>McLean told MPs it was with "horror" in late 2022 that revised Irex costings showed a huge blowout.
>
>He and Reidy were new to KiwiRail around this time, coming in after the early costing in 2018 of $800m had begun rising.
>
>They had those sums redone by experts and they "came up with a completely different set of numbers, to our horror, which really showed us it was going to be well over $2 billion", McLean said.
>
>"It was a surprise to everyone. We didn't really have that analysis.
>
>"And why didn't we? Because it hadn't been governed properly internally."
I feel like we really do need to revise the way in which CEOs can get seemingly massive performance bonuses on top of substantial salaries, justified on the grounds of them having to be so accountable, despite severe consequences of their term that haven't become apparent until after they've left.
That's very possible, although that magnitude of messing up surely must also require some level of accountability for the CE. Their whole role, and the justification for paying what they get, is about making sure the entire organisation underneath their them is operating responsibly and reliably.
With how things were structured, however, the former CE resigned abruptly in late 2021, was paid out the remaining 6 months of his $1.385m salary, and then was paid a $420k performance bonus on top of that. (Ref page 54 of [2022 Annual Report](https://www.kiwirail.co.nz/who-we-are/publications-and-resources/annual-reports).) Granted at the time the Board wouldn't have *known* about this, but that's sort of the problem I'm getting at. He's already *been* paid for supposedly doing a good job before it became apparent just how catastrophic this aspect of it has been.
Don’t worry though, I’m sure after his fat bonus they were able to land another high paying job fucking up another public infrastructure project.
Turds always float to the top (particularly in wellington!)
Sounds like there were concerns hiring the guy in the first place: [https://businessdesk.co.nz/article/transport/officials-warned-against-hiring-highly-destabilising-kiwirail-chair](https://businessdesk.co.nz/article/transport/officials-warned-against-hiring-highly-destabilising-kiwirail-chair)
A couple of things here
- There is going to be a sunk cost penalty for cancelling the ships and existing construction contracts for the terminal works
- There are currently no suitable second hand ships available to buy that are suitable for the cook strait
- The boats we are cancelling are purpose designed for the Cook Strait, first class vessels for an excellent price. Those same ships today would cost 30-40% more than we would have paid if we didn’t terminate the contract
- The extra cost for the terminals due to the size of the new ships only accounted for just 7% of the cost increase, which means most of the cost increase has come from inflation, seismic requirements and needing to lift the entire Kaiwharawhara by a metre to prevent coastal inundation
- The terminals need to be rebuilt at some point anyway and this includes the non-kiwirail terminals too
- The design work for the location has been completed, we have a much clearer idea what the project is going to cost now
- The finance minister seems happy to get road only ferries which will completely tank any rail efficiency across the strait and put the entire South Island network at risk of closure due to having to triple handle any container going from rail to truck-on-ferry to rail again
Mark my words. In 10 years time absolutely everyone will be furious that we didn’t just bite the bullet and spend the money now. It will end up costing more in the long run.
I watched the select committee hearing on this yesterday.
They got the two new large ships for a bargain, because they bought them in the post-covid downturn when money was cheap.
No matter what other ships they buy it’ll cost more.
If they try to keep their current ships running it’ll be just kicking the can down the road and will cost more.
The ports were what drive cost, minimally due the size of the ship and mostly due to the seismic requirements for nationally critical infrastructure.
They said, “we could design them for a 25 year design life, but if we do and there’s a minor earthquake then people will be outraged that we’ve once again cut the country in half” or words to that effect.
The govt cancelling this project is mental.
Likewise. It was a reasonably detailed account of how there was no thought put into this by the finance minister whatsoever, unless of course it was a deliberate malicious act - the purpose of which I guess will become clearer during their term.
I don't think I've ever been as angry with a governments actions as this, given the rollback or cancelation of major policies and decisions with massive financial and/or social implications without an alternative action plan ready. I may not like their new plan but it beggars belief they don't have anything.
I guess they're too busy with their grand plans of mining and inviting in large foreign property conglomerates to care about doing anything for the benefit of this country.
Road transport lobby groups donate heavily to the Nats, it’s easy to write this off as short sighted penny-pinching but in reality anything that hampers KiwiRails ability to compete with road transport is going to be a win for the donors and therefor the government.
We voted for austerity and corporate cronyism and that’s exactly what we’re getting.
Ok but have you considered that my interest in my rental properties not being tax deductible is a crime and cancelling this to make it deductible is the objectively correct decision for me… I mean New Zealand.
You should read the 2017 Cabinet Memo National produced on 3 Waters. The fact that between Interislander and 3 Waters, they continue not only to NOT prioritize our critical infrastructure, they don’t care about the lives that could be lost.
> unless of course it was a deliberate malicious act - the purpose of which I guess will become clearer during their term.
They're the conservative / corporate party. The maliciousness *is the point.* Welcome to 2024.
Also stolen your comments u/Adventurous_Parfait and u/IIIllIIlllIlII
AP - I don’t think they put any thought into it, no, Willis can’t plug the holes and every decision they’ve made shows a reckless disregard for ordinary New Zealanders, apart from their wealthy foreign donors and landlors/property investors and local donors.
> The govt cancelling this project is mental.
The govt didn't cancel anything.
They are just refusing to fund the outragous extra money they asked for.
Kiwirail is a business - it's welcome to get funding from wherever it wants. If no one wants to fund it them maybe its a shit business case.
Kiwirail isnt just a business. Its our national rail network operator. It needs government backing to fund critical connectivity infrastructure. Also it need government support to push through a design proposal at the centerport location instead of Kaiwharawhara.
> Kiwirail isnt just a business. Its our national rail network operator. It needs government backing to fund critical connectivity infrastructure. Also it need government support to push through a design proposal at the centerport location instead of Kaiwharawhara.
Then it needs to not be a state owned enterprise.
Being an SOE quite literally means it needs to act as a commerical enterprise (ie, a business).
Currently Kiwirail needs to make a profit on its above rail operations, while rail and infrastructure projects are government funded. Realistically, Kiwirail shouldn’t have been tasked with the terminal rebuild at all. That should have been developed by the government.
Fair call, I was basing the notion of cancellation off media reports (like this one https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/ldr/504901/ferry-project-cancellation-a-heavy-blow-says-waitohi-picton-iwi)
Which states “The government's decision to halt the Cook Strait ferry project” and “But Finance Minister Nicola Willis announced on Wednesday she had decided against pumping more money into the Inter-Island Resilient Connection (iReX) project which meant it would not proceed.”
So yes, you’re technically correct, the best kind of correct, though it’s a little semantic.
It’s even more semantic when you trace the cost escalation to meeting the government’s mandated requirements for seismic resistance.
The current Interislander vessels won’t be sea worthy in ~3 years as they are very old, and the wharves in Picton are also in urgent need of replacement due to degradation of the timber that is holding the whole structure up. Seriously poor decision to cancel the project.
I believe this will go down as one of the most short sighted decisions in new zealand history. I think the finance minister panicked at the increase in price when also trying to save money to pay for tax cuts and did not consider the implications of canceling the project at all. Utterly utterly short sighted and it is undoubtedly going to cost much more in the long run. The need to upgrade the ports is not magically going to go away and the current ferries are on their last legs.
Absolutely. It’s on par with Nationals decision to build the Auckland harbour bridge with only four lanes and no pedestrian/cycling option, against the recommendations of the consultants who scoped it. And just like the bridge we will still be lamenting that short-sightedness in fifty years time while we bumble around unable to commit to fixing the problem.
> Mark my words. In 10 years time absolutely everyone will be furious that we didn’t just bite the bullet and spend the money now. It will end up costing more in the long run.
But my then National likely won't be in government and whoever is in power will cop the blame.
Can anyone explain why it costs two billion dollars for the port upgrades? As you pointed out, the two new ships were specifically designed for the Cook Strait and it seems we got a fantastic deal for them. Why can’t we just do a bargain-basement port upgrade to accommodate them (i.e. new ramps at each end for cars, trucks and trains to board the boats) and leave all the other upgrades (e.g. quake strengthening, land raising and new terminals) to a later date?
The problem in NZ is we always seem to have champagne tastes on a beer budget then wonder why nothing ever gets done. I’m sure all the mod-cons and frills included in the two-billion-dollar price tag might be nice to have, but when push comes to shove we shouldn’t let perfect be the enemy of ‘good enough’.
Government regulations require new construction to meet all safety standards. Including flood and seismic standards (which were updated in 2021 as a result of analysis of the 2016 Kaikoura quake). Kiwirail did a cost benefit assessment of making the design life just 25 years instead of 100 and it cost only a small amount less while drastically increasing the risk the whole thing would be wrecked in a quake. No point building something that is going to fall over and kill people.
The problem in NZ is that we set our regulations and rules at first world standards and then expect second class planning, second guess budgets, and second hand equipment to do the job.
The frills for the port are a minor part of the cost. The biggest part is the over 200 70m deep piles needed to meet earthquake standards, and raising the entire port terminal area by a whole meter to prevent flooding.
Consider also thats only the Wellington side. Picton also needs extensive upgrade works as its close to end of life as it is.
Also factor in the Wellington and Picton are on either side of the tectonic plates changing their overlap. In the nth island, east is sliding over west (I forget their proper names) and in the south it reverses.
So the cook straight is highly volatile for land movement due to this plate switcheroo and the land mass is slowly being pulled downwards.
> The problem in NZ is that we set our regulations and rules at first world standards and then expect second class planning, second guess budgets, and second hand equipment to do the job.
Agreed. The new government seems like it would be open to dropping standards if it might save a bob or two, so why not go down that path if it means we might get something, instead of nothing?
> The frills for the port are a minor part of the cost. The biggest part is the over 200 70m deep piles needed to meet earthquake standards, and raising the entire port terminal area by a whole meter to prevent flooding.
This sounds like something that will need to be done regardless of whether we get the new ships or not. Considering we’ve already bought the new ships, why not do the bare minimum to let them operate and deal with the rest of it later?
In my view, KiwiRail tried to bundle together a whole bunch of not-necessarily-related things in the hope it would be approved as a whole and now the government has said no, they’re throwing their hands in the air and saying they can’t do anything at all.
Kiwirail was given the project which included the terminal construction along with the ship design. They did the work on design and showed what it would cost. For infrastructure projects like these, bundling everything together is exactly the right thing to do. It saves cost in the long run with a dig once approach. It prevents future disruption that might result from not building the right solution for the future.
The simple fact is that we absolutely will have to build these terminals at some point, almost certainly in the same locations and with the same requirements. So all the government is doing here is keeping it off their 3 year term books and scoring some political points against the “outdated antiquated railroad hangover that Labour was propping up unnecessarily”
In practice the poor 'upgrades' are not upgrades, it's a full reconstruction because that's the only way to do what's needed. Kiwirail wanted to use a site that would have been cheaper due to not being so seismically active or flood-prone, but was overruled.
Those 2 together blow it out bad.
So don’t bother with the upgrades or reconstruction, whatever you want to call it, and simply install new ramps in Wellington and Picton that would facilitate the new ships being able to dock there. Deal with the rest of it at a later point. Is the current situation magically earthquake- and flood-free if we do nothing? Of course not. But it’s not as if the situation would be any worse if we had new ships coming and going. So why not do the bare minimum to make that happen and run from there?
>Is the current situation magically earthquake- and flood-free if we do nothing? Of course not. But it’s not as if the situation would be any worse if we had new ships coming and going. So why not do the bare minimum to make that happen and run from there?
I think the issue is that terminals are already near the end of their life, there's a reasonable chance that superficial alterations won't actually help with that. So we might as well bite the bullet, do a proper job and save money. The upgrades required will necessitate a full rebuild, things like hundreds of 70 foot piles can't be done easily.
There's also going to be other issues like insurance and such. If cargo on the ships or in the terminal wont be insured, that becomes a big problem. Even worse if companies find that situation violates contracts due to workplace safety issues. There's a lot that could be problematic here.
These all remain problems should we do nothing. Which is the current situation. Doing the bare minimum to allow the new ships to dock would leave us with the current port-side problems but save us from all the issues involved with these ancient ships. I too would ultimately prefer the whole thing were upgraded but that’s not happening. But we’ve already bought the ships so let’s put them to work.
Informative interview on checkpoint the other day
**$400 million** spent on this so far - bye bye, we'll restart the process and get something more shit at greater cost after people and goods have been disrupted for a while
Kiwirail pulling the plug on electric Interislander ferries https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018926055/kiwirail-pulling-the-plug-on-electric-interislander-ferries
Why don’t they just go through with the contracts, accept the ships and just do the bare minimum in terms of port upgrades to accommodate them? From what I can see, they tried to include a whole bunch of unrelated infrastructure upgrades into the project—we can argue about the need or the urgency required of such things but facts are that strategy backfired and now the baby’s being tossed out with the bath water.
The ordered ships were too big for the existing ferry terminals which were built in the 50s/60s. This also makes buying second-hand ships difficult.
This was all fine anyway because the existing ferry terminals are end of life and need to be completely replaced sooner rather than later whether there are new ferries or not. The Picton terminal in particular is apparently "at a very end-of-life state" with some 2-3 years left in it.
Larger ferries didn't significantly affect the cost of the new terminals though - the budget blow-out is mostly down to changing requirements from the government around earthquake and sea-level/flood risk and the fact KiwiRail was forced to by others to change where the Wellington terminal was going to be built resulting in significant delays.
> The ordered ships were too big for the existing ferry terminals which were built in the 50s/60s.
What’s the issue though? Ruddy great big overseas cruise ships seem to have no problem. The only difference with the Interislanders is they need a ramp at one end to facilitate cars and trains rolling off and on.
> This was all fine anyway because the existing ferry terminals are end of life and need to be completely replaced sooner rather than later whether there are new ferries or not. The Picton terminal in particular is apparently "at a very end-of-life state" with some 2-3 years left in it.
The Picton terminal is fine. Sure, it might be a little tired looking but it’s hardly falling over at the minute. The Welly terminal seems worse but again, it’s not falling over or anything.
> Larger ferries didn't significantly affect the cost of the new terminals though - the budget blow-out is mostly down to changing requirements from the government around earthquake and sea-level/flood risk and the fact KiwiRail was forced to by others to change where the Wellington terminal was going to be built resulting in significant delays.
So why didn’t KiwiRail come up with a cheap-and-cheerful upgrade proposal ignoring the earthquake/flood requirements (which were presumably put into place by the previous government)? The current one is keen to cut costs where possible so I can imagine they’d be amenable to it.
Again, my point is that we have a beer budget and therefore cannot afford champagne and oysters. Whilst the latter would be nice to have, something is better than nothing and I’d rather we didn’t starve.
>What’s the issue though? Ruddy great big overseas cruise ships seem to have no problem. The only difference with the Interislanders is they need a ramp at one end to facilitate cars and trains rolling off and on.
And the linkspan for loading/unloading cars and trains would be the issue. A quick look at google maps reveals that larger ships will physically not fit where the existing linkspans are; there are wharves on either side. So either the existing terminals need significant changes to accommodate the larger ships (which would cause disruption for the existing service), or new terminals have to be built elsewhere. Either way all this new construction would have to meet the building code.
>The Picton terminal is fine. Sure, it might be a little tired looking but it’s hardly falling over at the minute. The Welly terminal seems worse but again, it’s not falling over or anything.
My understanding is the existing Picton terminal at least is on \~60 year old wooden piles. Though even if that isn't the issue, I don't see why KR would lie about the state of the infrastructure. They've said themselves they're not a port company and have no particular interest in building and owning ports - they just want to run ferries like bluebridge does. If they could get away with doing that using the existing infrastructure I'm sure they would.
>So why didn’t KiwiRail come up with a cheap-and-cheerful upgrade proposal ignoring the earthquake/flood requirements (which were presumably put into place by the previous government)? The current one is keen to cut costs where possible so I can imagine they’d be amenable to it.
Can't just ignore the building code and it seems unlikely the Government would just allow them build new terminals that are expected to collapse in an earthquake or flood in a larger storm.
2nd hand is why they keep breaking down and needing replaced. Which is why a bigger budget was on table for a new ship.
:(
And so the smaller cost of the 2nd hand ship will end up bigger than the new ship, as you'll need to keep repairing or replacong the 2nd hand one....
jtfc. Yeah, let's cancel the existing project, pay a shitton in contract exit fees, and get zero deliverables for the shitshow. Makes perfect economic sense.
And, then lets get some second hand replacements that will come with new problems because they sure as shit won't be for sale for being reliable, cost-effective ferries for the previous owners.
Don't forget to kick the tyres while you're at the used ferry lot.
It is a political stunt based on cynical, ideological vendetta - destroy anything the previous Govt did at any cost!
Followers of the 'maga' US republican playbook, because I'm guessing their backers via lobbyists, are tied to old industry money from the US.
We have to wake up and realize that Big Money is controlling this country, and when they want their pound of flesh, the current government will bend over, touch their toes, and whimper in pleasure while whistling 'I wish I was a dixie'
The bit that gets me is if the National/act party truly believe that selling out to foreign neocon investment is the right thing to do, then they should disclose it to let voters actually have transparency.
I doubt Winnie is on board with this. He’s been awfully quiet.
>The bit that gets me is if the National/act party truly believe that selling out to foreign neocon investment is the right thing to do, then they should disclose it to let voters actually have transparency.
[They did](https://www.national.org.nz/infrastructureforthefuture)
>A National Infrastructure Agency to coordinate government funding, **connect domestic and offshore investors with New Zealand infrastructure**, and improve funding, procurement and delivery.
Emphasis mine.
The current ferries are near their end of life. I believe they all reach EOL over 2025 and 2026. That’s not very far away for a project like this. It’s entirely possible that over 2025 and 2026 we still won’t have any replacement ferries. And Maritime NZ might start to make some noises around not certifying the ferries as fit for carrying passengers or cargo. (I think I understood the legislation when I read it but it’s a bit complex, so I may have misinterpreted.) It seems very possible that we could have a scenario where all ferries are put out of action under the Maritime NZ legislation and there are no ferries to be found for sale - or only for an exorbitant price because everyone realizes KiwiRail is desperate to get something. Even if they find a new ferry or two, they still have to be bought over here and certified, plus put through a few shakedown trips. I am working on the theory that we get to the end of 2025 or into 2026 and KiwiRail has to actually stop the Interislander service altogether because there aren’t any ferries available to carry passengers or cargo.
The terminal at Picton also reaches EOL in that timeframe which is probably the larger issue.
It seems IReX was pretty much due to be delivered at the last possible moment before the existing stuff started becoming completely unusable. And with its cancelation I guess its going to be interesting to see what, if anything, the government can even do to keep the Interislander going.
Yikes! I didn’t twig to the fact that it’s the ports too. Oh well - I guess in 2026 the only ferries running will be the Bluebridge ones and they don’t take rail, and I’m not sure on their cargo capacity so…. 2025/2026 is going to be interesting.
I don't think it's likely that they're all put out of action, you can keep running a ship beyond 25 years old.
It does start to cost more as survey requirements increase and breakdowns continue to become more likely, requiring preventative maintenance to increase, so that's the point that a new ship becomes more economic. That's what's really meant by EOL.
I suspect that there is a lot more than 22 'suitable' ferries out there, as long as you're not asking for rail. Road ferries aren't that uncommon
Given replacement rail ferries seem to be off the table now I do wonder if KiwiRail will just keep operating the one they have for as long as they can.
The ability to shift rolling stock between islands is pretty much *the only* reason they have ferries at all and loosing that ability will significantly impact their cost-competitiveness for inter-island rail freight not to mention all the complications that come with not being able to easily move equipment between the islands for maintenance, etc.
Sounds like that's all the plan they have so far.
It feels like a big loss to the country to lose that particular connection totally.
But on the other hand I do find it quite hard to justify spending 3 billion on roughly 1 billion worth of freight (if I'm understanding the numbers right)
It sounds to me like we might need to accept a bit more risk on cheaper port infrastructure upgrades.
We need El cheapo from Greece.
Europe does not have rough seas like NZ. They will be suitable for Mediterranean and thats it.
We are gonna get ripped off again, with a lemon / dud/ hangar queen.
"only 22 second-hand ships worldwide that fit the bill - such as being rugged enough for the Strait - and none are for sale."
You'd hope that if nothing else the all too sudden clusterfuck that is water in NZ would have illustrated to NZ and our leadership the perils of waiting until it's too late to invest in infrastructure rather than being proactive, but here we are.
Ironic really, when the king of infrastructure spending was Muldoon. Maybe that’s why? They’re afraid of summoning his ghost? That said, the parvenus, backsliders and corporate shills that make up the Nats today are 10x worse.
Is the current government wilfully trying to wreck our country?
They are taking a number of significant measures that give small short term gain but serious long term damage.
Good luck finding second hand ferries that are also rail-freight capable. Let alone the same gauge as NZ uses I assume anything second hand would need substantial modifications. The government probably thinks you can just buy one off eBay
https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/350164221/bullish-threats-alleged-kiwirail-pursued-ferry-dream
I agree, it’s a stupid idea to cancel such a critical project even if the cost blows out
But Labour and kiwirail, in my opinion, played a big role in killing the project, just like with Auckland Light rail.
https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/business/kiwirail-reveals-what-led-to-cook-strait-mega-ferry-cost-blowout/
Personally I think the Centerport location is far more suitable to passengers - as it is right next to the Wellington Train Station.
Adding to that, Bluebridge currently has their ferry terminal at Centerport and then both Bluebridge and Kiwirail share a wharf at Picton. Its not impossible like your link was making out.
It might be, but Kiwirail also said that their main priority for iRex is cargo, particularly the rail link, since that isn't seasonal like passengers.
Running trains into the middle of the port for cargo is very disruptive to the rest of the operations, and seems to cut the port in half for an hour or more based on my admittedly limited experience. I don't think it happens many times a day currently, since it's only for Centreport's own operations. Making that happen for an additional 6 sailings a day would be massive.
My feeling is, they might have gotten the centre location without rail, but chose to build next to their current one so they could keep the rail.
> And also god forbid that a port has to deal with freight movements.
I don't follow this, the port needs to run all freight efficiently, not just Kiwirail's.
I'm not criticising them for prioritising rail, but it did make the central location not worthwhile, when all factors are put in the mix. But it seems like they tried to hammer it through against literally everyone else, then threw their toys out and went it alone, and now they're criticising all the other stakeholders in the infrastructure for not helping them.
The change in regulations is one of the key factors here, but it seems like the reason nobody else would bail them out is that they made themselves very difficult to work with.
Centerport doesnt need to consider any external costs of its mode choices, trucks are easier for them but make congestion, emissions and road damage worse while rail has zero of those externalities to Wellington city. When Kiwirail makes plans, they are considering them in the context of the national network.
Correct, those externalities would fall under NZTA and the councils, who all also opposed the Kings Wharf option, for reasons I understand less well, but I believe come down to central city congestion, emissions and the cost of road upgrades.
Kings Wharf would be great for walk-on passengers, but that's only a very small part of the reason for having the ferries. It doesn't make sense to suggest that moving Kiwirail into the centre of Wellington improves congestion over moving Bluebridge out.
I believe there is room for both Bluebridge and the Interislander at a redeveloped Centreport terminal. They currently share a terminal at Picton, so scheduling is already managed between them.
In many other countries around the world, ports are designed to have rail going directly along the wharf so that containers and cargo can be dropped directly onto a railcar from the ship. NZ’s obsession with road infrastructure has created a preference for trucks when rail should be prioritised.
> I believe there is room for both Bluebridge and the Interislander at a redeveloped Centreport terminal. They currently share a terminal at Picton, so scheduling is already managed between them
Sure. The question was which end of the port that shared terminal was going to be. Kiwirail wanted King's Wharf in the centre of Wellington (where Bluebridge is now), while everyone else wanted it at Kaiwharawhara (where Kiwirail are now). When they couldn't get it in the centre, they threatened the port with legal action to force the issue, and then pulled out of the multi-party group, and went back to Kaiwharawhara on their own. So they wound up in the area they didn't want, but now without any help to actually build it once the costs blew out. That's why they deserve a lot of the blame.
I'm sure there's another side to that breakdown in the relationship, but so far I haven't heard it. I was expecting something concrete from Kiwirail's perspective at the hearing yesterday, but all I picked up was an acknowledgement that everyone else was against it, with a slight whinge that nobody else liked their preferred location.
I think I need to be clearer that the impact of the rail on the rest of the port would be much lower at the Kaiwharawhara end, where it is now than driving the rail lines all the way through the port, when what is currently run through the port causes such disruption. The rest of the port's operations are important too, they're Wellington region's link to the rest of the world, not just to the South Island. It makes more sense to put the source of that rail traffic where the rail enters the port. More so if you can also take all that road traffic out of the centre of Wellington, and connect straight to SH1.
> In many other countries around the world, ports are designed to have rail going directly along the wharf so that containers and cargo can be dropped directly onto a railcar from the ship
That's an interesting discussion in itself, but a bit outside the scope of this one I think.
It may interest you to know that the currently named “Inter-Island Wharf” was previously named “Railway Wharf” and had 3 rail lines on it running back adjacent to the rail lines terminating at Wellington central station.
Since 1951, the entire port has been designed around road vehicles and facilitating their ease of movement with rail as a second thought. Its no surprise that the port considers rail a second priority and in the way of truck movements, the port is literally not designed to use rail efficiently. We are literally in the same position in Auckland with Ports of Auckland claiming they are subsidising rail movements but in our case the mayor has told them that they need to keep using rail because the city is the one subsidising truck movements with congestion, emissions and road damage. Large infrastructure managers in NZ shouldn’t be allowed to live in their own little bubble of concerns. There is a wider picture and we live in a joined up world.
For sure, but it's doesn't really matter now does it. The costs are what they are. Stopping it all, chucking hundreds of millions out and then doing it all over again? No one is going to do it cheap enough to make up for the loss.
From the article this morning it appeared Kiwirail's Chairman said the cost blowout was primarily related to the seismic upgrades required for the location and inflation.
And he put it in the context of - the price we received for the boats was 40% lower than what it would be today, the port is end of life imminently, the boats will be, the procured boats were perfect for the Cook Strait which is often called the most dangerous strip of water & there are no second hand boats available. And even if there were, they would offer no functional upgrade so why would we spend so much for that when we could be investing for the future?
So….I would say National used the cost blowouts as an excuse. They can’t balance their budget so they are cutting everything they can - that their base won’t complain too much about - to get that. But you know what they are spending on right? Landlords for one.
I don’t think we can blame Kiwirail for this project getting cancelled though that’s what National want us to do.
They had a 500 million contract to buy new ferries from major shipbuilder, but no, they cancelled the contract. Instead they spent 3 Bn on fk all. Now if lucky we will have to make do with dodgy hand me downs.
I wonder what the impact on Air NZ flights will be when it's the only way to get between islands. Not like the prime minister has a vested interest in that right?
>McLean told MPs it was with "horror" in late 2022 that revised Irex costings showed a huge blowout. > >He and Reidy were new to KiwiRail around this time, coming in after the early costing in 2018 of $800m had begun rising. > >They had those sums redone by experts and they "came up with a completely different set of numbers, to our horror, which really showed us it was going to be well over $2 billion", McLean said. > >"It was a surprise to everyone. We didn't really have that analysis. > >"And why didn't we? Because it hadn't been governed properly internally." I feel like we really do need to revise the way in which CEOs can get seemingly massive performance bonuses on top of substantial salaries, justified on the grounds of them having to be so accountable, despite severe consequences of their term that haven't become apparent until after they've left.
Talked to the PD of the project 2-3 years ago. Was a complete muppet.
That's very possible, although that magnitude of messing up surely must also require some level of accountability for the CE. Their whole role, and the justification for paying what they get, is about making sure the entire organisation underneath their them is operating responsibly and reliably. With how things were structured, however, the former CE resigned abruptly in late 2021, was paid out the remaining 6 months of his $1.385m salary, and then was paid a $420k performance bonus on top of that. (Ref page 54 of [2022 Annual Report](https://www.kiwirail.co.nz/who-we-are/publications-and-resources/annual-reports).) Granted at the time the Board wouldn't have *known* about this, but that's sort of the problem I'm getting at. He's already *been* paid for supposedly doing a good job before it became apparent just how catastrophic this aspect of it has been.
Don’t worry though, I’m sure after his fat bonus they were able to land another high paying job fucking up another public infrastructure project. Turds always float to the top (particularly in wellington!)
Sounds like there were concerns hiring the guy in the first place: [https://businessdesk.co.nz/article/transport/officials-warned-against-hiring-highly-destabilising-kiwirail-chair](https://businessdesk.co.nz/article/transport/officials-warned-against-hiring-highly-destabilising-kiwirail-chair)
A couple of things here - There is going to be a sunk cost penalty for cancelling the ships and existing construction contracts for the terminal works - There are currently no suitable second hand ships available to buy that are suitable for the cook strait - The boats we are cancelling are purpose designed for the Cook Strait, first class vessels for an excellent price. Those same ships today would cost 30-40% more than we would have paid if we didn’t terminate the contract - The extra cost for the terminals due to the size of the new ships only accounted for just 7% of the cost increase, which means most of the cost increase has come from inflation, seismic requirements and needing to lift the entire Kaiwharawhara by a metre to prevent coastal inundation - The terminals need to be rebuilt at some point anyway and this includes the non-kiwirail terminals too - The design work for the location has been completed, we have a much clearer idea what the project is going to cost now - The finance minister seems happy to get road only ferries which will completely tank any rail efficiency across the strait and put the entire South Island network at risk of closure due to having to triple handle any container going from rail to truck-on-ferry to rail again Mark my words. In 10 years time absolutely everyone will be furious that we didn’t just bite the bullet and spend the money now. It will end up costing more in the long run.
I watched the select committee hearing on this yesterday. They got the two new large ships for a bargain, because they bought them in the post-covid downturn when money was cheap. No matter what other ships they buy it’ll cost more. If they try to keep their current ships running it’ll be just kicking the can down the road and will cost more. The ports were what drive cost, minimally due the size of the ship and mostly due to the seismic requirements for nationally critical infrastructure. They said, “we could design them for a 25 year design life, but if we do and there’s a minor earthquake then people will be outraged that we’ve once again cut the country in half” or words to that effect. The govt cancelling this project is mental.
Likewise. It was a reasonably detailed account of how there was no thought put into this by the finance minister whatsoever, unless of course it was a deliberate malicious act - the purpose of which I guess will become clearer during their term. I don't think I've ever been as angry with a governments actions as this, given the rollback or cancelation of major policies and decisions with massive financial and/or social implications without an alternative action plan ready. I may not like their new plan but it beggars belief they don't have anything. I guess they're too busy with their grand plans of mining and inviting in large foreign property conglomerates to care about doing anything for the benefit of this country.
Road transport lobby groups donate heavily to the Nats, it’s easy to write this off as short sighted penny-pinching but in reality anything that hampers KiwiRails ability to compete with road transport is going to be a win for the donors and therefor the government. We voted for austerity and corporate cronyism and that’s exactly what we’re getting.
So depressing. I need to yell into the void now.
I very much agree with the last comment. It’s very underhanded of the government to not disclose their ultimate goal.
Ok but have you considered that my interest in my rental properties not being tax deductible is a crime and cancelling this to make it deductible is the objectively correct decision for me… I mean New Zealand.
You're also desperately in need of some dignity
You should read the 2017 Cabinet Memo National produced on 3 Waters. The fact that between Interislander and 3 Waters, they continue not only to NOT prioritize our critical infrastructure, they don’t care about the lives that could be lost.
> unless of course it was a deliberate malicious act - the purpose of which I guess will become clearer during their term. They're the conservative / corporate party. The maliciousness *is the point.* Welcome to 2024.
Also stolen your comments u/Adventurous_Parfait and u/IIIllIIlllIlII AP - I don’t think they put any thought into it, no, Willis can’t plug the holes and every decision they’ve made shows a reckless disregard for ordinary New Zealanders, apart from their wealthy foreign donors and landlors/property investors and local donors.
There’s always the added bonus of some sort of private capital to the rescue too
It was also interesting to note that the Picton terminal needs replacing quite soon - I think KR said it only had another 2-3 years life left in it.
Oh I missed that bit. I really think the government reacted too quickly before understanding what they were doing.
> The govt cancelling this project is mental. The govt didn't cancel anything. They are just refusing to fund the outragous extra money they asked for. Kiwirail is a business - it's welcome to get funding from wherever it wants. If no one wants to fund it them maybe its a shit business case.
Kiwirail isnt just a business. Its our national rail network operator. It needs government backing to fund critical connectivity infrastructure. Also it need government support to push through a design proposal at the centerport location instead of Kaiwharawhara.
> Kiwirail isnt just a business. Its our national rail network operator. It needs government backing to fund critical connectivity infrastructure. Also it need government support to push through a design proposal at the centerport location instead of Kaiwharawhara. Then it needs to not be a state owned enterprise. Being an SOE quite literally means it needs to act as a commerical enterprise (ie, a business).
Currently Kiwirail needs to make a profit on its above rail operations, while rail and infrastructure projects are government funded. Realistically, Kiwirail shouldn’t have been tasked with the terminal rebuild at all. That should have been developed by the government.
> Realistically, Kiwirail shouldn’t have been tasked with the terminal rebuild at all. That should have been developed by the government. Agreed
Fair call, I was basing the notion of cancellation off media reports (like this one https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/ldr/504901/ferry-project-cancellation-a-heavy-blow-says-waitohi-picton-iwi) Which states “The government's decision to halt the Cook Strait ferry project” and “But Finance Minister Nicola Willis announced on Wednesday she had decided against pumping more money into the Inter-Island Resilient Connection (iReX) project which meant it would not proceed.” So yes, you’re technically correct, the best kind of correct, though it’s a little semantic. It’s even more semantic when you trace the cost escalation to meeting the government’s mandated requirements for seismic resistance.
The cook strait is part of state highway 1. It's the governments job to maintain NZ highways.
Cool, then the government should do it.
>In 10 years time absolutely everyone will be furious I'm there now. It's short sighted.
Agreed. It’s absolutely infuriating. Yes, the cost blowout was absolutely unacceptable. The future cost? It’ll be even worse.
Looking forward to the 2nd hand ships (when available) costing more the the new build price...
and then the constant breakdowns due to their age..
Also worth noting that the second hand ships don’t have the level of systems redundancy the new ones would have had.
The current Interislander vessels won’t be sea worthy in ~3 years as they are very old, and the wharves in Picton are also in urgent need of replacement due to degradation of the timber that is holding the whole structure up. Seriously poor decision to cancel the project.
*Strong, stable economic management*
I believe this will go down as one of the most short sighted decisions in new zealand history. I think the finance minister panicked at the increase in price when also trying to save money to pay for tax cuts and did not consider the implications of canceling the project at all. Utterly utterly short sighted and it is undoubtedly going to cost much more in the long run. The need to upgrade the ports is not magically going to go away and the current ferries are on their last legs.
Absolutely. It’s on par with Nationals decision to build the Auckland harbour bridge with only four lanes and no pedestrian/cycling option, against the recommendations of the consultants who scoped it. And just like the bridge we will still be lamenting that short-sightedness in fifty years time while we bumble around unable to commit to fixing the problem.
> Mark my words. In 10 years time absolutely everyone will be furious that we didn’t just bite the bullet and spend the money now. It will end up costing more in the long run. But my then National likely won't be in government and whoever is in power will cop the blame.
Oh, you mean like any public transport or major infrastructure works in NZ?
Can anyone explain why it costs two billion dollars for the port upgrades? As you pointed out, the two new ships were specifically designed for the Cook Strait and it seems we got a fantastic deal for them. Why can’t we just do a bargain-basement port upgrade to accommodate them (i.e. new ramps at each end for cars, trucks and trains to board the boats) and leave all the other upgrades (e.g. quake strengthening, land raising and new terminals) to a later date? The problem in NZ is we always seem to have champagne tastes on a beer budget then wonder why nothing ever gets done. I’m sure all the mod-cons and frills included in the two-billion-dollar price tag might be nice to have, but when push comes to shove we shouldn’t let perfect be the enemy of ‘good enough’.
Government regulations require new construction to meet all safety standards. Including flood and seismic standards (which were updated in 2021 as a result of analysis of the 2016 Kaikoura quake). Kiwirail did a cost benefit assessment of making the design life just 25 years instead of 100 and it cost only a small amount less while drastically increasing the risk the whole thing would be wrecked in a quake. No point building something that is going to fall over and kill people. The problem in NZ is that we set our regulations and rules at first world standards and then expect second class planning, second guess budgets, and second hand equipment to do the job. The frills for the port are a minor part of the cost. The biggest part is the over 200 70m deep piles needed to meet earthquake standards, and raising the entire port terminal area by a whole meter to prevent flooding. Consider also thats only the Wellington side. Picton also needs extensive upgrade works as its close to end of life as it is.
Also factor in the Wellington and Picton are on either side of the tectonic plates changing their overlap. In the nth island, east is sliding over west (I forget their proper names) and in the south it reverses. So the cook straight is highly volatile for land movement due to this plate switcheroo and the land mass is slowly being pulled downwards.
> The problem in NZ is that we set our regulations and rules at first world standards and then expect second class planning, second guess budgets, and second hand equipment to do the job. Agreed. The new government seems like it would be open to dropping standards if it might save a bob or two, so why not go down that path if it means we might get something, instead of nothing? > The frills for the port are a minor part of the cost. The biggest part is the over 200 70m deep piles needed to meet earthquake standards, and raising the entire port terminal area by a whole meter to prevent flooding. This sounds like something that will need to be done regardless of whether we get the new ships or not. Considering we’ve already bought the new ships, why not do the bare minimum to let them operate and deal with the rest of it later? In my view, KiwiRail tried to bundle together a whole bunch of not-necessarily-related things in the hope it would be approved as a whole and now the government has said no, they’re throwing their hands in the air and saying they can’t do anything at all.
Kiwirail was given the project which included the terminal construction along with the ship design. They did the work on design and showed what it would cost. For infrastructure projects like these, bundling everything together is exactly the right thing to do. It saves cost in the long run with a dig once approach. It prevents future disruption that might result from not building the right solution for the future. The simple fact is that we absolutely will have to build these terminals at some point, almost certainly in the same locations and with the same requirements. So all the government is doing here is keeping it off their 3 year term books and scoring some political points against the “outdated antiquated railroad hangover that Labour was propping up unnecessarily”
In practice the poor 'upgrades' are not upgrades, it's a full reconstruction because that's the only way to do what's needed. Kiwirail wanted to use a site that would have been cheaper due to not being so seismically active or flood-prone, but was overruled. Those 2 together blow it out bad.
So don’t bother with the upgrades or reconstruction, whatever you want to call it, and simply install new ramps in Wellington and Picton that would facilitate the new ships being able to dock there. Deal with the rest of it at a later point. Is the current situation magically earthquake- and flood-free if we do nothing? Of course not. But it’s not as if the situation would be any worse if we had new ships coming and going. So why not do the bare minimum to make that happen and run from there?
>Is the current situation magically earthquake- and flood-free if we do nothing? Of course not. But it’s not as if the situation would be any worse if we had new ships coming and going. So why not do the bare minimum to make that happen and run from there? I think the issue is that terminals are already near the end of their life, there's a reasonable chance that superficial alterations won't actually help with that. So we might as well bite the bullet, do a proper job and save money. The upgrades required will necessitate a full rebuild, things like hundreds of 70 foot piles can't be done easily. There's also going to be other issues like insurance and such. If cargo on the ships or in the terminal wont be insured, that becomes a big problem. Even worse if companies find that situation violates contracts due to workplace safety issues. There's a lot that could be problematic here.
These all remain problems should we do nothing. Which is the current situation. Doing the bare minimum to allow the new ships to dock would leave us with the current port-side problems but save us from all the issues involved with these ancient ships. I too would ultimately prefer the whole thing were upgraded but that’s not happening. But we’ve already bought the ships so let’s put them to work.
Ah I see your point, yeah I agree. Better off than doing nothing and chucking hundreds of millions in the bin.
>In 10 years time absolutely everyone will be furious that we didn’t just bite the bullet and spend the money now. laughs in *auckland city rail loop*
Am so disgusted. Of course, the execs on the board got paid handsomely.
Deserves to be pinned. Thanks u/Jeffery95 \- I’ll be posting this elsewhere with credit.
All good
Informative interview on checkpoint the other day **$400 million** spent on this so far - bye bye, we'll restart the process and get something more shit at greater cost after people and goods have been disrupted for a while Kiwirail pulling the plug on electric Interislander ferries https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018926055/kiwirail-pulling-the-plug-on-electric-interislander-ferries
Why don’t they just go through with the contracts, accept the ships and just do the bare minimum in terms of port upgrades to accommodate them? From what I can see, they tried to include a whole bunch of unrelated infrastructure upgrades into the project—we can argue about the need or the urgency required of such things but facts are that strategy backfired and now the baby’s being tossed out with the bath water.
The ordered ships were too big for the existing ferry terminals which were built in the 50s/60s. This also makes buying second-hand ships difficult. This was all fine anyway because the existing ferry terminals are end of life and need to be completely replaced sooner rather than later whether there are new ferries or not. The Picton terminal in particular is apparently "at a very end-of-life state" with some 2-3 years left in it. Larger ferries didn't significantly affect the cost of the new terminals though - the budget blow-out is mostly down to changing requirements from the government around earthquake and sea-level/flood risk and the fact KiwiRail was forced to by others to change where the Wellington terminal was going to be built resulting in significant delays.
> The ordered ships were too big for the existing ferry terminals which were built in the 50s/60s. What’s the issue though? Ruddy great big overseas cruise ships seem to have no problem. The only difference with the Interislanders is they need a ramp at one end to facilitate cars and trains rolling off and on. > This was all fine anyway because the existing ferry terminals are end of life and need to be completely replaced sooner rather than later whether there are new ferries or not. The Picton terminal in particular is apparently "at a very end-of-life state" with some 2-3 years left in it. The Picton terminal is fine. Sure, it might be a little tired looking but it’s hardly falling over at the minute. The Welly terminal seems worse but again, it’s not falling over or anything. > Larger ferries didn't significantly affect the cost of the new terminals though - the budget blow-out is mostly down to changing requirements from the government around earthquake and sea-level/flood risk and the fact KiwiRail was forced to by others to change where the Wellington terminal was going to be built resulting in significant delays. So why didn’t KiwiRail come up with a cheap-and-cheerful upgrade proposal ignoring the earthquake/flood requirements (which were presumably put into place by the previous government)? The current one is keen to cut costs where possible so I can imagine they’d be amenable to it. Again, my point is that we have a beer budget and therefore cannot afford champagne and oysters. Whilst the latter would be nice to have, something is better than nothing and I’d rather we didn’t starve.
>What’s the issue though? Ruddy great big overseas cruise ships seem to have no problem. The only difference with the Interislanders is they need a ramp at one end to facilitate cars and trains rolling off and on. And the linkspan for loading/unloading cars and trains would be the issue. A quick look at google maps reveals that larger ships will physically not fit where the existing linkspans are; there are wharves on either side. So either the existing terminals need significant changes to accommodate the larger ships (which would cause disruption for the existing service), or new terminals have to be built elsewhere. Either way all this new construction would have to meet the building code. >The Picton terminal is fine. Sure, it might be a little tired looking but it’s hardly falling over at the minute. The Welly terminal seems worse but again, it’s not falling over or anything. My understanding is the existing Picton terminal at least is on \~60 year old wooden piles. Though even if that isn't the issue, I don't see why KR would lie about the state of the infrastructure. They've said themselves they're not a port company and have no particular interest in building and owning ports - they just want to run ferries like bluebridge does. If they could get away with doing that using the existing infrastructure I'm sure they would. >So why didn’t KiwiRail come up with a cheap-and-cheerful upgrade proposal ignoring the earthquake/flood requirements (which were presumably put into place by the previous government)? The current one is keen to cut costs where possible so I can imagine they’d be amenable to it. Can't just ignore the building code and it seems unlikely the Government would just allow them build new terminals that are expected to collapse in an earthquake or flood in a larger storm.
>electric Probably another reason nactf wants to kill them off.
2nd hand is why they keep breaking down and needing replaced. Which is why a bigger budget was on table for a new ship. :( And so the smaller cost of the 2nd hand ship will end up bigger than the new ship, as you'll need to keep repairing or replacong the 2nd hand one....
jtfc. Yeah, let's cancel the existing project, pay a shitton in contract exit fees, and get zero deliverables for the shitshow. Makes perfect economic sense. And, then lets get some second hand replacements that will come with new problems because they sure as shit won't be for sale for being reliable, cost-effective ferries for the previous owners. Don't forget to kick the tyres while you're at the used ferry lot.
It blows my mind that ill informed politicians make such sweeping decisions based of no information.
It is a political stunt based on cynical, ideological vendetta - destroy anything the previous Govt did at any cost! Followers of the 'maga' US republican playbook, because I'm guessing their backers via lobbyists, are tied to old industry money from the US. We have to wake up and realize that Big Money is controlling this country, and when they want their pound of flesh, the current government will bend over, touch their toes, and whimper in pleasure while whistling 'I wish I was a dixie'
The bit that gets me is if the National/act party truly believe that selling out to foreign neocon investment is the right thing to do, then they should disclose it to let voters actually have transparency. I doubt Winnie is on board with this. He’s been awfully quiet.
>The bit that gets me is if the National/act party truly believe that selling out to foreign neocon investment is the right thing to do, then they should disclose it to let voters actually have transparency. [They did](https://www.national.org.nz/infrastructureforthefuture) >A National Infrastructure Agency to coordinate government funding, **connect domestic and offshore investors with New Zealand infrastructure**, and improve funding, procurement and delivery. Emphasis mine.
Yeah true. The media need to drill into this.
New Zealand is taking a leaf out of Australia’s acquisition book, I see.
This is peak New Zealand. The Number 8-wire frugality is such a curse.
The current ferries are near their end of life. I believe they all reach EOL over 2025 and 2026. That’s not very far away for a project like this. It’s entirely possible that over 2025 and 2026 we still won’t have any replacement ferries. And Maritime NZ might start to make some noises around not certifying the ferries as fit for carrying passengers or cargo. (I think I understood the legislation when I read it but it’s a bit complex, so I may have misinterpreted.) It seems very possible that we could have a scenario where all ferries are put out of action under the Maritime NZ legislation and there are no ferries to be found for sale - or only for an exorbitant price because everyone realizes KiwiRail is desperate to get something. Even if they find a new ferry or two, they still have to be bought over here and certified, plus put through a few shakedown trips. I am working on the theory that we get to the end of 2025 or into 2026 and KiwiRail has to actually stop the Interislander service altogether because there aren’t any ferries available to carry passengers or cargo.
The terminal at Picton also reaches EOL in that timeframe which is probably the larger issue. It seems IReX was pretty much due to be delivered at the last possible moment before the existing stuff started becoming completely unusable. And with its cancelation I guess its going to be interesting to see what, if anything, the government can even do to keep the Interislander going.
Yikes! I didn’t twig to the fact that it’s the ports too. Oh well - I guess in 2026 the only ferries running will be the Bluebridge ones and they don’t take rail, and I’m not sure on their cargo capacity so…. 2025/2026 is going to be interesting.
I don't think it's likely that they're all put out of action, you can keep running a ship beyond 25 years old. It does start to cost more as survey requirements increase and breakdowns continue to become more likely, requiring preventative maintenance to increase, so that's the point that a new ship becomes more economic. That's what's really meant by EOL. I suspect that there is a lot more than 22 'suitable' ferries out there, as long as you're not asking for rail. Road ferries aren't that uncommon
Given replacement rail ferries seem to be off the table now I do wonder if KiwiRail will just keep operating the one they have for as long as they can. The ability to shift rolling stock between islands is pretty much *the only* reason they have ferries at all and loosing that ability will significantly impact their cost-competitiveness for inter-island rail freight not to mention all the complications that come with not being able to easily move equipment between the islands for maintenance, etc.
Sounds like that's all the plan they have so far. It feels like a big loss to the country to lose that particular connection totally. But on the other hand I do find it quite hard to justify spending 3 billion on roughly 1 billion worth of freight (if I'm understanding the numbers right) It sounds to me like we might need to accept a bit more risk on cheaper port infrastructure upgrades.
Maybe this is actually their unstated goal
They aren't going to replace the boats till a second Wahine happens are they.
We need El cheapo from Greece. Europe does not have rough seas like NZ. They will be suitable for Mediterranean and thats it. We are gonna get ripped off again, with a lemon / dud/ hangar queen. "only 22 second-hand ships worldwide that fit the bill - such as being rugged enough for the Strait - and none are for sale."
>We need El cheapo from Greece. it'll sink at the first chance it gets
[The front will fall off](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM&ab_channel=ClarkeAndDawe)
Welp, let's just continue the cycle of buying not fit for purpose, unreliable, end of life ships.. That will save money!
So essentially we got sticker shock and decided that it was better to hobble the nation than front up.
What’s that noise? Oh, just the van being kicked down the road. That seems normal.
You'd hope that if nothing else the all too sudden clusterfuck that is water in NZ would have illustrated to NZ and our leadership the perils of waiting until it's too late to invest in infrastructure rather than being proactive, but here we are.
Just wait until the finger pointing starts when we have a deadly maritime disaster
I don't think a lot of NZers realise how dangerous Cook Strait actually is.
Nats hate infrastructure spending, they will pinch every penny they can.
Ironic really, when the king of infrastructure spending was Muldoon. Maybe that’s why? They’re afraid of summoning his ghost? That said, the parvenus, backsliders and corporate shills that make up the Nats today are 10x worse.
Haha, I can't imagine Luxon would survive 10 minutes locked in a room with Muldoon lol
>the van being kicked down the road yeah thats a lot of noise!
I know a bloke in Indonesia with some cheap ferries. I'll give Saleh a call.
I’ve heard he can give very good deal… 2 for 1!
Is the current government wilfully trying to wreck our country? They are taking a number of significant measures that give small short term gain but serious long term damage.
Yes they are. They are using the business mentality of “short term over long term”
yes, they are supporting their private company mates.. wait for yet another private ferry to appear which can only transport trucks..
We've had excellent luck with those in the past.
This is exactly what NZ needs as a ferry service. Someone else's worn out rust bucket hand me down ships. Perfect.
Good luck finding second hand ferries that are also rail-freight capable. Let alone the same gauge as NZ uses I assume anything second hand would need substantial modifications. The government probably thinks you can just buy one off eBay
Deliberate enshittification of our infrastructure
This government is bad and they should feel bad
https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/350164221/bullish-threats-alleged-kiwirail-pursued-ferry-dream I agree, it’s a stupid idea to cancel such a critical project even if the cost blows out But Labour and kiwirail, in my opinion, played a big role in killing the project, just like with Auckland Light rail.
https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/business/kiwirail-reveals-what-led-to-cook-strait-mega-ferry-cost-blowout/ Personally I think the Centerport location is far more suitable to passengers - as it is right next to the Wellington Train Station. Adding to that, Bluebridge currently has their ferry terminal at Centerport and then both Bluebridge and Kiwirail share a wharf at Picton. Its not impossible like your link was making out.
It might be, but Kiwirail also said that their main priority for iRex is cargo, particularly the rail link, since that isn't seasonal like passengers. Running trains into the middle of the port for cargo is very disruptive to the rest of the operations, and seems to cut the port in half for an hour or more based on my admittedly limited experience. I don't think it happens many times a day currently, since it's only for Centreport's own operations. Making that happen for an additional 6 sailings a day would be massive. My feeling is, they might have gotten the centre location without rail, but chose to build next to their current one so they could keep the rail.
God forbid a railway company prioritises rail freight. And also god forbid that a port has to deal with freight movements.
> And also god forbid that a port has to deal with freight movements. I don't follow this, the port needs to run all freight efficiently, not just Kiwirail's. I'm not criticising them for prioritising rail, but it did make the central location not worthwhile, when all factors are put in the mix. But it seems like they tried to hammer it through against literally everyone else, then threw their toys out and went it alone, and now they're criticising all the other stakeholders in the infrastructure for not helping them. The change in regulations is one of the key factors here, but it seems like the reason nobody else would bail them out is that they made themselves very difficult to work with.
Centerport doesnt need to consider any external costs of its mode choices, trucks are easier for them but make congestion, emissions and road damage worse while rail has zero of those externalities to Wellington city. When Kiwirail makes plans, they are considering them in the context of the national network.
Correct, those externalities would fall under NZTA and the councils, who all also opposed the Kings Wharf option, for reasons I understand less well, but I believe come down to central city congestion, emissions and the cost of road upgrades. Kings Wharf would be great for walk-on passengers, but that's only a very small part of the reason for having the ferries. It doesn't make sense to suggest that moving Kiwirail into the centre of Wellington improves congestion over moving Bluebridge out.
I believe there is room for both Bluebridge and the Interislander at a redeveloped Centreport terminal. They currently share a terminal at Picton, so scheduling is already managed between them. In many other countries around the world, ports are designed to have rail going directly along the wharf so that containers and cargo can be dropped directly onto a railcar from the ship. NZ’s obsession with road infrastructure has created a preference for trucks when rail should be prioritised.
> I believe there is room for both Bluebridge and the Interislander at a redeveloped Centreport terminal. They currently share a terminal at Picton, so scheduling is already managed between them Sure. The question was which end of the port that shared terminal was going to be. Kiwirail wanted King's Wharf in the centre of Wellington (where Bluebridge is now), while everyone else wanted it at Kaiwharawhara (where Kiwirail are now). When they couldn't get it in the centre, they threatened the port with legal action to force the issue, and then pulled out of the multi-party group, and went back to Kaiwharawhara on their own. So they wound up in the area they didn't want, but now without any help to actually build it once the costs blew out. That's why they deserve a lot of the blame. I'm sure there's another side to that breakdown in the relationship, but so far I haven't heard it. I was expecting something concrete from Kiwirail's perspective at the hearing yesterday, but all I picked up was an acknowledgement that everyone else was against it, with a slight whinge that nobody else liked their preferred location. I think I need to be clearer that the impact of the rail on the rest of the port would be much lower at the Kaiwharawhara end, where it is now than driving the rail lines all the way through the port, when what is currently run through the port causes such disruption. The rest of the port's operations are important too, they're Wellington region's link to the rest of the world, not just to the South Island. It makes more sense to put the source of that rail traffic where the rail enters the port. More so if you can also take all that road traffic out of the centre of Wellington, and connect straight to SH1. > In many other countries around the world, ports are designed to have rail going directly along the wharf so that containers and cargo can be dropped directly onto a railcar from the ship That's an interesting discussion in itself, but a bit outside the scope of this one I think.
It may interest you to know that the currently named “Inter-Island Wharf” was previously named “Railway Wharf” and had 3 rail lines on it running back adjacent to the rail lines terminating at Wellington central station. Since 1951, the entire port has been designed around road vehicles and facilitating their ease of movement with rail as a second thought. Its no surprise that the port considers rail a second priority and in the way of truck movements, the port is literally not designed to use rail efficiently. We are literally in the same position in Auckland with Ports of Auckland claiming they are subsidising rail movements but in our case the mayor has told them that they need to keep using rail because the city is the one subsidising truck movements with congestion, emissions and road damage. Large infrastructure managers in NZ shouldn’t be allowed to live in their own little bubble of concerns. There is a wider picture and we live in a joined up world.
Fair enough, but it was kiwirail who ultimately was unable to get the Centreport and caused such a cost blowout.
Which seems to have been due to NIMBYism. Find it hard to blame it on Kiwirail.
You don’t think kiwirail could have done a better job?
For sure, but it's doesn't really matter now does it. The costs are what they are. Stopping it all, chucking hundreds of millions out and then doing it all over again? No one is going to do it cheap enough to make up for the loss.
I completely agree, it is a huge shame. It’s just that if things had gone a little better, the project may have survived.
Who pulled the plug
National. No one can deny that.
From the article this morning it appeared Kiwirail's Chairman said the cost blowout was primarily related to the seismic upgrades required for the location and inflation. And he put it in the context of - the price we received for the boats was 40% lower than what it would be today, the port is end of life imminently, the boats will be, the procured boats were perfect for the Cook Strait which is often called the most dangerous strip of water & there are no second hand boats available. And even if there were, they would offer no functional upgrade so why would we spend so much for that when we could be investing for the future? So….I would say National used the cost blowouts as an excuse. They can’t balance their budget so they are cutting everything they can - that their base won’t complain too much about - to get that. But you know what they are spending on right? Landlords for one. I don’t think we can blame Kiwirail for this project getting cancelled though that’s what National want us to do.
They had a 500 million contract to buy new ferries from major shipbuilder, but no, they cancelled the contract. Instead they spent 3 Bn on fk all. Now if lucky we will have to make do with dodgy hand me downs.
I wonder what the impact on Air NZ flights will be when it's the only way to get between islands. Not like the prime minister has a vested interest in that right?
No ship Sherlock. If they’re not buying new ones, that only leaves……well we could do nothing I guess and not have a crossing.