this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2025
13 points (100.0% liked)
Aotearoa / New Zealand
2030 readers
27 users here now
Kia ora and welcome to !newzealand, a place to share and discuss anything about Aotearoa in general
- For politics , please use !politics@lemmy.nz
- Shitposts, circlejerks, memes, and non-NZ topics belong in !offtopic@lemmy.nz
- If you need help using Lemmy.nz, go to !support@lemmy.nz
- NZ regional and special interest communities
Rules:
FAQ ~ NZ Community List ~ Join Matrix chatroom
Banner image by Bernard Spragg
Got an idea for next month's banner?
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Really need more details to understand or make the comparison between the two plans.
Upgrading port side infrastructure in line with earthquake and environmental regulations still needs to occur - this was a major reason for the cost blow-out, and aside from shifting this burden to the port side councils (not a solution imo), what is the revised costing for this?
Iirc a reporter asked Winston this question but the stupid old fart can't/doesnt want to answer questioning along these lines - what is the additional maintenance costs we have to fund to keep the current aging fleet going to the absolute end of their tether - this is millions of dollars in funding that's going to maintain old ships that are going to be scrap.
A question I haven't seen answered too is the whole - we'll build different ships with different shipyards. Are we going with one rail enabled ship, one just cars and trucks? Again - I'd love further information here.
Re- the slight bump in capacity freight and people wise - I'm all for the efficiency gains by having rail enabled ferries - but it's a bit of a shame they will only carry 40 rail carts per trip. I'd prefer a bigger shift towards moving goods by rail and reducing trucks on the road - this is the only way to do it given its such a vital choke point.
Bit of a novel apologies - a guy who takes the ferries mostly as passenger walk on ~10 times a year.
I think the major cost saving is having smaller ships means less port side infrastructure, so even if we do upgrade the port to modern standards, it will still be cheaper.
My understanding is we're buying two ships, which will be identical.
Also, forty rail cars is a lot, each one is equivalent to a fully loaded truck at least.
Does that include $1B in cancellation costs? (number from near end of article)
It will be interesting to see when they announce the cost. I'm not sure they even know, it doesn't seem like they have asked for quotes yet. Just browsed for ferries on trade me.
We currently have one ferry that can take 27 rail cars. Are the new ones intended to replace the old ones or work alongside them? I'm assuming replace them. So I hope both of the new ferries can take rail, as every time someone drives Aratere into something the rail capacity vanishes:
It's not explicitly said in the article, but the ships will be sister ships, from my understanding, and will be replacing the entire fleet.
Also, the original vessels were $550 mil for the pair, no way is the cancellation cost more than that.
Hmm the $1B number came from Labour. They are probably referring to a total cost of the project, which would not all be wasted as that investigative work would form the basis of the new plan.
Interesting how the project was ballooning to possibly $4B. That's some massive cost to build new terminals. I'd support spending it if they build the southern one near Blenheim instead of Picton, for cutting the journey time.
Yeah, it had ballooned to more than double their initial estimate, quite frankly, I don't trust Labour's numbers on any of this.