browns Island from Queens Wharf? Why the f*ck would you want or expect to? You won't be able to see f*ck all from Queens Wharf most of the time because it'll have a f**king great cruise ship alongside it. You want to see Rangitoto and Browns Island, get off your latte filled fat arse and go to a beach or get on a boat.

 

As said, this expansion will have little impact on "our" usage of the harbour and if you want to address the Ferguson Wharf expansion, I'm very sorry but the roll of Doctor Who has been filled so unless you have a time machine of your own then you're out of luck. The fact Ferguson Wharf is where it is proves unfortunately that nobody now or in the the future will have a time machine to go back and stop it. Get used to it :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, I've got it now, this is a GREAT idea, this should definitely go ahead.

 

So what we've got is a private company, a CCO, that might have a capacity constraint in the future, meaning in 20 or 30 years time they might not be able to make quite as much money as they could. So to alleviate that, we should let them remove the amenity of our environment.

 

Cause we don't really use that particular piece of the harbour, so we may as well fill it in, so this company can make just a bit more money some time in the future.

 

This is a FANTASTIC idea, we should extend this concept of using public amenity to make more money to all of the CCO's.

 

Mark Ford is going to be wrapped when this idea goes through. I mean the Mangarere poo ponds are almost at capacity, and Watercare are running around planning on spending approx $1.27 billion on upgrading the wastewater transfer and treatment capacity. If we can just use the public amenity, being the environment we all live and work in, to take up that extra capacity we can save loads of money :thumbup:

 

Now if this concept of just using the environment when you need more capacity goes through, Watercare won't need to spend that $1.27 billion on the wastewater and can just pay that directly to Lennie to fund the train set - brilliant thinking :clap: :clap:

 

PS just don't tell anyone we're putting raw effluent back into the harbours and we'll be fine - in fact, lets do a study on how the eels are suddenly doing really well :wink: and maybe we can get an award for our environmental efforts :lol: :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
PS just don't tell anyone we're putting raw effluent back into the harbours and we'll be fine

 

You mean leave it is like it is now? Most people don't realise how often the combined sewer network overflows - some Herne bay ones overflow in as little as 2mm of rain!

 

Anyway, back to the port. Just remember that every $ the port makes is a $ they don't have to collect from the ratepayers!

Link to post
Share on other sites
PS just don't tell anyone we're putting raw effluent back into the harbours and we'll be fine

 

You mean leave it is like it is now? Most people don't realise how often the combined sewer network overflows - some Herne bay ones overflow in as little as 2mm of rain!

 

Anyway, back to the port. Just remember that every $ the port makes is a $ they don't have to collect from the ratepayers!

 

 

I doubt very much that extra profits from the port now or in the future will have a positive effect on my rates bill each year - that is optimism at its best.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty short sighted. At what stage do you realise that you actually need to extrapolate out 100 years - not 20.

 

In 100 years will the proposed expansion be sufficient? No.

 

Therefore is a stop-gap of reclaiming more land a long-term answer? Again, no.

 

So at what point do we start planning long term and stop nip-on-ing our way through situations just to see us through a short term problem? When something as important as our cityscape is concerned shouldn't we be building for future generations not creating short-term capacity in the illusion it helps ease rates?

 

Bloody stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The dividend declared to Auckland Council Investments Limited for 2011/12 was $20.1m, 11.7% up on the 2010/11 dividend of 18m.

 

Is that it? That is unbelievable :oops: :oops:

I thought the port was a strategic asset :sick:

But that is just embarrassing :shifty:

 

We get $32.7mil revenue from city parking, plus another $7.2 mil in parking fines.

 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=10879173

 

So we get $40 mil of revenue from car parking, and all the port can produce is $20 mil - no wonder Tony Gordon is so desperate to screw anything and anyone to make some more money. What an embarrassment. Car parking is twice as lucrative than the port :!:

 

The answer is obvious, close the port and turn it into car parks. That would also avoid the risk of having a Rena on Rangitoto....

 

That sort of poxy return does not justify trashing the heart of our harbour.

 

To put it in context, Watercare are preparing to spend $800 mil on the central interceptor - a bloody big poo pipe to fix High n Fibre's wee poo problem in Herne Bay. They're also going to spend a similar amount on the Northern Interceptor, another bloody big poo pipe going from Hibsonville to Rosedale.

 

They are doing that to protect the harbour from poos. If they didn't do that they could pay AC a dividend of about $1.6 billion extra. Kind of puts into perspective POAL revenue growth of $2mil / year to trash the same piece of harbour, doesn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The answer is obvious, close the port and turn it into car parks. That would also avoid the risk of having a Rena on Rangitoto....

 

Apparently someone looked into the return they could get by building apartments on the wharves - returns were projected to be better than car parks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, a carpark building at Ferg will sure improve the views, esp for those walking down Gladstone Rd or having a dip in Judges Bay... that's a GREAT idea.. Scenic 4 5 and 6? Awesome!! I watched Princess get built...enough of that thank you very much...trust them to give an open space...???! God save us all.

 

All I can tell you, is that thank Christ there is no stadium on B2... I bet half the people bleating about loss of precieved view are the same ones rooting for a stadium put in the the wrong place at the wrong time, which would still be under construction. You think a crane blocks your view of a rabbit invested island just off the river? Try a caketin, rusting after 2 years, but 3 times the size right smack between the Rose Gardens and Stanely point...hows that for a view killer...not to mention a wind shadow of MASSIVE proportions.

 

I wouldn't give the chewing gum off my shoe to Auckland city council

Link to post
Share on other sites
To put it in context,
A council owned monopoly with next to no accountability that can do what it likes, when it likes and charge whatever it likes is a good comparison with a very in the public eye company that faces very stiff real world competition and has to work within real world financial constraints.

 

If Watercare gave the council a 1.6 billion dollar dividend you'd be bleating louder than Russell Norman in a BP shareholders meeting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...