As for who encouraged what, if Labour truly believed in coastal shipping then why have they stood in the way of Taurangaβs container wharf extension?
Politics π³οΈ NZ Politics
- Thread starter wizard of Tauranga
- Start Date
NZWarriors.com
- Thread starter
- #3,602
Split loyalties there between two competing special interest groups.
Labour were too scared of local iwi. To suggest they were proactive in supporting New Zealandβs freight network is pure fantasy.
NZWarriors.com
The hell are you dinosaurs talking about, solar powered bicycles are the future of freight, thousands of them.
Is Port Lyttelton still equipped for major inter-island freight lines?
Hopefully there are forests left.
You know as shit as a peasents life was in the middle ages, you had a fuckload of rights and religious holidays... like a third of the year or something insane.
Technology's great , but are people happier , or are things like suicide and mental illness running rampant?
Are larger communities unhealthy for human society?
To quote grandmaster flash
" pushed that girl into a train, sewed her arm on gave her a chance again. Stabbed that man right in the heart, gave him a transplant for a brand new start. Can't walk through the park cuz it's crazy after dark, keep my hand on my gun cyz they got me on the run. Feel like an outlaw broke my last last straw living on a see-saw."
NZWarriors.com
- Thread starter
- #3,607
βWhen the Treaty was signed in 1840 mΔori average life expectancy of around 28β30 years was low. By 1891 the estimated life expectancy of MΔori men was 25 and that of women was just 23.β
Life expectancy in 2019 for MΔori males was 73.4 years and 77.1 years for MΔori females.
Pre-European health
Healthy people In pre-European times, MΔori were tall and muscular, even by todayβs standards. Their average life expectancy of around 28β30 years seems low. But when European explorer James Cook arrived in New Zealand, the populations of both France and Spain had a life...
No thanks from meβ¦. I wouldnβt want to have anything to do with the cluster thatβs happening down there. Iβve successfully avoided working on public projects like these. Ever noticed how the more public and controversial a project is, the more likely it is to win an Architectural Awardβ¦ it never seems to be based on the merits of the design but to give legitimacy to bad design. The more the public dislike a project the more likely it is too win.
While I havenβt seen anything of the design of the terminals, I do think there was (from the limited information made available to the public) a very big problem in the initial brief given to the designers and engineers regarding the resilience of the project. The Building Act and Building Code says that buildings/structures like these terminals need to last for 50 years. The problem with the brief the designers are working to is that it wanted the terminals to last 100 years. In order to look at cost saving (in order to see if that is more palatable to the new government) theyβve reduced that to eighty years.
The problem with that is not the aesthetics of project (the form or bits you can see) but the function of it (how it works and, particularly in this case, the structure and durability of it). To go for a functional aspect required for the durability of a project to last 50 years as opposed to 80 years (let alone the original 100 years) takes the cost up significantly.
Especially when you consider the life of the ferries would probably be less than 50 years. Who is to say that ferries built then will suit the terminals they want built now? With replacement ferries being a generation or two or even three on from the Korean ones currently on order, we would most likely have to replace the terminals then anyway.
Why arenβt we being clever and build infrastructure that is likely to be replaced to match the life of the new ferries? We could still get the new ferries and terminals but at a significant cost saving.
The previous governmentβs philosophy of βmore money fixes everythingβ didnβt work without accountability.
But the new government has made a mistake too, in my opinion. Instead of pulling the plug entirely, they should have told KiwiRail not to proceed with anymore design or construction work until a review of the cost savings of reducing the resiliency of the terminals was down to match the projected life of the ferries.
But scrapping a project seems without reviewing it seems to fit within their MOβ¦.. like SmokeFree, gun control, etc.
I think the roll on roll off ramp may still be there but not a lot else. Been nearly 50 years since the last overnight run, think it was the Rangatira. and of course the Wahine going down in 1968 didn't help matters.
Had a few good trips down to Christchurch on the Rangi though. Waste of time having a cabin, was just a big piss up all the way.
NZWarriors.com
Its not political .The hold up is they are trying to get Iwi consent & thats proving difficult.
Dec.13th they finally got the consent approved but only for stage 1.(285m of extra birthage)
Stage 2 still waiting for consent.( approx. 500M) as I remember
In 2021 there was 3 submissions received. Tauranga Airport in support.
2 X Iwi against (Shane Jones was annoyed by this).
The original proposal goes a long way back to when Nick Smith was in Parliament (iirc).
The upshot is its been held up for several years but looks almost certainly to eventuate.
So just a complete waste of time & money .And productivity ( thats for Wiz).What for.Sweet F All.
Last edited:
Labour did absolutely nothing to resolve the issue and there were political reasons behind that.
- Thread starter
- #3,612
Thatβs the iwi playing politics.
They have been unreasonable knowing they have political power to push for anything and everything. Want $100m spent including a new $18m marae health centre to somehow mitigate the damage
Itβs reasons like this that there has been a push back and swing to the opposite political extreme and grown the ACT and NZ First vote.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Port baffled by proposed $100m mitigation claim from local iwi
Ngai Te Rangi one of several iwi contesting Port of Tauranga's plans.
Last edited:
NZWarriors.com
Werenβt they looking at a new ferry terminal at cape Campbell? Would shave a lot of time off the journey to chch. Also those big ferries were potentially too big for the sounds.
The size of the new units is definitely a problem yet to be disclosed.
Their wash will be another issue in the sounds as it was many years ago. 40m longer and 6m wider with double the gross tonnage of the old ferries (50000t) means there will need to be very substantial infrastructure where ever they berth
I have been thinking about comments by the Nats opposing rail ferries
The rail ferries are I would think quicker and easier to load and cheaper than
Using a roll on roll off container vessel.
One shunt locomotive can do the work of multiple tug trailer units and forklifts land and ship based
And I would think rail ferries are v quick to load and unload
Using a standard container ship using container cranes to lift containers on and off is expensive - I have numbers in my head from the 90 s and even then it was substantial $ cost
I am interested to hear from others why negativity exists towards rail ferries
More expensive up front maybe
But to my mind day to day week to week month to month year to year operational costs in loading unloading are much lower and speedier in time.
So upfront cost high
20 plus years of operational costs low
NZWarriors.com
I have been thinking about comments by the Nats opposing rail ferries
The rail ferries are I would think quicker and easier to load and cheaper than
Using a roll on roll off container vessel.
One shunt locomotive can do the work of multiple tug trailer units and forklifts land and ship based
And I would think rail ferries are v quick to load and unload
Using a standard container ship using container cranes to lift containers on and off is expensive - I have numbers in my head from the 90 s and even then it was substantial $ cost
I am interested to hear from others why negativity exists towards rail ferries
More expensive up front maybe
But to my mind day to day week to week month to month year to year operational costs in loading unloading are much lower and speedier in time.
So upfront cost high
20 plus years of operational costs lo
Prob more John
Thatβs what I find hard to fathom
Fixated on the upfront cost less attention to the life cost
So more sailings per week equals more revenue and lower cost per freight unit
And faster transit times
Hmmmm
NZWarriors.com
- Thread starter
- #3,620
The current turnover of the existing services is $151m. It would take 20 years to pay back the $3b if all turnover (not just profit) was used towards the upfront capital investment.
Once you realise most of the $151m is passenger and cars then the rail component is absolutely tiny with a massive overkill cost to service. If you base it on the $13m profit itβs never going to pay for itself. Itβs just not worth it and a massive over investment forcing huge upfront cost to cater for an irrelevant % of use.
You could probably increase traffic but itβs just completely and utterly uneconomic and subsidising a mode of transport thatβs just not worth it.
My solution would be smaller more frequent ferries. High turnover/ low cost. Spend billions making mall type terminals compete with apartments as a mini transport hub where the shops/ apartments are sold to recover the upfront investment.
Containers are manually loaded but pushed towards costal shipping with a view to decreasing containers via road between islands.
