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.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I'm a project analyst working for government and hate relying on vague articles and cryptic press conferences.
Might chuck through a cheeky IOA and dig around for an updated Business case!
40 train carts is a good start, but my personal preference is for the ratio of trucks to train to tip over more to the train side, and with forty carts per ferry, I don't see how it's going to help given that according to gemini a train can carry 90-120 carts in one go.