The case for a port development review 12/03/12 Page 1 The case - PDF document

The case for a port development review 12/03/12 Page 1

The case for a port development review 12/03/12 Page 2

Trusteeship Waitemata Harbour Catering for Trade Growth Strategic Analysis and Choice Financial Responsibility Facts and Evidence Review Page 3 The case for a port development review 12/03/12

Review components  To support national strategic planning for port development, and to inform strategic choice for Auckland city centre waterfront development, Auckland Council will lead a study, with its UNISA partners and other key stakeholders, of port development options in the Upper North Island which will – take a long-term (one hundred year) view – assess future freight demand , containerised and otherwise, overall and at sector level, to establish estimates of port infrastructure capacity requirements – model a range of development options for the Ports of Auckland – review options for a new port in the Auckland region – assess Northport and Tauranga long-term capacities – for all options consider supporting inland port, rail, road and coastal shipping options and a high-level overview of capital costs, operational costs and externalities – and take into account the social, economic, cultural and environmental objectives of the Plan and other major projects and strategies within the Plan Page 4 The case for a port development review 12/03/12

The case for a port development review Two separate issues 12/03/12 Page 5

Research-based presentation  POAL and ARH reports  Draft Waterfront Auckland plan and technical papers  Rockpoint – Coastal shipping and the NZ Freight Task  New Zealand Shippers’ Council – Case for Bigger Ships  New Zealand Productivity Commission – International Freight  The draft Auckland Plan – Liveable City  The draft Economic Development Strategy  Upper North Island Freight Transport Study 2009  Previous port development option papers  New Zealand Transport Agency papers Page 6 The case for a port development review 12/03/12

Much to think about in a few minutes ….  Maori interests in Auckland’s harbours – cultural and commercial  Feasibility of any port option  Need expandable port site  Economic benefits for NZ Inc and all stakeholders  Supporting export growth  State Highway and NIMT connections  New and old distribution centre models and connections  Coastal Plan, Rezoning land, RUB  Optimally minimising impacts  Environment/habitats  Ecology  Improvements and mitigation  Cultural aspects  Geology  Recreational benefits  Potential benefits for fishing and other industries  Scenario planning for Waitemata and Onehunga sites  Whole harbours approach Page 7 The case for a port development review 12/03/12

The case for a port development review Draft plans and websites 12/03/12 Page 8

Quay St sense of place destroyed The case for a port development review 12/03/12 Page 9

The case for a port development review Current viewshafts 12/03/12 Page 10

The case for a port development review Narrows the waterway 12/03/12 Page 11

New berth - Bledisloe North … 575 metres long, 5 cranes, bigger ships Page 12 The case for a port development review 12/03/12

… intensive and industrialised More containers per hectare The case for a port development review 12/03/12 Page 13

Huge Transport Costs  Dollars and Amenity  Road: $1billion elevated road  Rail: $700million triple track  … and the effect of freight trains every 30 minutes, 16 hours a day … Orakei, Glen Innes, Panmure …. these are proposed liveable city growth areas … the communities between and beyond Page 14 The case for a port development review 12/03/12

Grafton Gully disconnect The case for a port development review 12/03/12 Page 15

Orakei, Meadowbank, Glen Innes, Panmure ….  Ports chief executive Tony Gibson …. “the trains would be 500m long, running every 30 minutes for 16 hours a day.”  Each train will take a fair while to pass through each community Page 16 The case for a port development review 12/03/12

RP:C changes on the cards  “The Regional Plan:Coastal is out of synch with our aspirations”  Proper process is not leaving it up to RMA – this is several levels of strategic planning higher  POAL have recently restated their intention to consult the public with their plan  Council have several hats to wear to provide direction to this issue  The first one, today’s hat, is “trustee and strategic city planning” – and that needs to be done through the Auckland Plan  And yes, PMA 1A might change, as there might be changes to plans for other coastal areas Page 17 The case for a port development review 12/03/12

1989 Alternative Port Study The case for a port development review 12/03/12 Page 18

Then and now  We value our environmental assets Page 19 The case for a port development review 12/03/12

Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009  3d – spatial basis must provide a basis for alignment – we don’t want an alternative option to be ultra vires later  4c - evidence-based decisions are required  Supports a Council-led review Page 20 The case for a port development review 12/03/12

Northport has deep water but …  1996 and 2012 navigation charts show topology and reclamations Page 21 The case for a port development review 12/03/12

For how long is Tauranga the answer? The case for a port development review 12/03/12 Page 22

“We’ve averaged 6.74% container volume growth”  At 6.74% we’ll make it through to just past 2030 – and ruin the Waitemata Harbour  But what about 2050? 2060?  Other – Hard to imagine import growth running that far ahead of population growth, but … – Every exported container has to come into the country first – And as far as exports are concerned, what new exports are in the containers, where are they produced, and what ports should they be leaving from? – What ports and shipping services suit our seasonal exports best?  Review Page 23 The case for a port development review 12/03/12

Grow by 2040 to what Brisbane has now? The case for a port development review 12/03/12 Page 24

Brisbane  978,000 TEU  Expandable  Liveable city – city centre – port infrastructure – separation Page 25 The case for a port development review 12/03/12

Sydney - Port of Botany  Expanded (60ha, 1800m additional berthage) and still expandable  Estuary improvements including new saltmarsh and roosting areas Page 26 The case for a port development review 12/03/12

… approximately 9km high The case for a port development review 12/03/12 Page 27

The case for a port development review Navigation and safety 12/03/12 Page 28

The case for a port development review Airport 1961-63 12/03/12 Page 29

Infrastructure investment The case for a port development review 12/03/12 Page 30

Engineering and technology The case for a port development review 12/03/12 Page 31

Not just “up to the market” – we need Government engagement too Page 32 The case for a port development review 12/03/12

The case for a port development review Dredging costs 12/03/12 Page 33

Bigger ships  “Risk hubbing through Australian ports …”  “Dredging and piloting economies of scale” ??? Allure of the Seas < 10m MV Tonsberg < 11m Container ships 13 - 15.5m Page 34 The case for a port development review 12/03/12

South Auckland logistics centre  Southern Initiative  75% of containers from the port  Export-focussed industry sector analysis Page 35 The case for a port development review 12/03/12

London Gateway – 45km  An example of a new business model  Thurrock is 45km from central London  45km from Auckland’s logistics centre  Southern Initiative Page 36 The case for a port development review 12/03/12

Triggers for review  Until proven otherwise, the value of the Waitemata Harbour trumps the POAL  Effects on communities – social and economic  Money must matter – Port and channel investments – $750million rail upgrade – $1billion road “upgrade” – $2billion? Good money after bad? How else could this money be spent?  “We’ll go to Marsden later” – So when is the best time to look at other options?  Taking a long-term view  Danger of leaving it ‘til later – the importance of the Auckland Plan – this is not an RMA-level issue Page 37 The case for a port development review 12/03/12

And here is a good point made in a Council paper  Extracted from “Key Points in Relation to the Port ...” February 2012  These questions need to be answered before investing more time, energy, rates and taxes in Ports of Auckland infrastructure … this paragraph supports a comprehensive review of Auckland port options in both a national and regional context Page 38 The case for a port development review 12/03/12