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

Transcription

1 Page 1

2 Page 2

3 Trusteeship Waitemata Harbour Catering for Trade Growth Strategic Analysis and Choice Financial Responsibility Facts and Evidence Review Page 3

4 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

5 Two separate issues Page 5

6 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

7 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

8 Draft plans and websites Page 8

9 Quay St sense of place destroyed Page 9

10 Current viewshafts Page 10

11 Narrows the waterway Page 11

12 New berth - Bledisloe North 575 metres long, 5 cranes, bigger ships Page 12

13 More containers per hectare intensive and industrialised Page 13

14 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

15 Grafton Gully disconnect Page 15

16 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

17 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

18 1989 Alternative Port Study Page 18

19 Then and now We value our environmental assets Page 19

20 Local Government (Auckland Council) Act d 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

21 Northport has deep water but 1996 and 2012 navigation charts show topology and reclamations Page 21

22 For how long is Tauranga the answer? Page 22

23 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

24 Grow by 2040 to what Brisbane has now? Page 24

25 Brisbane 978,000 TEU Expandable Liveable city city centre port infrastructure separation Page 25

26 Sydney - Port of Botany Expanded (60ha, 1800m additional berthage) and still expandable Estuary improvements including new saltmarsh and roosting areas Page 26

27 9km high approximately Page 27

28 Navigation and safety Page 28

29 Airport Page 29

30 Infrastructure investment Page 30

31 Engineering and technology Page 31

32 Not just up to the market we need Government engagement too Page 32

33 Dredging costs Page 33

34 Bigger ships Risk hubbing through Australian ports Dredging and piloting economies of scale??? Allure of the Seas < 10m MV Tonsberg < 11m Container ships m Page 34

35 South Auckland logistics centre Southern Initiative 75% of containers from the port Export-focussed industry sector analysis Page 35

36 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

37 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 Triggers for review 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

38 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

39 Port development in the Auckland region 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 Page 39

40 Major problems of where we are now 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 Page 40

41 Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 Requires a 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, opportunities, 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. Page 41

42 Constrained by current advice 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 Page 42

43 Linking Economic Development Strategy goals to freight and container growth 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 Page 43

44 Page 44

45 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 Page 45

46 Review ctd 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. Page 46

47 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 47

48