Port to Ship Out – No Departure Date
Port to Ship Out – No Departure Date
Port will have to move but not before a credible long-term strategy is confirmed
Interest
groups in Auckland and its waterfront chose a group of
representatives to determine the future of the port. Their
consensus is that the Port is going to have to move but not
before a credible location – either in the Firth of Thames
or Manukau Harbour - is confirmed and meanwhile the current
port needs to be supported to ensure it continues to be
highly competitive and viable.
Business accepts that
Auckland’s commercial port will need to move long-term,
but not before a new site has been selected and consented,
said Auckland Chamber of Commerce CEO Michael Barnett.
As New Zealand’s biggest import port, an early decision to move without the certainty of where to and when would be irresponsible. “There needs to be long-term strategy along the lines of the integrated package of recommendations set out in the CWG report.”
Meanwhile for the good of Auckland’s economy - the
City’s businesses and residents, especially those close to
the Port - there needs to be early decisions to commence the
improvements flagged in the CWG report:
• On
the port through the central wharves strategy to address the
need to increase berth length and yard space for growth of
cruise and handling longer ships, plus measures to improve
processing of imported vehicles (car park building);
and,
• Off-site to address road and rail
access. In respect of road access, regardless of the port
traffic there is a strong case to address congestion in the
Grafton Gully area in conjunction with potential property
value uplift and amenity improvements. This is a legacy
project that has been on Auckland’s books for 20+
years.
The Auckland Chamber of Commerce will be strongly advocating for these projects to proceed with urgency – the incoming mayor and council should commit to these projects
Those at the table had compromised to get this result. There was acknowledgement that for the port to be able to justify a move it needed to be a viable business, and for this to be delivered additional berth length needs to be provided in the short to medium term. Shedding or downsizing freight operations would weaken the case for moving the port.
“Given Auckland’s limited resources it is a pity that ratepayers’ money had to be directed at this exercise. I believe the outcome is something that could have been achieved through a better understanding of the port as an asset and through better leadership,” concluded Mr Barnett.
ENDS