The council’s City Centre Integration Group (CCIG) – the team charged with turning all of the various visions and plans for the city centre into a reality – are wanting the council to endorse their strategy for the city’s Central Wharves which will see some significant changes to how the wharves are used. The central wharves are essentially the finger wharves that jut out into the harbour and include Princes Wharf, Queens Wharf, Captain Cook Wharf and Marsden Wharf.
It was first signalled that CCIG were looking at the wharves in the Downtown Framework in September last year and at the time they said more work needed to be done to make the best use of the space.
Before going into the proposal some background. The core issue the strategy is trying to address is growth that’s expected to occur in ferries, cruise ships, public space/events and freight. All of those cause congestion not just on land but also on the water too. More specifically on each:
- Ferries – They say ferry patronage and the number of ferries plying the harbour are expected to grow by around 50% over the next decade. That means more space is needed for ferries and even if the location is left where it is will also need to be reconfigured to handle those extra volumes.
- Cruise Ships – The number of cruise ships visiting keeps increasing and along with that the cruise ships themselves are getting bigger. They say there’s now a need to be able to accommodate 350m long vessels (Queen Mary 2 which has visited a few times is 345m long and has had to tie up at the freight wharves). That means to keep cruise ships here one or more of the finger wharves need to be extended. This is also apparently not just important for Auckland but for NZ as a whole as if ships can’t stop in Auckland they won’t visit elsewhere in NZ either. It’s also not just the cruise ships themselves but also all of the provisioning that goes along with that. As an example they say one ship carrying 3,000 people on a 7-day cruise needs 6,500kg of fish, 26,500kg of meat, 27,500 of fruit & vegetables and 17,000 litres of milk that all need to be loaded aboard. To add one more issue the cruise ships generally like to leave port right in the afternoon peak when the ferries are at their busiest putting added pressure on that water space.
- Public Space – All of the council’s plans call for the waterfront to become more accessible and friendly to the public. Queens Wharf was brought from the ports ($40 million) for exactly this reason. Of course because Queens Wharf is also used for cruise ships it becomes anything but publicly accessible during many days in summer – just when people most want to use it. The image below highlights one of the problems with much of the wharf effectively closed off to the public.
- Freight – Captain Cook and Marsden wharves are currently used by the port for the storage of bulk goods and primarily imported cars – many of which eventually head out of Auckland. The ports obviously want to continue and grow that. I’m not convinced that the storage of large bulk items like cars is necessarily the best use such prime waterfront land.
- Other – In addition to the uses above there’s also increasing demand for use of various wharves by tourist operators and by the marine sector in relation to super yacht visits.
Moving back to the Downtown Framework, the document suggested four possible future scenarios for the uses of the central wharves. As part of the strategy that was expanded to six options. All options involve the extension of Halsey Wharf at Wynyard and the need to retain the ability for cruise ships at Princes wharf for when there are three in town at once. Further all but one involve the removal of Marsden Wharf. The six options that were evaluated were:
- An extension to Queens Wharf, operationally it would be the same as what we have now.
- Shifting the Ferry terminal to Captain Cook Wharf which would see Queens Wharf dedicated to cruise ships and still be the public space too.
- Extending Bledisloe Wharf substantially with enough space for two large cruise ships end to end.
- Extending Captain Cook Wharf and shifting all cruise operations there. They say it would also require some wharf extension and reclamation for Bledisloe Wharf which the port claim is needed to compensate for almost 3ha lost from no longer having access to Captain Cook and Marsden Wharves.
- A shorter extension of Bledisloe Wharf with cruise ships shared between there and Queens Wharf
- An extension of Princes Wharf to handle longer ships and retaining the use of Queens Wharf.
This list was then narrowed down to options 1, 3 and 4. The remaining options were then evaluated on a range of criteria and compared in a matrix. Unfortunately I currently only have a low quality paper copy of this until the presentation goes online however it is clear from it that option 1 was by far the worst with option 4 the best.
Option 4 is shown below.
CCIG say the benefits of this option is it enables two new public spaces either side of Queens Wharf (the breastworks between Princes and Queens would be extended). These areas would be the replacement for public space lost from the sale of QE2 square. Queens Wharf would become dedicated to people use or for events along with a reconfigured ferry terminal with 12 end loading berths. The downside in my view is the extension of Bledisloe Wharf. I get the feeling that the Ports of Auckland are trying to use whatever methods they can to get extensions happening.
Incidentally I and many others have been saying that Captain Cook is the best location for the cruise ship terminal for some time. The last time it came up it was suddenly shot down by Len Brown before it could be investigated.
The one big unknown in all of this is just what it will cost. I can’t see the extension of Captain Cook wharf being cheap nor the works to improve the waterfront for more people space. I also can’t see the councillors being all that supportive of a strategy that endorses the extension of Bledisloe Wharf but we’ll have to wait to see till Thursday.
Processing...
In general much of this is rational, Cruise Ships to Cap’t Cook is great instead of car storage there. I am however very concerned at how buried Queens Wharf is becoming. It should remain the longest wharf, extend out further than any reclamation; this is the key north-south axis, to have any point as our premier public space in the Harbour to must offer views up and down the waterway, to Browns Island, North Head, the channel. How can it be the ceremonial seaward welcome point if vessels rounded North Head aren’t even visible?
So the problem is that this announcement now is a stalking horse for PoAL’s drive to have the right to keep filling in the harbour without much input from the Council or the public. Currently they have to apply for consent for reclamation as ‘non-complying’ activity, they are lobbying the Council extremely hard to change that to a ‘discretionary’ activity under the Unitary Plan. The vote is in secret on Thursday morning. This is not about whether more reclamation can ever happen or not, but rather through what process, they are currently undertaking reclamation under the current rules, so it’s hardly impossible as it is. It is very hard to see why the Council should abandon its stewardship of this important role.
There are a lot of claims and misinformation being made about possible future demand and the importance of having all the nations cars arrive and parked on this waterfront to the city’s economy [it IS the cars that take up the most absurd amount of space]. No rational discussion is happening about the future of port use, and the Council’s ownership of PoAL seemingly gives it less influence than were its regulatory role not compromised by its appetite for dividends. Note PoAL pays zero rates. Land-side transport issues are being waved away with vagueness. There is more to this than is apparent in the ‘central Waves strategy’ announcement.
Hi Patrick
Just to correct a few errors.
1. We DO pay rates. We also pay dividends which reduce the rate burden for others, $66.6m last year. We even pay the Heart of the City rate, so we’re members, which is ironic…
2. The current reclamation consent (at Fergusson) was gained under the previous planning rules which were ‘discretionary’, not ‘non-complying’. The rules were made more difficult under the Unitary Plan, we are seeking a return to the status quo ante. If the rules are not changed back to discretionary and are left as non-complying, we would be the only port in the country with reclamation rules this strict. EVERY other port has ‘discretionary’ status.
3. Discretionary status does not mean approval to reclaim. It requires a full resource consent with plenty of public and council input.
4. The vast majority of the cars that come through Auckland port are for Auckland and its hinterland.
Regards
Matt Ball
Ports of Auckland
Hi Matt, thanks,
Does PoAL pay rates on all it property or just some?
All
Hi Patrick, sorry I must apologise, I spoke too quickly. I’ve double checked and actually no, we don’t pay rates on all our land. Areas deemed ‘transport corridors’ are exempt.
Regards
Matt
Hardly encourages efficient use of existing space, no?
KLK – I can promise you it isn’t council rates that spurred us to become more efficient, it’s much more to do wtih delivering great customer service and a decent return to our shareholder. And our desire to be the best container port in NZ, of course 😉
Matt
Matt from POAL,
Can you clarify this statement please:
“The vast majority of the cars that come through Auckland port are for Auckland and its hinterland.”
We have read that 90% of the nation’s cars imported come through POAL wharves, and you are saying the vast majority (i.e. at least 50%) of all cars imported via POAL stay in Auckland when we only have 34% of the population?
I know that Aucklanders love their cars, but that would mean every Aucklander would have to import/own twice the number of cars compared to the rest of the country per-capita to make that statement true.
So I think that “”vast majority” figure is wrong. And what do you mean by “hinterland”? Auckland province or something else? Can you clarify this statement with some more exact numbers?
And as per “we don’t pay rates on all our land. Areas deemed ‘transport corridors’ are exempt.”
What percentage of POAL land is deemed to be “transport corridors” and thus exempt from rates? 5%? 10%? 50%?
Can you indicate as a percentage of the $160m cruise ships “bring to” the Auckland economy, how much of that as a rough %age is charged by POAL for all the port services provided to the cruise ship industry as a whole over a typical cruise season.
Thanks.
Good questions, waiting for an answer.
The key issue is that the amount of bulk cargo at the Port is significantly increasing.
To manage the future and move this cargo to and from the wharves requires much more efficient road and rail access. It is just not imported cars.
In recent months we have seen a significant number of additional trucks travelling between Glenbrook and the Port, delivering iron sands for export and collecting imported coal for the steel mill. These are being handled on the eastern of Bledisloe. One truck & trailer unit can be loaded every 4 minutes at Glenbrook with Iron Sand for export.
Bulk cargo has significantly increase transport movements to and from the port. Fortunately Ports of Auckland have not grown the log trade opportunity.
Note Bledisloe is now handling all the cement road traffic moved from Westhaven as a result of our desire to have more port access adjacent to the Wynyard Quarter.
So do we increase the motorway to carry more commercial traffic or do we build a dedicated fast freight railway line from the Port to Wiri?
I favour the dedicated freight rail line, but I cannot see that in the transport plan.
The other option is to move more bulk cargo to Marsden Point and Tauranga, but that means less income for the Council.
Don yes. The land-side transport issue is huge. We are neither planning port use in a rational and co-ordinated way; instead the policy is for competition, ie cats in a sack, nor investing in transport strategically to cope with the resultant imbalances, particularly in rail. In general exports leave from Tauranga, and imports arrive in Auckland. 90% of the nation’s cars. Below is from the recent NZIER report:
Note not only the proportion of vehicles but especially that this is measured by weight! Cars have a higher space to weight ratio than say cement, especially in a silo, or of course containers 6 high. Hey no one wants a multi-stroey parking building down there, but it’s probably preferable to filling the harbour in…! Anyaw the previous PwC report said that goods imported or exported from/to Auckland through Tauranga have thew same value to the Auckland economy [though not of course to the PoAL balance sheet, and thence its owner; AC]. And that value needs to be balanced against the additional land transport burdens and dis-benefit of harbour destruction.
Why on earth is this country exporting ironsand rather than processing it here?
I know this one!
‘Cos its a cash crop and we’re a 3rd world economy who exports commodity cash crops for short term gain while the country misses out in the longer term by not value-adding to these exports that we end up buying back as stuff transformed into finished goods for more money than we got when we sold it?
Because it is more profitable to export semi-processed ironsand than steel.
Only because Glenbrook runs on mostly renewable electricity and emits less direct and indirect CO2 per tonne as it does so, while overseas smelters invariably use coal and other fossil fuels and thus emit way more direct in indirect CO2 per tonne of steel made.
Alas, you are sadly misinformed. The process at Glenbrook uses significantly more coal per tonne of iron produced than a conventional blast furnace.
Another Think Big project failure with long term probems due to poor design and implementation?
Or is it an example of the current mill owners simply taking short term profits over longer term value add?
How do you propose adding value to ironsand? Building another steel mill just for export business? It’s a capital-intensive, energy-intensive and carbon-intensive business and if the ratio of added value to added cost is not better than the competitors wherein lies the attraction?
With world prices for conventional iron ore dropping dramatically I would be surprised if exports of ironsand out of Auckland continue for much longer.
Trying to figure this out from a point of view of taking the devonport ferry – I think the current route will barely scrap past the end of the new wharf!
It wouldn’t affect the ferry route. Matt Ball, Ports of Auckland.
This to me was a far more telling document regarding the problem with development on Auckland’s ‘Waterfront’:
https://twitter.com/TransportBlog/status/564603080990134273
Namely, as far as the Council and local authorities are concerned, the ‘Waterfront’ is limited to area in the Central City near the bars, apartments and restaurants. It would be nice to see a strategy for ‘A more legible Waterfront’ acknowledging the existence of the huge stretch of Waterfront to the East and the central beaches. Either we’re supposedly pretending that everything is tickety boo along Tamaki Drive all of a sudden, or that the largest area of actual water frontage somehow doesn’t count as a ‘waterfront’.
City centre master plan………
The reality of Queens Wharf is it’s becoming increasingly commercial, both to shipping and traffic and so has become increasingly closed off to the public. Therefore Captain Cook Wharf becoming a hub for cruise liners can’t come soon enough.
But I am against anymore reclamation anywhere else, our harbour is wrecked enough as it is. It appears the intent of the non elected officialdom is to pave their way across to Devonport for container handling. I’m sure the carrot would be cycling lanes to the CBD but that ain’t going to do it for me!
Whilst I appreciate the revenue PoA provide ($66.6m last year) that’s a drop in the bucket compared to Council income as a whole. Isn’t that matched by Parking Fines, or have I got it hideously wrong? Anyway… I’m sure whatever revenue/jobs PoA provide could be more than matched by moving them out (Marsden or Tauranga really do make sense, more so than trucking containers across Auckland to be emptied at Wiri/Southdown) and replacing them some carefully planned medium density housing/commercial developments (you know, the kind of live/work/play environments that work so well in other cities) (no, I don’t mean high rise up and down the wharves).
This is not a new idea (moving the port), and one many others have espoused. And yet council refuse to discuss it in a big way. Len keeps going on about a working harbour being the tradition of Auckland. Sure, but cities evolve and there’s no real reason to keep our container port when (given the overall size of the NZ economy) it could just as easily be sited elsewhere. Until we, as a city, have that conversation nothing will change.
Oops, strike that. While we’re not having that conversation the PoA are pushing ahead with their expansion plans, meaning that by the time we do have that conversation it will be too late/expensive to change.
“…replacing them some carefully planned medium density housing/commercial developments”
I agree that urban land is scarce and should generally, although not always, be put to its highest and best use. It’s likely (although not certain) that converting port land to housing and offices would result in some development profits.
However, I haven’t seen any analysis of the *time lag* associated with port redevelopment. The experience of Wynyard Quarter suggests that it can take a while to ready the land, line up developers, etc. Releasing the entirety of the port land for housing and offices could easily flood the market. Releasing it in stages is *roughly* what the current plan envisages – although people obviously disagree about the size and timing of the “stages”.
A related consideration is around the timing of funds. In principle, you could use development profits to fund infrastructure for relocated port activities. In practice, you’d have to build that infrastructure first, before releasing and developing land in the existing port. This could create some difficult-to-managing financing issues.
Moving the port should be classed as Infrastructure of Natuonal Significance. This would certainly need to be done prior or in conjunction to the transferring of the business but given John Key’s love affair with housing in the Waikato could be a win win on all counts.
I have a real difficulty seeing what the downsides of moving the port are.
In addition to any profits from the property development side, there are numerous positive benefits in terms of the city generally. Open space for an imtensifying population, reduction in traffic volumes both rail and road to that area of Auckland, a sutainable location for future port growth, jobs to the regions; the list goes on.
If we can afford to spend a billion on “the holiday hi way ( aka The Road to Nowhere) then we can surely afford to get robust rail infrastructure all the way to Tauranga and all the economic benefits it would provide.
Here’s a bit of work we commissioned to look at where you could put an alternative port:
https://hearings.aupihp.govt.nz/online-services/new/files/Ovvcmnuqqq48u3nDyzHjLIcib9bkcErrjfwAdIOpcVOv
This report from MoT also provides interesting reading on the impact of bigger ships and potential hub ports:
http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/future-freight-scenarios-study/
Well here’s what I think is a sensible view:
The Port Study concludes that reclamation is required if POAL is to be permitted “unconstrained growth” to meet all potential demand, especially for non-containised imports, of which the most space hungry are cars.
No consideration of transport demand, environmental, or social effects resulting from the “unconstrained growth’ is provided in the Study.
This short term view risks incremental reclamations, and will impact future generations. Is this what Aucklander’s want?
A long term full study considering all economic, environmental and social impacts should be undertaken before any decisions are taken. Particularly including land-side transport needs and costs
Maintaining a non-complying status makes the best sense as there needs to be stronger test before reclamation is to be carried out so it’s best Councillors to take a cautionary approach. This will ensure other factors such as the wider environmental and social effects can be taken into consideration before any reclamation is permitted.
But the report says, on page 2, “We find there are no significant road or rail transport capacity contstraints caused by port expansion or that are likely to constrain port expansion.” Section 2.3 looks specifically at ‘transport link capacity’. The phrase “unconstrained growth” doesn’t appear anywhere in the report.
Yeah, assuming Aucklanders are delighted with having an endlessly increasing number of 18 wheelers driving through our city. It is disingenuous for either PoAL or NZIER to assert that there are no transport capacity constraints, this is just an assumption without any in depth analysis. In fact the whole report is pretty light all round with a lot of vague arm wavy statements like that one. How many trucks is too many? Can both road and rail take an infinity of growth without stress or further investment?
here, for anyone interested: http://nzier.org.nz/publication/port-study-2
Considering the the poor job NZIER has done on traffic projections, as recently exposed by this blog, I have little faith in POAL’s Post Study if it is underpinned by NZIER analysis.
I find this comment on the start of section 2.3 bottom of page 17 very telling:
“Import and export TEUs (Twenty Foot Equivalent Units – i.e. how many in 20ft container “measure” – 1x40ft container = 2 TEUs, 1 20ft container = 1 TEU) are distributed from the Port by truck or by train. Of the total 968,741 TEUs moved through the Port (container and general cargo wharves), 69,585* of these were moved by rail. This equates to a transport distribution mode share of approximately 7% of TEUs moved by rail and 72% moved by road on trucks, with the remainder trans-shipped. *Source – Ports of Auckland 2014 Annual Review.”
So Rail accounts for 7% of the total, and could increase by a factor of 3 times over that now without changing locos or wagon configurations, so at best rail could carry 21% of the TEUs moved to or from the port.
And yet NZIER say that the “road network” can’t carry increases without constraint because:
“The potential capacity (of road transport) constraint is therefore growth in background traffic rather than increases in heavy vehicles coming from the Port.
It is likely that the level of background traffic growth will erode journey time reliability on The Strand and Stanley Street at SH16 for Port-related freight traffic in the foreseeable future.”
What about the fact that for every truck movement “out”, there is a matching movement in of a truck going to pick up (or drop off) a container?
Few trucks will do a “double” of a container drop-off and a container pick up (or v.v.) in the same journey, so for every “in” or “out” container movement there are two truck trips – one in, the other out again.
So for each extra TEU the port handles the truck traffic becomes two trips.
So yes the growth on the road network is hardly unconstrained as NZIER themselves claim then contradict. Even if the port growth is managed, truck traffic growth won’t be. As even with 30% of TEUs moved on the rail, that still leaves the majority of TEUs not on rail.
and lastly:
“General cargo space is more constrained; particularly berth space as ships get larger. The Port has a recent record of productivity gains that have resulted in more efficient use of wharf space.
***However, at this time it has not found a more effective solution for vehicle storage and processing.***
There are ways of continuing to manage emerging capacity constraints, ***before reclamation is undertaken***, but they may not always be commercially attractive. [unattractive to whom I ask, POAL? or the AC/Ratepayers of Auckland?]”
So, POAL can manage with what they have, out to at least 2024, and more likely to 2035, provided they get efficient about the wharves as they have done in the past.
And that specifically calls out cars as a problem, as they represent 45% of the import across the wharves, so thats the elephant in the room, right there.
Greg, that’s 45-% by weight, way, way, way, much more by space. The reclamation drive is entirely about car importation. Let’s consider not importing 90% of the county’s cars through downtown Auckland, shall we?
Patrick, noted that thats by “tonnage” not “volumetric” tonnage so the “space” used by cars is way more than 45%.
But I have no problem with 90% of the cars coming in via Auckland, its the **storing** of them on land at the port which is the actual problem here, not the importation.
So, what POAL need to do is work with KR and MPI and customs, to get the cars off the wharf into a “biosecure and bonded area” down at Wiri or elsewhere in a cost effective and efficient method, then we don’t need acres (or Hectares) of wharf space to store all those cars.
They should come off the boat, and ideally are driven straight onto a car train at the port, whose next stop is Wiri, or at worst, driven to a short term parking area on Wharf before they hit the train to Wiri shortly after.
Once at Wiri they are then unloaded from the train to the holding area. POAL and KR need multiple car trains that meet the car boats, so as one fills up and goes, the next one is loading, while a 3rd is ready and the 4th is coming back from Wiri for another load.
If MPI is worried about fumigation and the like – have that done at the port of embarcation not arrival, like we do with all the fruit we import.
If there are no transport constraints to growing the port, why is the port pushing so hard to have the grafton gulley motorway extended all the way to the port? If there are no constraints surely this is not needed?
Why did POAL push so hard for the eastern motorway if there are no transport constraints?
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK0405/S00211/ports-of-auckland-supports-the-eastern-expressway.htm
It would be a shame to lose the ports entirely from the waterfront. The ports have been a important part of Auckland’s history, something we don’t have much of, so I think we need to be careful to balance the needs of the ports and the recreational needs of the city. Although I cringe at the idea of reclamation of land further out into the harbour. Would it be worth while moving car shipping operations (as it seems this take up a lot of the ports space) to either a divided port facility built elsewhere in one of Auckland’s harbours or subcontacted out to another port operation? Would be a big compromise for the ports as I imagine running a divided port would not be ideal, and subcontacting out would lead to reduced profit margins.
I certainly don’t want to lose the port at all. But I do think we need much better planning of this vital infrastructure for the maximum benefit of the whole nation.
While a 8 storey stack of containers can easily be moved or removed from the waterfront, same can’t be said of an 8 storey car parking facility on the wharves. Once its built, its like the Scene apartments – there to stay.
Need to find a better option for car storage than prime wharf space or a car park building on it. Especially as they represent 45% of the import wharf movements.
Not sure if rail is the most efficient way to do it either using current techniques as too much handling of the cars is needed to get them from A to B.
Maybe we need some fully enclosed “drive on”/”drive off” “continuous inside rail wagons like they use at the Channel Tunnel portals (imagine a much longer, stripped down EMU, with fully end to end access inside – fine for moving cars down it during loading/unloading and as long as cars keep off the “joint” between carriages won’t be a problem during motion either).
So that as cars come off the ship, they are driven right onto a rail car train, car parked next to previous car, handbrake on, left in gear – not strapped down 6 ways from sunday, then when its full thats moved to Wiri and the cars driven off the other end of the train in a continuous movement until train all empty.
If the current rail tunnel under Tamaki Drive is too small, it would be cheaper to demolish it and rebuild it lower/wider/less bendy than extend any wharf a few more Ha to handle single storey car storage duties.
Also, if using trains, need some proper quiet locos, not these noisy bloody diesels KR use now to haul the trains, and a third (and maybe 4th) main between ports and Wiri so that trains can run any time without impacting residents along the tracks or the PT rail users on the EMUs.
All up, this would be a much better investment for NZ Inc, KR Inc, AC Inc and POAL Inc to do than this piecemeal f*cking about we have going on now, where each party wants the others to pick up the tab for their lack of planning.
Lastly, while cruise ships are the flavour of the decade right now, they could all be gone from our shores in a few years – if the cruise ship operators decided there were better destinations elsewhere. The have no long term commitment to NZ but expect world class facilities to be provided to them regardless.
So while catering for them is a good short term goal/business, its like the Americas cup was a few years back – we need to realise than sooner or later they will go elsewhere and we will left with a massive investment in cruise ship infrastructure gathering dust, like it was from the 70s to the 00’s and plan accordingly so that such facilities can become dual use.
+1
It’s important to remember that the cruise business is not some gift to the city by PoAL, they collect the berthage fees; it is just that, a business.
Cruise ship terminals, are like Conference centres, everyone wants one to get the “big events” (or “big ships”) to come.
But these terminals cost a lot of money to build and maintain, and sit idle for well over 2/3rds their lifetime, but when they are in use, its all hands to the pump servicing the crowds that come with them, puttign big strains in the service infrastructure.
But once you get on the Cruise ship “treadmill” as Akaroa and the tourist industry there has found since Lyttleton stop taking them after the 2011 quakes, that its a double edged sword, in part because its like trying to drink from a fire hose when the ships are in, and dead quiet when they’re not. So you have to gear up for the massive numbers, and have be idle most of the rest of the time.
I’m planning a trip down there next month, but I’ll avoid Akaroa like the plague as there is a good chance a cruise ship or two will in port there and the place will be a madhouse.
So Akaroa will miss my spending and I’m sure a lot of other tourists are doing the same – so there is a real opportunity cost of having these things around. its not all beer and skittles.
Yes, POAL gets berthage, so its a business to them, but that berthage will dwarf the costs of providing the terminal/wharf/facilities they use.
I doubt the berthage fees for the last 15 years that POAL have received would cover the building and running costs of a proper crusie ship terminal like we are told these big cruise operators expect to have provided.
And you need a long term commitment from the cruise industry to justif ythat, but they won’t be there in 20 years time, they’ll have moved on.
The POAL report suggests its currently adding $160m to Auckland economy from 100 cruise ship visits, that means each cruise ship visit brings $1.6m to the Auckland economy on average. Wonder how much of that is POAL berthage fees?
It all sounds like the sort of vague and hard to really pin down numbers we hear now about the benefits of all those big worldwide conferences that will be hosted at the International Convention Centre when it opens.
And just as illusory I suspect too.
Only difference is that POAL (or AC ratepayers) will be funding this not SkyCity Shareholders or NZ Taxpayers.
I’ve long thought that if we want a cruise terminal and convention centre then why not combine them in one. That way the facility gets a bit more year round use rather than each being very peaky. Other benefit is it would allow some better development of the site SkyCity want to useWould effectively seal off that end of the waterfront though.
Interesting idea,
But would require that conferences pretty much be restricted to the “non-Summer” season as 100 cruise ships (planning for 150), means 4-5 months of the year is really “used up” by cruise ships using the facilities.
Leaving the other 7+ months for conferences, we are told by Skycity that each big conference is at best 1 per month (requiring weeks or set up and tear down time before and after the event), so that means you can’t fit the 10+ big events a year in to cover the costs of the convention centre side of the business. Yes cruise ship business could top up the conference side, but would need some serious numbers to prove it.
I’m also not keen on having a huge 8 storey convention centre right downtown, as Patrick said, these things are inherently inward looking/focussed and thats the LAST thing we need down on the waterfront.
I imagine there would be more than enough space within the centre to have space for each function if designed in from the start. The bigger space taker with cruises is the likes of coaches and service vehicles etc.
I do agree a large inward looking box isn’t ideal on the waterfront however not sure it would be 8 storeys. Current plans are on Nelson St side but that’s partly because of the need for a large flat area and it’s a sloping site however if you look at the images for the Hobson St site it’s only about one storey higher than the Albion. That doesn’t including the theatre on top but with such a long wharf to deal with no reason it couldn’t be at one end.
Greg N that would work because confence season ends at the beginning of december and restarts in march, april.
Matt: “The bigger space taker with cruises is the likes of coaches and service vehicles etc”
Exactly, and we don’t have a lot of space we want to turn over to those activities down on the wharves and if it was built, where would it go? Captain Cook Wharf? At the end of a wharf used as part of port operations?
This sounds like the Rugby World Cup Stadium all over again, however a low-rise structure might work, but from my overseas trips to conferences, the venues are massively high to cater for the huge roof spans needed to get “clear floor space”, so it won’t be a small sized building. Bigger than Shed 10 is high thats for sure.
nonsense: “Greg N that would work because confence season ends at the beginning of december and restarts in march, april.”
Possibly, but cruise season does start before December, and with 150 projected cruise ships docking per season in the next 10 or so year, which is 50% up on now, that means either a lot of ships in at once, or it has to be spread out, so I think “conference” season could become like the Cricket season has become – squeezed at each end of the calendar.
I also think that the really big conferences is what the operators like as they can make more money that way and they are the only ones that use such a large facility.
Example of sort of conference: Microsofts annual TechEd is a world wide set of conferences, the size of it here is limited by the venue, its on for 3-4 days once a year, around September and totally maxes out SkyCity when its here.
If you could have 10 of those a year during April to maybe October, might work but like I said earlier a lot of numbers need to be crunched to show it will work – and ytou’d have to have the cruise ship operators agree to fit into the schedule not dictate it.
Once thing is certain, Skycity will not like the idea – its too far from their casino for conference attendees to use their hotels or gamble in the casino as often as they would when its right next door.
So I can see Skycity asking the government to let them move their whole operations – casino, hotels the works down the waterfront as well.
And while having cars for Africa on the port wharves is one thing, its easy to fix or change – a casino down there blocking out the waterfront from the public is something else entirely and we would lose out for generations..
Well I for one do not want a vast blank walled building down on the waterfront… all a convention centre is is a series of huge rooms without windows that are empty most of the year, fringed by service areas designed to function seamlessly on the few times the big shed is full; at the peak of the peak as it were. Remind you of anything?
Oh and of course vast amounts of car-parking, equally sporadically used, so almost certainly then to be flogged off at a below cost level for so-called early-bird rates the rest of the time. Otherwise known as a peak driving incentive. At SkyCity now casual parking for a day is $40, but if you arrive between 6-9am [morning peak] and leave before 6pm [evening peak] it’s $14. The ConCentre is bringing some 1500 more spaces for this stupidity… way above what’s allowed under the Unitary Plan.
Just picking up on Greg N’s piece:
The Cruise Industry does bring in $160m and some 3,000 jobs but that is concentrated over a very short space of the year thus we are left with idling facilities for the rest.
In comparison the bulk/general cargo brings in $380 million and 3,500 jobs all year round – and that is just for the cars which make up 45% of the general/bulk trade. That is at least once a week if not more a ship is there discharging general cargo or bulk cargo – right through out the year.
It is going to come down to very simple economics to the point of show me the money – and that is something general/bulk cargo does.
I see there is a wharf over at Wynyard Quarter that sits idle most of the time. It handles bulk liquid and with the tank farm eventually going what is wrong with putting the smaller cruiser liners down there while the longer ones take the existing wharves?
And right on cue, from the South Island, we have this piece in Stuff today:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/66035762/South-Island-cruise-ship-calls-in-jeopardy
Basically, South Island ports (Lyttleton in particular) told to stump up for a dedicated cruise ship berth or the whole South Island misses out on future visits by cruise lines – or else…
[Next season only one (larger) Voyager class vessel was due to call at Port Chalmers, and none at Canterbury].
Lyttleton port company (now owned 100% by Christchurch Council) has previously refused the $40m cost of building the necessary infra.
Can’t blame them – they’ve got a major port and city rebuild on, and throwing $40m down the hole for no long term guarantees of ongoing use
– well that just smacks of “corporate welfare” for overseas cruise line owners and their passengers.
And these cruise ship guys are showing their true colours – that is step up or else.
How long before Auckland gets the same message? If its not getting it already.
Ben you are reducing things to over-simplification. Goods that arrive to or leave from Auckland via another port are not by any means lost to the Auckland economy. Some goods that used to move by sea now do so by air. Similarly the PwC report, the earlier and more in-depth one than the recent short NZIER one, concluded that goods through Tauranga were just as valuable to the Auckland economy.
So if some proportion of those cars were to enter via Tauranga and therefore get to the wholesalers of South Auckland without being stored on the Auckland wharves or travelling through Auckland City there is no loss to the wider Auckland economy, or very little. This is because the value add is onshore, not on moving from ship to shore.
Patrick doesn’t this relate to economics of “Events”. The Cost of accommodating things like Rugby World Cup, world cup, America’s cup and large conference centres is not really a rate payer based/funded operation. It is in my opinion the problem of dealing with such crowds that disrupt business as usual and disrupt the steady economic activity.
Certainly the problems on the water front are a POAL problem but they cannot continue to expand into the channel and any expansion they make must be viable to their business within the same constraints of other Aucklanders. While we need to comply with the bylaws so must they.
I feel that we need a steady state economic activity that has the ability to deal with some fluctuations but not to the extent of having 3 cruise ships in downtown at the same time. Let the cruisers schedule their visits or the port say we cannot accommodate you on this day.
I feel ripped off in having my rates applied to these one off events that occur at intermittent intervals.
If KR hadn’t cut up their car carrying wagons they could have railed a whole lot of cars to the inland port and stored them there.
+1
KR and their “car wagons” is/was a big part of the problem here – they’re little more than a ’60s technology, that is too costly to use for transporting cars over what is a short distance.
OK, good feedback. So presumably, Port of Auckland needs a new design of rail wagon that allow cars to drive on at one end of a complete trainset, and off down a ramp at the other end. Generous loading gauge within Auckland so there should be plenty of room to do something. Are there useful overseas case studies to use as a starting point?
“I also can’t see the councillors being all that supportive of a strategy that endorses the extension of Bledisloe Wharf but we’ll have to wait to see till Thursday.”
Well, it appears you were right, but it’s apparently approved and going to happen anyway, and without consultation. See today’s paper: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11400492.
Sounds from this story like the approvals happened before Christmas – wonder why it’s taken so long for information to filter out?
Just to clarify, that approval is for the wharves themselves not the area between then which would be reclamation i.e. extend the edges but leave the middle as water but the concern is it would make it easier to justify the filling in between the wharves
Thanks Matt, had thought as much from the story. Just further to my question above, are these approvals actually breaking news or is the Herald somewhat late to the party?