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

Page 1 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

Page 2 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

Page 3 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

Trusteeship Waitemata Harbour Catering for Trade Growth Strategic Analysis and Choice Financial Responsibility Facts and Evidence Review

Page 4 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

• 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

Review components

Page 5 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

Two separate issues

Page 6 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

• 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

Research-based presentation

Page 7 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

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 8 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

Draft plans and websites

Page 9 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

Quay St sense of place destroyed

Page 10 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

Current viewshafts

Page 11 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

Narrows the waterway

Page 12 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

New berth - Bledisloe North

… 575 metres long, 5 cranes, bigger ships

Page 13 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

More containers per hectare

… intensive and industrialised

Page 14 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

• 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

Huge Transport Costs

Page 15 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

Grafton Gully disconnect

Page 16 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

• 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

Orakei, Meadowbank, Glen Innes, Panmure ….

Page 17 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

• “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
• ther coastal areas

RP:C changes on the cards

Page 18 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

1989 Alternative Port Study

Page 19 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

• We value our

environmental assets

Then and now

Page 20 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

• 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

Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009

Page 21 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

• 1996 and 2012 navigation charts show topology and reclamations

Northport has deep water but …

Page 22 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

For how long is Tauranga the answer?

Page 23 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

• 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

“We’ve averaged 6.74% container volume growth”

Page 24 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

Grow by 2040 to what Brisbane has now?

Page 25 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

• 978,000 TEU
• Expandable
• Liveable city

– city centre – port infrastructure – separation

Brisbane

Page 26 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

• Expanded (60ha, 1800m additional berthage) and still expandable
• Estuary improvements including new saltmarsh and roosting areas

Sydney - Port of Botany

Page 27 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

9km high

… approximately

Page 28 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

Navigation and safety

Page 29 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

Airport 1961-63

Page 30 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

Infrastructure investment

Page 31 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

Engineering and technology

Page 32 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

Not just “up to the market” – we need Government engagement too

Page 33 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

Dredging costs

Page 34 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

• “Risk hubbing through Australian ports …”
• “Dredging and piloting economies of scale” ???

Bigger ships

Allure of the Seas < 10m MV Tonsberg < 11m Container ships 13 - 15.5m

Page 35 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

• Southern Initiative
• 75% of containers from the port
• Export-focussed industry sector analysis

South Auckland logistics centre

Page 36 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

• An example of a new business model
• Thurrock is 45km from central London
• 45km from Auckland’s logistics centre
• Southern Initiative

London Gateway – 45km

Page 37 12/03/12

The case for a port development 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

Triggers for review

Page 38 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

• 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

• ptions in both a national and regional context

And here is a good point made in a Council paper

Page 39 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

• There is a strong case for an Auckland Council-led review
• Responsibility of Council - Governance, Stewardship, Trusteeship,

Vision, High-level Strategy

– Mayor and Councillors – not ACIL, WA or POAL, who have narrower mandates down the line – for clarity, not to be tucked away from the public in CCOs – RMA and resource consents will be relevant at some stage somewhere, but there are decisions (based on research and evidence) to be made by Council beforehand

• Older reviews were done in the late 80s and 90s …. they are outdated,

we’ve moved on, technology has changed, other policies and strategies have changed

Port development in the Auckland region

Page 40 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

• The Waitemata Harbour is a big part of our proposition to the world
• Amenity at all levels and places – on Quay St, on a finger wharf, on the harbour,

across Quay Park, from Devonport, in the communities of Parnell, Orakei, Meadowbank, Glen Innes, Panmure ….

• No analysis done of the economic and social cost associated with these amenity

changes

• Huge reclamation, road and rail investments, just to end up with a constrained

70ha container facility?

• Even more intensive use at Fergusson creates a major visual change and has

transport infrastructure implications

• No cohesive planning of the finger wharves (Princes to West Bledisloe) and Quay

Street

Major problems of where we are now

Page 41 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

• Requires a 20-30 year strategy, but that is not to say that Council should be

limited to that timespan when planning such significant and costly infrastructure

• Let’s plan our port with 2112 in mind!
• S79 (4c) – “the spatial plan must provide an evidential base to support

decision making for Auckland, including evidence of trends,

• pportunities, and constraints within Auckland” – this clause has not been

satisfied with respect to port infrastructure

• S80 – “involve the communities of Auckland … throughout the

preparation and development ….”

Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009

Page 42 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

• The Council’s deliberations have been constrained by the current advice

that no other port options exist

• This hasn’t been examined or proven to you
• Having the same information and advice promulgated four times over

(by POAL, ACIL, Waterfront Auckland, and some departments of Council) doesn’t make it more correct

• The problem is that you are still processing the same outcome, that

eventually we will create “additional berthage” – which means reclamation - at the Waitemata port

• Being on the plan since 1989 doesn’t make it right today

Constrained by current advice

Page 43 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

• A 7% pa growth in exports does not necessarily translate to a proportional

growth in export containers

• Need sector analysis ref: education, tourism, ICT, food and beverage
• On the numbers …

– POAL handles some $26.4 billion of goods annually – but does the road transport industry

• Point being, the value is in the containers
• And more to the point, do we have the best plan possible for

NZ Inc exports and imports

Linking Economic Development Strategy goals to freight and container growth

Page 44 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

Page 45 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

• Auckland’s position on port development is:

– that the upper North Island must be able to meet the short and long-term growth requirements of an export driven economy, through the capacity of its ports and the freight transport system – that determining the long-term role of Auckland ports within the freight transport system requires interregional and national strategic planning involving Government, Council’s Upper North Island Strategic Alliance (UNISA) partners, other councils and council-owned organisations, Local Boards and commercial and public stakeholders – that the Waitemata Harbour is an Auckland-defining asset that the Plan seeks to protect and enhance

Review

Page 46 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

• Auckland’s position on port development is:

– that possible future roles for the Port of Auckland include being New Zealand’s largest container port, a regional hub, a medium sized port, a boutique city port, and a cruise liner port, and that until a strategic choice is made there will always be uncertainty about the footprint of the port and possible transformational development of Auckland’s city centre waterfront including the central finger wharves and a boulevarded Quay Street – that outcomes of the review may result in updates to this Plan which inform the Unitary Plan and the Long Term Plan, and will guide any future deliberations about the development of the Ports of Auckland, ports in Auckland, and the city centre waterfront.

Review ctd

Page 47 12/03/12

The case for a port development review

• 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

Review components