May 2018 - Page 2 of 3 - Cubic Transport Services

Don’t lose track of rail freight limitations – David Aitken

Rail freight has its place but . . .

OPINION: The Government has been talking about getting freight off the country’s roads and on to alternative sea freight and particularly rail freight.

Rail freight has its place and already its biggest customer is the road freight transport industry.

But it also has its limitations.

If Europe is any example, nothing much will change, despite the Government and KiwiRail’s best efforts. Trucks will always be required to deliver a large portion of the country’s freight demand.

While bulk freight can be transported by rail or sea, market demand in the freight industry will dictate how customers want their goods moved.

Since 2000 the European Union has provided policies and incentives to shift freight off the road to rail, coastal shipping and Europe’s extensive canal system.

They haven’t worked.

Road still carries about 75 percent of all Europe’s freight.

The total tonnage carried by rail and other modes has gone up but so has road freight, so the proportion each carries has remained about the same.

The market has continued to decide which form of freight to use, rather than incentives and tax breaks.

Improvements to rail infrastructure in Europe have only resulted in small increases in rail freight carried, so rail has been reluctant to make large capital expenditure, because the returns aren’t there.

The same is likely to apply to New Zealand.

Road freight will always be preferred for any perishable goods because it can carry out the task faster – apart from much more expensive air freight.

Road freight has greater service quality – quicker door to door delivery times and greater safety with less chance of damaged goods, which usually occurs when the freight is changed from one mode to another.

Even when rail or sea is used, trucks are often needed to get goods to the rail hub or sea port to start the journey and then pick them up to make the final delivery.

Highly competitive costs within the road freight sector make it more appealing to customers than the alternatives.

Road freight has flexible route choices. Rail and sea do not with only a few fixed routes.

Road freight will nearly always be used for the “last miles” as customers want door to door delivery.

Rail is only generally better when the type of goods (very large or non-urgent) can be shipped by train instead of road.

This occurs when a customer places all their business with a road freight operator who then decides the best way to ship it to meet deadlines or budget.

Improving New Zealand’s rail services and infrastructure will be taxpayer funded and subsidised. Improvements in road freight transport – newer fleet with cleaner emissions, less noise – are paid for by the trucking companies and their customers.

Rail will only ever handle a small proportion of the country’s total freight as 90 percent of road freight is done within metropolitan/urban areas where rail and sea are not an option.

With the increased investment in the rail sector, KiwiRail remain a commercial operating arm of the government, this is likely to require rail price increases to cover the investment costs, closing the gap between road and rail pricing, making the later less attractive to freight customers.

National Road Carriers is the leading nationwide organisation representing companies involved in the road transport industry. It has 1700 members, who collectively operate 15,000 trucks throughout New Zealand.

David Aitken is the chief executive of the National Road Carriers Association

– Stuff

Japan Catches Up With Shipping Consolidation

Japan has caught up with a wave of consolidation sweeping the shipping industry, with its three biggest carriers merging their container operations to compete with bigger rivals in Asia and Europe.

Mitsui O.S.K. Lines (MOL), Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. 9107 1.20% , (K-Line) and Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha NPNYY -0.23% (NYK Line) pumped $3 billion into the merged company called Ocean Network Express (ONE) that kicked off operations last month as the world’s sixth largest container operator, with a combined fleet of 230 vessels.

“A large company buys a small company and grows bigger, such deals have been repeated in the past, but this is the first time (in shipping) that three companies jointly start a new business on an equal footing,” Junichiro Ikeda, MOL’s chief executive, said in an interview.

MOL is the leading partner in ONE.

ONE controls close to 7% of global container market, well below the double-figure shares of the top three carriers, Denmark’s Maersk Line, Switzerland’s Mediterranean Shipping Co. and France’s CMA CGM SA.

Container shipping moves roughly $4 trillion worth of manufactured goods annually, from designer dresses to electronics, food and heavy machinery.

But a glut of tonnage in the water and vicious price wars have pushed freight rates well below break-even levels over the past few years, sinking most operators deeply into the red and pushing some out of business.

The crisis pushed the fragmented industry to consolidate, with the world’s 20 biggest operators shrinking to seven over the past three years that control about three-quarters of total container capacity.

It also triggered a reckoning among policy makers in many countries, from Germany to Japan, that have seen commercial shipping as a key strategic asset for their economies. The failure of South Korea’s Hanjin Shipping in 2016 sent shock waves around the world and particularly in Seoul, where the world’s eighth-largest container line was considered an important cog in the country’s export-driven economy.

People involved in the ONE merger told The Wall Street Journal it was seen as a must, as carriers with a 3% share or below are expected to go out of business or swallowed up by bigger players.

Although still small in global terms, ONE is dominant in intra-Asia trade lanes and is the biggest player in moving Asian exports to the U.S. across the Pacific, with a 16% market share, according to maritime data provider IHS Markit . It also controls 37% of container capacity in and out of Japan, the world’s third-largest economy.

“I think future trade will grow mainly in these regions, and the market share (that) ONE holds is never small,” MOL’s Mr. Ikeda said.

He declined to comment on the impact of possible trade tariffs in talks between the U.S. and China.

Consolidation gives shippers fewer carriers to choose from and some may move away from ONE to other operators, but Mr. Ikeda insists he isn’t worried.

“If you focus on the services that come to and go from Japan, our competitors are totally incomparable with us,” he said. “In terms of frequency…. ONE is superior. Therefore, even if customers seek choice desperately, they don’t have much of a choice.”

ONE, which set up its headquarters in Singapore, launched operations April 1 to a rocky start. Brokers and freight forwarders said shippers in the first 20 days of operation faced problems booking cargo slots and communicating with the carrier.

The carrier said the problems were the result of setting up a new IT system and difficulties moving staff from the three partners to new offices around the world.

“It was surprising and disappointing, given the high efficiency records of the three carriers before they became ONE, but the situation is slowly improving,” a Singapore broker said.

Mr. Ikeda said it would take time for the former rivals to fully integrate.

“Although all of them are Japanese companies, there are differences in doing things among them,” he said. “Their mutual understanding has deepened during the preparatory period, but I consider it to be a big challenge to unify the way to conduct business in a real sense.”

The operators have a deep reach into global trade, from consumer goods to raw industrial commodities.

MOL on its own is the world’s biggest natural gas carrier, operating 76 ships out of a total global fleet of 440 vessels, and plans to add another 19 LNG carriers to its fleet over the next few years.

In container trade, ONE is part of THE Alliance, one of three major shipping groups that also includes Germany’s Hapag-Lloyd AG and Taiwan’s Yang Ming Marine Transport Corp.

Alliance members share networks, ships and port calls, saving billions of dollars each year in fuel, port handling and other expenses. They are using giant ships that can move more than 20,000 containers.

THE Alliance already has six such vessels and plans to order six more by the end of this year, despite concerns that the behemoths may exacerbate overcapacity and add pressure to freight rates.

Mr. Ikeda doesn’t expect a flood of new orders because carriers expect only moderate growth in shipping demand, and “everyone understands the situation that way.”
Source: Wall Street Journal

Northport Joins Country’s Container Sector

May 11 marked Northport’s arrival on the New Zealand container port scene, when Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC) makes its first export loading on the newly-revamped Kiwi Express schedule.

Coming as part of a larger service restructure, the new fortnightly call on the Singapore-Jakarta-Brisbane-Sydney-Auckland-Tauranga-Wellington-Napier-Auckland-Northport-Brisbane-Tanjung Pelepas-Singapore rotation has been predicated on fruit exports.

Zespri, New Zealand’s kiwifruit industry co-operative, is a key backer of the development. Northland produces about 3.5m trays of kiwifruit each year and it has been estimated that exporting directly from Northport will potentially save NZ$66 of the NZ$102 cost per pallet of the alternative of transporting to the Port of Tauranga for despatch.

MSC containership Northern Diplomat delivered 158 empty containers to the port on April 20 in preparation for the first export loading on the service, which Northport commercial manager David Finchett hopes will continue beyond the current fruit export season.

“Our goal is to build cargo volumes to the point where the service becomes regular instead of seasonal,” he says. “If we can demonstrate consistent demand for this shipping link from Northland importers and exporters there is no reason why it should not become a weekly service instead of a fortnightly one.”

Interislander ferries to Nelson for annual maintenance

KiwiRail’s Interislander ferry Kaiarahi heads across to Nelson at the end of this week, marking the start of an annual maintenance and inspection programme for all three ferries

KiwiRail General Manager Interislander Operations, Mark Thompson, says Kaiarahi will be in Nelson for in-water maintenance before sailing to Sydney for dry-docking.

“This year all three ferries – Kaiarahi, Aratere and Kaitaki – will undergo scheduled maintenance and inspections from mid- May until mid-August.

“Once the Kaiarahi returns into service the Aratere will then head to Nelson and onto Sydney. And finally, when Aratere returns, Kaitaki will then undertake survey and maintenance here in Wellington.

“We always carry out this critical work over the quieter winter months, so we minimise disruption to our freight and passenger customers. While each ferry is out of service, timetables will be adjusted so we continue to run services in the most important timeslots for our customers,” Mr Thompson says.

“For the six-week period that Aratere is away we will provide a road bridging operation, using road trailers and intermodal equipment to ensure uninterrupted transport of rail freight between islands.”

Kaiarahi will undergo maintenance including painting and steelworks, and inspections in Nelson.

“We chose Nelson for the in-water part of the programme because it has a good marine engineering resources and favourable weather at this time of year,” Mr Thompson says.

While in Sydney work will also be done to Kaiarahi and Aratere to make them more fuel efficient.

“Both ferries will undergo annual, five-year and 20-year surveys – the marine equivalent of warrants of fitness – on critical equipment and components. These are carried out by international surveyors.”

Govt’s electric train promise now off the rails – union

Radio NZ – The railway union is accusing the government of breaking a pre-election promise to stop the removal of electric trains from the North Island’s main trunk line.

Photo: 123rf.com

KiwiRail freight trains use diesel locomotives in Wellington, switch to electric units at Palmerston North, then back to diesel in Hamilton.

That’s because 1980s electrification of the main trunk line was never finished.

KiwiRail decided two years ago to replace its electric engines with diesel.

The Labour Party told the rail operator in August it would stop that plan, so the rest of the line could still be electrified.

It said removing the engines would make it virtually impossible to electrify the rest of the network.

KiwiRail said it has received no directive and is pushing ahead to get rid of the locomotives by April next year.

Transport Minister Phil Twyford said he was still talking with the company, but it was clear it could not afford to buy new electric engines.

“KiwiRail makes the case that they are dealing with the legacy of decades of under investment and that it’s very hard for them to justify on cost grounds, replacing the electric locos that are at the end of their life, with new electric locos,” he said.

Rail and Maritime Transport Union general secretary Wayne Butson said the electric engines were not at the end of their lives.

He said KiwiRail has not maintained them and all they needed was new wiring and electronics.

“At 30 years old they are some of the youngest locomotives in the KiwiRail fleet,” he said.

KiwiRail said it would take four years to get new electric engines into service, because they have to be made for New Zealand conditions, including its narrow track and tunnels.

But Mr Butson said the operator could buy a refurbished model of the same train for sale in Queensland.

“A group of engineers went from KiwiRail to Queensland, our understanding is that they said that these locomotives were immediately acceptable for our fleet,” he said.

Mr Butson said it was not clear why KiwiRail turned down the Queensland locomotives and the company had refused to give them a copy of the engineers report.

KiwiRail said while electric engines were cheaper to maintain, they were more expensive to buy and it estimated diesel engines were between 30 and 40 percent cheaper over the course of their lives.

It said having a more efficient service encouraged companies to use rail, rather than road, which reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

Minister for Workplace Relations Iain Lees-Galloway is to meet with staff from the electric depot in Palmerston North next week to talk about their futures.

NZ Transport Agency has spent millions on a highway upgrade that’s stalled

TOM LEE/STUFF

State Highway 1 between Cambridge and Piarere had been earmarked for improvements under National, but Labour’s focus on rail means that might be on hold.

Over $4 million spent on planning improvements for a dangerous stretch of State Highway 1 may be wasted money.

Under the National Government, approval was given for a four-lane extension for the State Highway 1 Piarere turnoff – a black spot for crashes between Cambridge and Tirau.

However, when Labour unveiled its 10-year plan for land transport, it included a huge investment in road safety and rapid rail at the expense of state highway upgrades.

Under the Official Information Act, Stuff asked how much the New Zealand Transport Agency had spent on the stretch of road between Piarere and Cambridge.

NZTA stated that one property was purchased prior to October 25, 2017, for $1.6 million plus GST.

While it’s undecided what will happen to the stretch of road, it’s unlikely the land will be on-sold at this stage.

As of March 18, there had been no physical work undertaken in the area. Up until then, work had included the completion of the initial business case, drafting of the detailed business case, consultation with the community and stakeholders and preliminary design activities to support the detailed business case.

Total money spent on the business case as of March was $2.6m, which was spent on delivery on the initial business case and the detailed business case phases of the project.

Routine maintenance spending wasn’t included.

Transport Minister Phil Twyford is satisfied the investigation and preliminary work into SH 1 between Cambridge and Piarere is within the usual range of expenditure associated.

“I’m advised no final decisions have been made around this stretch of highway and that the New Zealand Transport Agency is re-evaluating the project to better align with the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2018.

“The NZTA board makes all operational decisions around the prioritisation and timing of roading projects at arm’s length from the Government.

“Regardless of decisions made around this project, investigation and preliminary work done here is invaluable and will be used for years to come as there are a wide range of transport projects that could be considered in the future,” Twyford said.

National Party Hamilton East MP David Bennett said it’s early stages in the project and to get it started in 2020, those kinds of [monetary] investments are needed. But if improvements are cancelled, it would be a waste of money, he said.

“But if they carry on with it, then that would be fine. But all the indications we are getting at the moment is that it is not a priority for the Government.”

Hundreds more trucks off road due to faults

Six hundred more trucks have been forced off the road in the safety alert over cracked and inadequate towing connections.

No caption.

Photo: RNZ / Supplied

The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) has revoked the certification of 616 draw beam and draw bars on big truck-trailers.

This follows the 802 tow bars revoked last week.

Road Transport Forum chief executive Ken Shirley said it was having “a huge impact and a shock” on the industry.

“They virtually have to take these vehicles off the road immediately,” he said.

The west coast of the South Island was hardest hit, as it had no heavy vehicle certifiers to check the vehicles.

There are only two heavy vehicle engineers for Nelson, Marlborough and the West Coast. They have already faced months of backlogs.

NZTA said it could get all the trucks checked within a fortnight by bringing in more engineers, Mr Shirley said.

All the revoked towing connections were certified, and some designed, by Peter Wastney Engineering near Nelson. About 1500 were being looked at after the agency began investigating last August after a trailer broke free of a truck near Murchison.

The incident resulted in Peter Wastney’s suspension as a heavy vehicle certifier.

Mr Shirley said the industry was disappointed the NZTA’s auditing and accreditation processes did not pick up the problems with Mr Wastney’s certifications earlier.

“The sheer number of vehicles affected shows a significant lack of regulatory oversight,” he said.

“We want an assurance there are no more Wastney-type situations out there.”

An industry player told RNZ that Mr Wastney “has consistently had poor reviews undertaken by the NZTA reviewer”.

Mr Wastney did not respond to RNZ’s calls.

RNZ is seeking comment from NZTA.

In a statement, it said it would cover re-certifications – a turnaround from last week when it claimed drivers would have to cover the cost.

“The real cost to an operator is the impact on the business,” Mr Shirley said.

Dennis Cadogan operates a transport company on the West Coast was and was caught out by last month’s and the most recent revocations. His trucks remain off the road.

The whole thing was a “bloody nuisance”, he said.

Govt are repackaging National transport projects – MP

The National Party says the government has simply adopted its vision for transport in Auckland.

An Auckland Transport train passes by Mt Eden prison Photo: RNZ / Diego Opatowski

The government launched its rejigged $28 billion Auckland Transport Alignment Project that will fund roads, rail, bus lanes and cycleways across the city over the next 10 years and is aimed at easing Auckland’s infamous congestion.

At the launch, Auckland Mayor Phil Goff made it clear the city must deal with its traffic problem.

“We have congestion, we are facing gridlock, it is costing us huge frustration and it is costing the country, not just Auckland, the country one to two billion dollars a year,” Mr Goff said.

Transport Minister Phil Twyford said the Auckland fuel tax and public private partnerships will help fund the projects and deliver a congestion-free rapid transit network.

“All over the world cities are retrofitting car-dependent urban areas with modern rapid transit systems.

“In Australia alone, there are light rail systems currently being built in the Gold Coast, in Canberra, in Newcastle, in Sydney and in Melbourne.

“Dozens and dozens of cities around the world are doing this because they recognise that cities of any scale cannot be either liveable or economically prosperous without modern rapid transit systems.”

National’s transport spokesperson Jami-Lee Ross said many of the projects are awfully familiar.

“I think the best part of it is that they’ve recognised that many of the projects the National Party were putting in place were well worth doing – they’ve agreed to do what effectively Simon Bridges announced in August last year,” Mr Ross said.

“So Phil Twyford’s adopting many of the projects that we were progressing – the key difference is, we wouldn’t have taxed the country more to subsidise those trams down Dominion Road.”

Mr Ross said some motorists will be hit hard by the new funding mechanisms.

“The worst part about this is that we’re seeing from Labour they’re happy to put up more taxes on the whole country – when it comes to the Penlink area, they want Rodney people to pay a regional fuel tax, increased national fuel taxes and they want to put the toll on top for Penlink.

“So, those people are being whacked three times for that particular road … but that’s the Labour Party for you.”

Act’s David Seymour said the government could have been more ambitious.

He said there needs to be extensive public private partnerships and electronic road pricing to complete the motorway network.

“We’re talking a second Harbour Crossing, we’re talking an underground tunnel to complete the Eastern Motorway without disturbing existing suburbs.

“Those are the kinds of radical developments that are required, so good on the government for what they’ve done but it’s simply not proportional to the crisis, it’s like setting a capuchin monkey on a gorilla,” Mr Seymour told RNZ.

Fire causes poisoning in ship’s hold, investigation launched into Napier Port incident

Maritime New Zealand has confirmed an investigation would be carried out and it was likely to be several weeks before it was concluded. Photo / File

Photo / File

An investigation has been launched into an incident aboard a logging ship in Napier Port on Monday night which resulted in six workers being taken to hospital with carbon monoxide poisoning.

While four of the workers were discharged after initial treatment two, a man in his early 20s and one in his late 30s, remained in hospital in a general ward overnight and were eventually discharged early yesterday afternoon.

A Napier Port spokesperson said staff from the stevedoring company ISO, which worked with log exporter Ernslaw One, were affected in the emergency callout.

Maritime New Zealand has confirmed an investigation would be carried out and it was likely to be several weeks before it was concluded.

Investigators, who were at the port yesterday, would be working with ISO and the shipping company and the investigation would include scene investigations and interviews.

The incident happened about 8pm while the crews were at work on the log ship Nord Yilan.

Fire crews and St John Ambulance paramedics were called to the scene after it is understood a turbo system on the engine of a digger/loader failed and billowed exhaust smoke through the hold area.

A fire service spokesman said the turbo unit on the engine blew and billowed exhaust fumes, causing the workers in the hold to be affected.

Other port workers were able to remove the digger from the hold before the fire service arrived.

Simon Wilson: Auckland’s port has to shift but where will it go?

The port has to move but there’s nowhere for it to go. That’s the problem facing Auckland as it inches towards a decision on the long-term future of its container port, the car imports, the cruise ships and the land they all currently take up on the edge of the sparkling Waitemata harbour.

It’s an unsolvable problem that has to be solved. We need a port and we need it to stay highly functional. And the land it sits on now is both publicly owned and the most valuable real estate in the country – we have the chance to create something very special there.

On Tuesday this week the Herald published a proposal by the architectural firm Archimedia for transforming the land. New beaches, a lagoon, a “volcano”, a Maori cultural centre, hospitality, apartments and offices all featured.

The proposal excited a lot of interest among our readers. The prospect of swimming and other calm-water recreation so close to the city has been especially popular. So have the big new parklands and the 8.2km of boardwalks and other public walkways/cycleways offered by the proposal.

We’ve also heard concerns. Some ask why commercial development will be allowed on the site. Others want to know where the port will go.

The value of commercial activity is clear enough. Apartments to house 8000 people will help provide population density, giving life to the precinct. The land would be made leasehold, not freehold, and commercial developments will pay for public amenities.

Will that mean a new wall of buildings to block the views? The answer depends entirely on the final designs and the consenting process. It doesn’t have to be a problem.

The question of where the port will go is far from settled. But whether it has to shift has already been resolved. It’s worth remembering how that happened.

In 2015 then-mayor Len Brown set up a Port Future Study with a Consensus Working Group. The Chamber of Commerce and the Employers and Manufacturers Association were involved, along with Generation Zero and Urban Auckland, Ngati Whatua and the Tamaki Alliance, property developers, resource management experts, shipping, freight and logistics companies, and Ports of Auckland Ltd itself. It was a high-powered, diverse and very representative group.

A year later, in July 2016, they reached a remarkable consensus. The group agreed:

•The existing port is not big enough for the freight and cruise demands it will face in 25 to 40 years. (The port handles close to one million containers a year now; that’s expected to rise by a further million every 20 years.)

•Rail and road links out of the port will reach capacity within the same period, if not earlier.

•Over the next 20 or so years the port will require extra capacity on its existing site, “prior to a new port being established”.

•Economic, environmental, cultural and social factors are all critical in deciding the future of the port and of the port land.

•It is in Auckland’s best interests to keep all the existing functions of the port. So, for example, the city would lose out if car imports were shifted to Northport, near Whangarei.

•Other North Island ports will lack the long-term capacity to take over entirely from the Auckland port.

•Taking all this into account, there is “sufficient probability” that a new port for freight will be required. Planning should proceed on that basis.

•Berths for cruise ships should be retained in the city centre.

A long list of 28 site options was identified, including Northport and Tauranga. That was narrowed to eight and then finally to two: the Firth of Thames and the Manukau Harbour.

The hope was that all these conclusions would become the foundation for debate and planning about the future of the port.

Since then, the Government has changed and the coalition agreement between Labour and New Zealand First commits them to a ports future study of their own. The details of that are soon to be announced.

NZ First campaigned in the election for the car import business to be relocated to Northport, and other functions to be dispersed to the regions too. However, Infrastructure Minister Shane Jones told the Herald this week that the chief executive of Ports of Auckland and others had been briefing him and what they said had “taken my fancy”.

Shifting the port is not an easy proposition, Jones said, and he understood that much better now.

Why the Firth of Thames or Manukau Harbour? The first part of the answer is that the most important site is not either of those, or the current Waitemata site. It’s Wiri.

That’s where Ports of Auckland has its the inland port, where much of the freight is taken for sorting and dispatch. Wiri is the fast-growing heart of freight logistics in the upper North Island.

The Manukau Harbour is a very short hop, across largely open land, to Wiri. The Firth of Thames would also be relatively easy to connect to Wiri, with a dedicated road and rail corridor through the Hunua Ranges. Both options would allow freight capacity to grow without the transport links disrupting commuter traffic.

A port in the Firth of Thames would be on a new island connected by a causeway. There are many breeding grounds for birds in the area but, surprisingly, around the world port activity has not been disruptive to bird breeding.

A port in the Manukau would require extensive dredging, and shipping would be subject to the wilder conditions of the west coast and the Manukau Harbour entrance.

There are many other environmental, cultural and social issues to be considered. The cost of shifting the port was identified by the Port Future Study as being $5 billion, although there are other analysts who dispute this.

Meanwhile, this week the Auckland Council received an officials’ report on Ports of Auckland’s own 30-year plan. It includes the complete demolition of Marsden Wharf, a building for handling car imports, a hotel and a further extension of Bledisloe Wharf into the harbour.

That extension was to be 40m, but Ports of Auckland has scaled it back to 13m.

Mayor Phil Goff said he didn’t know if the hotel was a good idea or not, but noted that Ports of Auckland didn’t need a decision on it for five to 10 years. He also said he was “frankly uncomfortable even with the 13m extension” but was not going to oppose it.

Lindsay Mackie and Sean Park of Archimedia presented their plan at the same meeting. Goff was enthusiastic, calling it “a great design” and “a great first step”.

Planning committee chair Chris Darby was also keen. He called it “extremely stimulating” and said it was a reminder to council not to let Ports of Auckland do anything that would compromise the longer-term potential of the site.

He was particularly worried about that Ports of Auckland proposal for a hotel.

Goff’s main message to councillors, in regard to both the Ports of Auckland plan and the Archimedia plan, was that they needed a bigger picture. “Look at South Bank in Brisbane,” he told his colleagues. “It used to be a decrepit port area. Look at Darling Harbour in Sydney. We could do the same in Auckland.”

He reminded councillors that Ports of Auckland, as part of the Port Future Study, had accepted it would outgrow its site. “They knew that in 30 years they’d be out of there,” he said, adding that this was “confirmed in a workshop” the council held a couple of weeks ago.

He didn’t think either Northport or Tauranga would provide a solution for Auckland. He said it was a “no brainer” to support the Government as it considered its options for guaranteeing supply chains in the upper North Island. It was also a “no brainer” for Auckland “to protect our interests and our dividends”.

“It’s our port, not the Government’s port,” he said.

The mayor, and in all likelihood Auckland Council with him, want to shift the port but not by way of losing the car importing or any other functions. There’s a battle with the Government brewing on that one.

As for the Archimedia plan, it’s not a blueprint. Lindsay Mackie calls it a conversation starter.

Archimedia has left it to the economics and environmentalists and politicians and others to worry away about when and where to shift the port. But while that happens, it wants to inject some imaginative thinking into the debate about the current site.

It wants to lift the debate above the short-term distractions of new hotels and 13m reclamations and focus instead on big-picture planning and long-term opportunities.

It has challenged Auckland to think about what we would really like to see on our downtown waterfront.

08:00 – 17:00

L 14, 151 Queen St

0800 2 CUBIC

Month: May 2018