Jump to content

Queens Wharf Dolphins - Give us more ammo


Recommended Posts

OK, perhaps this thread should go as well. Any user has the option to "ignore" another, and not to see their posts. PLEASE, if you cant get along, go into your settings (top right) and look under ignore. Select any users you dont want to hear from.

Please stop this childish bickering.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, perhaps this thread should go as well.

 

 

No, don't let one 'person' trash what is very important to the future of Auckland boating.

 

Please just delete the posts that are not on topic or are unreadable.

 

Edit - how about any post that gets say 6 in the little red box bit, a Like button thing bottom right of each post, it gets deleted? Let the punters make the call if a post is worthy. That applies to ALL posts by ANY poster.

 

Then delete this post as well, Thanks.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Do not waste your time/effort trying to organise an on the water protest!!Yes Yes I will be there,200 people/vessels,come the day you look pretty pathetic with 6 vessels. Been down this road on a similar issue.

 

NZ are a pathetic bunch when it comes to protest movements,unless you engage rent a crowd.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz-exports/news/article.cfm?c_id=193&objectid=11421470

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone's point of view is OK (barring libel,obsenities  etc) Otherwise this website becomes just another censored PC outlet for the chosen few. NZ has already fallen under the mantra of a very controlled mass media and the internet won't be long before joining them. I like Crew because there are some intelligent contributors whose views I disagree with but its other peoples point of view that stimulate your mind. Leave them alone!

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a link that is very informative about the council plans for the mooring dolphins:

 

-      http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2017/11/GB_20171123_AGN_6765_AT_SUP.PDF

 

and here is a link to the council minutes where they agreed to proceed with the dolphins

 

 -      http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2017/11/GB_20171123_MIN_6765.PDF

 

There is interesting reading here:

 

My view is

The construction of mooring dolphins into the harbour should be opposed by all sailors using the harbour for the following reasons:-

  • Encroachment on the harbour waterway.  This will cut down the width of harbour available to yachting, and all other harbour traffic .
  • Safety. Two dolphins connected to Queens Wharf by a walkway will become a hazard to yachts. Especially in conditions of light wind and strong tide. Conceivably motor launches who are not paying attention as they go up or down the harbour could also run afoul of them.
  • Safety II: An even bigger hazard at night, no matter how well they may be lit as any lighting will be lost in the background  lighting coming from Auckland downtown.
  • Is it really needed. In other parts of the world large cruise ships are often anchored off the wharf area.
  • Course Modification.  Clubs will need to modify their harbour courses so that racing yachts are encouraged to keep away from the dolphins.

a.f.u

Link to post
Share on other sites

My view is

The construction of mooring dolphins into the harbour should be opposed by all sailors using the harbour for the following reasons:-

  • Encroachment on the harbour waterway.  This will cut down the width of harbour available to yachting, and all other harbour traffic .
  • Safety. Two dolphins connected to Queens Wharf by a walkway will become a hazard to yachts. Especially in conditions of light wind and strong tide. Conceivably motor launches who are not paying attention as they go up or down the harbour could also run afoul of them.
  • Safety II: An even bigger hazard at night, no matter how well they may be lit as any lighting will be lost in the background  lighting coming from Auckland downtown.
  • Is it really needed. In other parts of the world large cruise ships are often anchored off the wharf area.
  • Course Modification.  Clubs will need to modify their harbour courses so that racing yachts are encouraged to keep away from the dolphins.

a.f.u

Panuku have addressed all those issues and pretty much just pooh poohed them out of hand.

 

It's in an exclusion zone so recreational are never in there meaning none of the above is relevant. That is Panukus response and about the entirety of their inclusion of anything recreational. In the 1000's of pages and the 100's of $1000's spend, recreational warrant only 'We have sussed recreational and can mitigate any concerns', that is about it.

 

Stand by while I suss a photo, from Panukus own paperwork.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Safety. Two dolphins connected to Queens Wharf by a walkway will become a hazard to yachts. Especially in conditions of light wind and strong tide. Conceivably motor launches who are not paying attention as they go up or down the harbour could also run afoul of them.
  • Safety II: An even bigger hazard at night, no matter how well they may be lit as any lighting will be lost in the background  lighting coming from Auckland downtown.

 

A bit scratchy, extracted from a Panuku PDF.

 

Panukus response to the visibility issue raised by many people and organisations is 'we can mitigate the risk'. Their expert reckons putting a light on them would be more than adequate. Yet another expert who can not have ever been on Akl Harbour after dark

 

Here is the daylight view. It can be taken 2 ways or both if you're wise-

1 - It is damn fecking hard to see by everyone, even in daylight

2 - Panuku know the wharf extension will be an eye sore and sticks out a fecking long way which will annoy the sh*t out of all normal people so they have taken some effort to soften that by getting the real estate industry to take the photos of it in an effort to make it look insignificant.

 

wharf extension.jpg

 

 

 

Sort of apologies the the RE industry as I doubt they did do that but your is a bit of a master in creative photo taking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The light pollution coming into the harbour at night is pretty bad if you are looking to spot navigation bouts etc.  Having said that I keep well clear of that side dues to ferries.  My son and I already have a competition to see who can make out Bean Rock lighthouse first and that is in daylight!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some points that should clarify some issues that should have been made clear re this subject / topic.

 

The Queens dolphin project is solely a Council project, not Ports of Auckland. Best people to contact re plans and etc are Panuku Development Auckland.

 

Cruise vessels discussions and info.

 

The longest cruise ships likely to visit Auckland would be 360 metres. The QM2 was 348 and used to berth at Jellicoe. It was fine there until freight volumes increased significantly. She can’t moor in the harbour and tender so she no longer calls at Auckland, and as a consequence no longer visits New Zealand.

 

 

The dolphins would only be used by POAL staff to moor the vessel, not for passengers to dis/embark.

 

Stop using the propaganda, call it what it really is, a 90mt wharf extension.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cruise vessels discussions and info.

 

The longest cruise ships likely to visit Auckland would be 360 metres. The QM2 was 348 and used to berth at Jellicoe. It was fine there until freight volumes increased significantly. She can’t moor in the harbour and tender so she no longer calls at Auckland, and as a consequence no longer visits New Zealand.

 

 

 

Your information is inaccurate.

344m LoA 

Last year QM2 bypassed Auckland and berthed in Tauranga.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some useful links in regard to this topic for reference purposes and so factual facts like who owns the QUEENS wharf. The Auckland Council or the regional Council. One thing is for sure it's not POAL. A map link showing named QUEENS WHARF

 

What Regional Council?

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the issues I have is that no matter what physical form the extension takes is that the restricted area/exclusion zone for recreational boats moves another 90 metres out into the harbour. Is there a better way to meet the cruise ship needs without this happening?

 

As to the economic benefits, sorry but not everything should be about money. That approach has led us down a path that is not always the best for our society. Don't get me wrong, financial considerations are important but not always the most important. We don't have to chase every last dollar just because we can.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the economic benefits arguement is spurious.

The reports by 'economic analyists' are laughable for the lack of methodology, or any facts at all really.

Then look at the tourism sector as it is today. NZ is saturated with tourists, 4 million last year wasn't it? I would think its about time we started managing the 'quality' of tourists to avoid major detriment to our country. This is certainly a substantial issue in the South Island, both in the wilderness, and on the roads.

 

Anyway, who benefits from more tourists? You've got the tacky tourist shops around downtown, with foreign speaking shop workers. Not sure who owns those? Tourism Holdings control the vast majority of tourism revenue. Who owns that?

Independent tour operators, are they allowed access to the cruise ship punters? I know there are issues around access fees for the little guys, i.e. that aspect is controlled by the big tourism players. So in general, its not Mum and Dad kiwis that benefit from additional tourists.

 

Then, this is to allow bigger ships to berth. Its not as if no other ships aren't coming. So you need to demonstrate the marginal improvement in economic benefit. There is no shortage of cruise ships now, and the wharf is as it is.

 

Then there is CJ's point about balancing economic benefit with other considerations.

There are substantial benefits if you let me build apartments on Auckland Domain. I'd pay top dollar for the land, straight to Auckland Council (or Punuku, or however), The guys I employ will pay plenty of PAYE. The materials I use will pay loads of GST. The subbies I use will all be able to afford new fizz nasties, benefiting the marine industry. I would create thousands of jobs by building apartments on Auckland Domain. I might even make a tidy sum myself.

 

But you say, Auckland Domain is a key recreational area in the heart of our city, meeh, think of all the economic benefits if you forego that natural space and let me build apartments on it...(and all the money I'd make...)

 

The natural space of our harbours is extremely valuable. The continual encroachment by stealth is deeply concerning. It needs to be stopped.

Link to post
Share on other sites

download.jpg There now,Iwi should put a claim in saying they want their original foreshore,that'll stuff Poal/Panuka/Auckland Council,no more need for dolphins.

 

Have IWI been asked as the Waitemata has a special place in Maoridom history.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt close the thread.

 

it's not going anywhere. Looks like members with informative views or a different view on this topic can't post as they get red reputation arrows by two members. which amounts to censorship, intimidation to remain as a member and amounts to restricted freedom of speech, bullied so they can't  remain as a cntributing member.

No do not close the thread because one poster can not stay on topic.

 

Stay on topic please Rehab or you risk harming the harbour for all users.

Less paranoia would also not harm you.

 

I think the economic benefits arguement is spurious.

Agree. I've just been in Devo lunching with an old mate and the places is crawling with cruz ship passengers, 3 are in port today.

 

Hordes everywhere all carring a purse and a camera. Zero signs of any money changing hands bar Fullers (and i think they get a lot of that free) and cafes.

 

Panuku reckoned 15 million smackers for the wharf extension 3 years ago so that will be 20 to 25 million today and once that start there will be the inevitable cost blow out so lets add another 5 mill. 30 million bucks is a mother load for the ratepayers to spend so a pile of cafes can make a pile of lattes. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the economic benefits arguement is spurious.

 I would agree, we are having a bumper Cruise boat season this year. Sorry I can't confirm the number of visits of ships that lay "at anchor", this season as http://www.poal.co.nz/operations/schedules/cruise is continually updated. However between now and February there are only 6 visits for such vessels, Ovation of the Seas and Seabourn Encore. Hardly a compelling stat to support the installation of the dolphins.

  • 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...