Port of Auckland Debate

Port of Auckland Debate is Back

 

I have brought back my Auckland Waterfront Index to the front page after putting into suspension with Port of Auckland (POAL) making another attempt in its bid to extend the port in its current location at the downtown waterfront.

This has been brought on after commentary from ATB on Port of Auckland’s scaled back expansion program proposal which can be seen at this post: Do we need a port in downtown Auckland?

 

Admittedly I was wondering why I got such a large spike in traffic on what are usually quiet Sundays for me. I send my thanks to Sacha for his link back to my “POSSIBLE PORT OF AUCKLAND RELOCATIONS” post which did stir some debate although somewhat one-sided.

 

So it seems after a 12 month break, the POAL chestnut is back on the table with me opening around of commentary on Facebook:

Tony Gibson is as unvisionary as Councillor Ann Hartley who shot down Part Two of the Upper North Island Port Review which to look at ALL OPTIONS for Port of Auckland. And by ALL OPTIONS I mean whether:
1) Expanding the Port as is where is, is a good idea
2) Moving the Port to Clevedon is a good idea}
3) Moving the Port to Marsden Point and Port of Tauranga is a good idea

The review would have looked at all costs AND benefits to each of those three options so at least Auckland knows where it stands in any future decisions
http://www.3news.co.nz/Ports-move-too-costly—CEO/tabid/421/articleID/293399/Default.aspx

 

Port of Auckland have replied through Twitter after I posted the above with them noting that I am most likely to be opposed to the new expansion idea – which I am.

 

A reminder to all that I support moving the Port to Clevedon unless a comprehensive report will all the pro and con’s for my reading and comprehension is undertaken and presented.

 

I better keep an eye out when the public consultations start on POAL again…

3 thoughts on “Port of Auckland Debate

      1. Thanks Ben. I do not want any more reclamation at the current POAL site but at the same time am happy to keep a working port there – in the foreseeable future. Yes, land is expensive and would make for some very nice residential developments but the port does employ a lot of people and adds (apart for the cars on the wharves) a bit of vibrance. I don’t know that Clevedon (or any other location out that way) is a great alternative as it would alter the area significantly – for the worse I feel. I still think the POT and Port Marsden combo is where the growth can come from. Of course this option has some problems – not POAL owned, not in the Auckland area, no rail link to Marsden and I suspect that over time even the Kaimai tunnel will be found limiting and will need to be duplicated or dug out to enable double tracking. Of course, improving rail infrastructure to both of these places can also have some side benefits to the problem of where to put everyone in Auckland – don’t. Intensification is surely needed but not, I believe, to the extent that the Unitary Plan proposes at this time. Using the same argument that developers will not let huge amounts of greenfield land go to market at the same time in order to keep prices up, the in town developers will also not just create huge swathes of apartments in, say, St Heliers for the same reason. I don’t want to see sprawl but I also think that the proposed high density could also be counter productive to a point. I think your idea of adding a single year is a good one although with a change of govt (which I’m hoping for) could have the potential to open the plan up a bit by enabling investment in the kind of transport infrastructure to make these kind of plans work. Apologies, lots of rambling info but I have found a need to try and get this all down. Thanks for your effort in getting around the meetings. If you get out west, let me know which forum and I’ll try and catch up :-).

Comments are closed.