Port or playground? Reality check coming for future of Auckland’s waterfront

Todd Niall is the senior Auckland affairs reporter for Stuff.

ANALYSIS: Who wouldn’t want a downtown harbour edge park, maybe even a beach and playgrounds, where Auckland’s port currently sits?

It’s certainly a vision the mayor Wayne Brown made much of during his election campaign, promising to extract far more cash from the port company ahead of its phased departure.

The snag is: where does the work done by the country’s biggest import port go, and who pays for the billions of dollars of infrastructure, even if it were possible?

A reality check is coming, as councillors have begun to weigh up external reports commissioned by the mayor – including on what a contraction of the port’s footprint might mean.

READ MORE:
* Auckland mayor pulls councillor from key transport directorship in reshuffle
* $5m subsidy from Auckland ratepayers’ fails to reduce port freight on roads
* Auckland’s Port Future: New port location to be decided by 2023, minister says

There are contradictions to be wrestled with. Brown was initially, but is no longer, calling for the vehicle import trade to be gone by a fixed date.

That is viewed as one of the most profitable parts of the council-owned port company’s business, so its loss would make a hole in the higher revenue the mayor is demanding.

Another piece of work looks at what interest there is, among commercial port operators, in taking over the running of the Auckland business – albeit without owning the land it sits on.

That is not an option Brown has favoured, as contracting out to a commercial operator would mean cementing the continuation of the port, potentially longer than he fancies, into the future.

That no details have leaked from the first consideration of this work, and that the mayor has so far declined to give any pointers to where it might be heading, are telling.

The issues are complex, not only when and how the port might shrink and move, but whether it can and should.

Around the council table there are varying and strongly held views on the port and its role in the city, and how the discussion advances will be as much about the vision as the ability to muster a political consensus.

Brown is not alone in wanting a more vibrant, publicly accessible waterfront, but he has been one of the most ardent campaigners for its move – leading a New Zealand First-driven government study which unsuccessfully recommended a shift to Northport.

However, an example of how complicated a simple demand for change can become was the recent news about rail’s declining share of freight moving on and off the port.

The mayor has insisted that in short order, a far greater proportion of freight could switch from trucks to rail, easing congestion and cutting emissions.

The port company though says despite a $5m annual subsidy – effectively paid by ratepayers – surplus capacity in the trucking industry means road rates have been cut, and more cargo owners are choosing road.

Brown declined comment on the subsidy, and whether he even knew it existed, but in a statement noted Ports of Auckland had committed to achieving a 20% rail share in future years.

It is, however, cargo owners who decide how their wares move, and rail’s share has fallen from 15% to 12%.

The port work might more easily be able to free up a bit more space for public development, although the state of Queens Wharf, and the still-blank canvas of Wynyard Point show how much work is still to be done on former port land now open to new uses.

Auckland needs to do better with its downtown harbour edge, but change on the scale advocated on the hustings may prove hard to deliver.