Ports of Tauranga

[Arbitrage]

Dare I say it is time for government intervention on this as it is costing NZ Inc which affects all of us. In the meantime sit back and enjoy holding POT as the tide rises.

[percy]

Dare I say it is time for government intervention on this as it is costing NZ Inc which affects all of us. In the meantime sit back and enjoy holding POT as the tide rises.

Too hot for our politicians!!!!
Sorry I do not know the number of years this issue has been going on for,may be longer than 20,but every now and again we have "another report on the issue" and the politicians run for cover yet again!!! It all dies down,then when it heats up,time for another report.And so it goes on.[and on and on]
The only people who look to the future and act are the board and management of POT.
The complete madness is looking at the amount of money POA,LPC and Otago, and others, want to spend on dredging INCASE a big ship may call.!!! $80mil here $60 mil there and so on!! I would put a lol, but it is not funny.

[blocker3]

Too hot for our politicians!!!!
Sorry I do not know the number of years this issue has been going on for,may be longer than 20,but every now and again we have "another report on the issue" and the politicians run for cover yet again!!! It all dies down,then when it heats up,time for another report.And so it goes on.[and on and on]
The only people who look to the future and act are the board and management of POT.
The complete madness is looking at the amount of money POA,LPC and Otago, and others, want to spend on dredging INCASE a big ship may call.!!! $80mil here $60 mil there and so on!! I would put a lol, but it is not funny.

Quote from above Percy...The only people who look to the future and act are the board and management of POT.

This sums it up exactly. Shown by,that there is now 7 shore cranes at the POT terminal for a reason. The dredging of the channel is also in the making. An umbilical cord of rail up to Auckland with the dry land metro port there.

And guess what, POT is also in with, Port Timiru in the south Island, with its umbilical cord of rail up to the dry port in Christchurch .

And do not forget that POT owns 50% of Northport.

I think they are planning for the one stop (south Island) and one stop (North Island) for the big shipping lines. There after tranship to other NZ ports and collect the double container movement.

POT management are planning for the future.


Disc :Holding POT shares

[Zaphod]

Dare I say it is time for government intervention on this as it is costing NZ Inc which affects all of us. In the meantime sit back and enjoy holding POT as the tide rises.

I'm interested in hearing your views on which specific ports you think require intervention and what exactly do you believe needs to be done?

[Arbitrage]

I'm interested in hearing your views on which specific ports you think require intervention and what exactly do you believe needs to be done?

By having regional ports competing against each other and trying to generate cash for their local rate payers, the large shipping companies like Maersk must be laughing all the way to the bank as they avoid paying the true costs of freight forwarding in NZ. Why not have one north island port eg POT that acts as an exporting gateway? Land based freight forwarding infrastructure (ie government) expenditure though out the North Island could be focussed on that port. This would mean Govt and ratepayers no longer wasting money on providing expensive roads through downtown Auckland for trucks trying to get to the port. This would stop the need for more reclamation of the Waitemata Harbour and even reduce the present footprint of the onshore component of the port.
In the South Island, Lyttelton is spending millions (of insurance money plus ratepayers money) on rebuilding its port. What for? To compete against other South Island ports (eg Timaru) for the lions share of exports and imports. Again the shipping companies are enjoying a free (or at least cheap) ride subsidised by you and me.
We need to learn from the history of NZ ports and see the same old pattern emerging of capital expenditure being wasted as the port network contracts.
The present port model looks like market failure to me as a ratepayer. Perhaps the government should step in and change this model to benefit the whole of NZ, not just a few large foreign shipping companies? Conversely economics will probably achieve this anyway but it will be a more expensive and slower death for some ports in NZ.

[percy]

By having regional ports competing against each other and trying to generate cash for their local rate payers, the large shipping companies like Maersk must be laughing all the way to the bank as they avoid paying the true costs of freight forwarding in NZ. Why not have one north island port eg POT that acts as an exporting gateway? Land based freight forwarding infrastructure (ie government) expenditure though out the North Island could be focussed on that port. This would mean Govt and ratepayers no longer wasting money on providing expensive roads through downtown Auckland for trucks trying to get to the port. This would stop the need for more reclamation of the Waitemata Harbour and even reduce the present footprint of the onshore component of the port.
In the South Island, Lyttelton is spending millions (of insurance money plus ratepayers money) on rebuilding its port. What for? To compete against other South Island ports (eg Timaru) for the lions share of exports and imports. Again the shipping companies are enjoying a free (or at least cheap) ride subsidised by you and me.
We need to learn from the history of NZ ports and see the same old pattern emerging of capital expenditure being wasted as the port network contracts.
The present port model looks like market failure to me as a ratepayer. Perhaps the government should step in and change this model to benefit the whole of NZ, not just a few large foreign shipping companies? Conversely economics will probably achieve this anyway but it will be a more expensive and slower death for some ports in NZ.

If you can get time read the POT annual report.Really tells you what is happening, and what will happen with NZ ports.

[RTM]

By having regional ports competing against each other and trying to generate cash for their local rate payers, the large shipping companies like Maersk must be laughing all the way to the bank as they avoid paying the true costs of freight forwarding in NZ. Why not have one north island port eg POT that acts as an exporting gateway? Land based freight forwarding infrastructure (ie government) expenditure though out the North Island could be focussed on that port. This would mean Govt and ratepayers no longer wasting money on providing expensive roads through downtown Auckland for trucks trying to get to the port. This would stop the need for more reclamation of the Waitemata Harbour and even reduce the present footprint of the onshore component of the port.
In the South Island, Lyttelton is spending millions (of insurance money plus ratepayers money) on rebuilding its port. What for? To compete against other South Island ports (eg Timaru) for the lions share of exports and imports. Again the shipping companies are enjoying a free (or at least cheap) ride subsidised by you and me.
We need to learn from the history of NZ ports and see the same old pattern emerging of capital expenditure being wasted as the port network contracts.
The present port model looks like market failure to me as a ratepayer. Perhaps the government should step in and change this model to benefit the whole of NZ, not just a few large foreign shipping companies? Conversely economics will probably achieve this anyway but it will be a more expensive and slower death for some ports in NZ.

Yep. And Auckland would be rejuvenated by having a vibrant harbour area. Cruiseliners, maybe a stadium, inner city living, marina's, harbour access, eateries etc etc. I have wondered if that was where Auckland City council was heading by taking ownership of Ports of Aucklands.

Additionally, probably a reduction in trucks on our roads.

It would take some real leadership and vision by central government tho, more than is being shown by simply straightening out a few curves to allow the trucks to travel faster. Even tho I was/am against asset sales....this would be the kind of infrastructure project that would really take the country ahead.
Great post Arbitrage.

[Zaphod]

Yep. And Auckland would be rejuvenated by having a vibrant harbour area. Cruiseliners, maybe a stadium, inner city living, marina's, harbour access, eateries etc etc. I have wondered if that was where Auckland City council was heading by taking ownership of Ports of Aucklands.

Auckland's current port location has certainly had it's day. Perhaps that's where Northport can play a role to allow rejuvenation on the inner Auckland harbour? This is the cycle that plays out in every city and one day, will apply to Tauranga too.

[Zaphod]

By having regional ports competing against each other and trying to generate cash for their local rate payers, the large shipping companies like Maersk must be laughing all the way to the bank as they avoid paying the true costs of freight forwarding in NZ. Why not have one north island port eg POT that acts as an exporting gateway? Land based freight forwarding infrastructure (ie government) expenditure though out the North Island could be focussed on that port.

I agree. There are certainly inefficiencies in NZ's distributed port infrastructure and establishing one or two major deep-water hubs, with sea/land/air connections to other regions would resolve most of these issues, however government intervention that creates a private monopoly has generally been unpalatable to the NZ voter. Many regional ports are profitable and are sold to ratepayers as a method to keep rates down, with any attempt to forcibly divest the asset meeting with a potentially severe backlash. the On this basis I think that local/national Government intervention would be a hard sell and so your latter point of a slow death for some (but certainly not all) ports is the most likely outcome.