Brownlee spells out $422m Clifford Bay case
The government today gave its strongest message a new $422 million inter-island port has to be built at Marlborough’s Clifford Bay sooner rather than later.
On the most ambitious timetable the earliest construction of a facility at Clifford Bay could begin is 2016, with completion in 2020.
Transport minister Gerry Brownlee told the Marlborough Chamber of Commerce the Clifford Bay proposal is based on an assessment that time saving for moving freight would have an economic benefit for the country as whole.
Mr Brownlee says by bringing travel times down between major population centres, trade between the North and South islands would be increased, along with increased economic prosperity.
“We have made no decisions, but information to date has suggested we need to further test the viability.”
He says the case for Clifford Bay has always been held back by the financial costs of developing a new port, which would need to capture enough of the economic gain from its location to show acceptable returns.
The advantages
In a fairly convincing argument Mr Brownlee says a Clifford Bay terminal would cut 30 minutes off the ferry trip between North and South Islands.
The road trip from Wellington to Christchurch would be 50 minutes shorter and the same rail journey would reduce by 80 minutes.
Because of the steep terrain between Picton and Clifford bay, there would be a one-third reduction in fuel burnt when transporting freight by rail to Christchurch.
The shorter ferry journey would mean ships could be more productive, making more journeys. They would also burn less fuel.
The combined time savings would mean a six-and-a-half hour journey between Wellington and Christchurch.
The time saving for rail would be two hours.
Important to move freight fast
He says the Cook Strait ferry service carries a large proportion of time-sensitive inter-island freight, so getting it there fast is important.
“Economists have studied this and simply put, the closer you are to your market, the more likely you will trade with that market.”
Mr Brownlee says an efficient transport network is integral to New Zealand’s economic growth and is a vital component in import, export and domestic supply chains.
“The National Freight Demands Study concluded that freight volumes will continue to grow; and that it is unlikely there will be a significant market shift to coastal shipping.
"Cook Strait ferries are therefore vital to moving freight, regardless of where they land.”
Why something must be done
While saying no decision has been made about moving the terminal, Mr Brownlee made it clear there will be future costs in maintaining the cross-strait link.
“There is no do-nothing option,” he says.
“If Clifford Bay doesn’t go ahead then over a relatively short time Picton will need to have improved wharfage and handling facilities.
"The capital expenditure would fall on the Marlborough District Council as owners of the Ports of Marlborough.”
He says if freight demand increases as predicted over the next 30 years it will place great pressure on the existing infrastructure of the inter-island link.
Freight demand increasing
It is expected freight demand on the Cook Strait link will increase broadly in line with national freight demand growth, placing increasing pressure on the existing ferry capacity.
“Speed restrictions through the Marlborough Sounds limit the number of return sailings ferries can make each day.
"Two of the ferries have ‘grandfathered’ speeds – meaning they do not have speed restrictions – and can complete three return trips a day.
"That fleet is nearing the end of its economic life and will need expensive replacements.
"And replacements are going to be harder to find, as internationally rail ferries are rapidly falling out of favour with operators.
"Larger, faster ships are becoming the norm.”
But he emphasised that if the route stays the same those replacement ferries will also be speed restricted.
The restrictions affect operating efficiency and cost, and any potential tightening of the speed restrictions will further constrain ferry services.
“If you can’t get as many sailings out of the fleet, more ships will be needed to provide the same capacity.”
A challenging build
Mr Brownlee says, in exposed waters, Clifford Bay would be a challenging build.
The transport ministry is leading a specialist project team to work through the complexities, including testing all the assumptions with the key stakeholders.
It has been estimated that the resource consent process, including preparation of the application and the process for obtaining consents, could take over two and a half years to complete.
Resource consents would need to be received before the construction phase could begin.
“The government has also signalled that it does not want to be the owner of a Clifford Bay facility.
"That would require the selection of an appropriate other player to undertake its development. This would not be a simple task.”
Region must develop potential
But regardless of the ferry terminal location, Mr Brownlee says the region must continue to develop the potential for greater tourism, giving Picton an opportunity to capitalise on its surroundings.
He says the cruise ship trade has gone from nine in 2009/10, with 7600 passengers – to a scheduled 21 in 2013 – delivering 47,500 passengers to the region.
Picton’s foreshore is currently dominated by the ferry operations and industrial land. The rail footprint alone is 86ha.
Meanwhile, he says Auckland’s Viaduct Basin and Wynyard Quarter are good examples of how the waterfront is being reclaimed for human use.
Good for economy
Construction of a $422 million port would have significant impact on the $2 billion Marlborough economy.
Freight and logistics bases would be built around the terminal.
There would ancillary services supporting the port operation, such as rental cars, restaurants and accommodation.
“The Clifford Bay proposal is challenging for Marlborough and also the rest of the country,” Mr Brownlee says.






















Comments and questions25
As someone who spends a lot of time in Marlborough, this is BS. The motel/hotel industry in Blenheim (Picton's small fry) will be decimated, and ferrying tourists into the the god ugly Clifford Bay and taking out the Marlborough wine trail in a swoop is brainless, plus, and I've not read the details, how much of my taxpayer money to do this?
Best solution, in my opinion, is to continue the passenger ferry service into Picton, then let the freight companies who will gain fund their own service into Clifford Bay. If we have to have politicians can we find some that think beyond the one off development phase.
So you're saying the ferries should drop off the passengers at Picton before proceeding to Cliffrord Bay to drop off the freight? Hello? Spot the problem here?
Perhaps they should allow the ferries to speed up a bit through Tory Channel to reduce the time taken. That would help for a start.
I"m saying separate specifically designed passenger ferries. They do exist you know, and would be faster than the current ferries.
Nothing wrong with reducing the Picton motel/hotel industry by 10%. It will weed out the dross. Maybe bring back the good old NZ Railways road services buses, too??? Close Subway and bring back pie-carts???
If private funding is used (and given the potential for time and fuel savings it looks like the business case is quite good) then you shouldn't be concerned.
If the council (which owns Picton port) is not the owner of the new port both will be able to compete (if it was the owner it would have the incentive to use its monopoly power and close one of the ports). It is possible both survive, possible only one survives.
You also assume all passengers on the ferries want to visit Picton, this is no where near the case.
I still have not heard the case for or against what seems to me to be the obvious solution - a high-speed, low-wake catamaran or hydrofoil service for passengers only into Picton; and the ro-ro & rail ships go back to Lyttleton. No Clifford Bay at all. With ferries getting faster - let them make the whole journey and handle the cargo only once. Get the trucks right off the road, reduce the rail to a scenic- only track and save the whole cost of Clifford Bay.
This may not end up being the best overall package - but has it been costed ?
If Lyttleton were a profitable option it would have been done already.
I agree about the passenger, or perhaps passenger and car ferries operating Wlg th Picton, with freight going elsewhere, but given most freight traffic is between Akl to Chc why not just ship it direct over that route? Daily fast freight ferries = a lot less truck and train movements.
The region just needs to get off its backside and re-invent itself to attract punters.....Picton has needed to for some time anyway. Who seriously stops here when they get off the boat anyway if they have no reason to be here?
Brownlee won't be elected in his present seat next time around.
As for the minister whose opinion is that we need to spend zillions of dollars on supposed earthquake prone buildings,including woolsheds,is he not the same minister who was involved with the proposed scheme to put vehicle tracking devices in the road...then his party got tipped out.
I can see the Iwi rubbing their paws with glee already
With all the fuel savings and time savings for truckies and NZ rail one assumes that it won't be the tax payer who is paying for this new port.
The only beneficiary here will be the freight companies.
Do you really think that the fuel and time savings will passed on in reduced freight costs - ie to the consumer - No Way they will. The freight companies will just absorb the savings
I have no problems building the new port for efficiencies but I do have a problem the taxpayer subsidising commercial companies and them basically giving the finger back
Allowing private ownership and construction of the new port would remove this problem. The new port would have a monopoly over the reduced travel costs, and therefore charge the freight companies appropriately. The new firm would only offer enough of a discount to get the freight companies to use their port rather than picton or lyttelton.
Little to no benefit/subsidy for freight companies (unless they want to own the port and take on the associated risk)
Its a NO-Brainer !
Freight / rail / trucks direct through to Lytilton, passengers to Picton on passenger friendly ships ( catermaran hull ships )
The most intelligent comment I have yet seen on this subject.
Problem is, I am not sure that the passenger fares would support the unionised maritime salaries, and if they did which passenger group would be able to afford the fares.
I agree that Lyttleton is the only answer if the decision is made to take freight away from Picton.
Yes yes we should get the Koreans to provide us some of their slave labour that will improve the service!
The point is to speed up the journey- travel by sea is much much slower, that's why they're trying to shortern the crossing time...
There is insufficient space and infrastructure to marshall and manage a huge increase in rail and road traffic through Lyttelton -- additionally another decent earthquake in the area has the potential to collapse the rail and road tunnels from port through to Chc -- the shambles would be unthinkable.
Christchurch has the port that was built to accept freight into the south island.A large amount of the infrastructure is already there.Convert Picton to passenger and tourist ferry service.Everybody happy.Funny how the govt does not want to operate clifford bay but puts it on their must have list,Typical Brownlee.ALL MOUTH AND NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF COMMUNITIES INVOLVED.
More cargo cult crap from the crapmeister,
Why not move Christchurch to Clifford Bay & cut out the middle man.
Alternatively moor Gerry Brownlee off Kaikoura as a massive pemanent whale display. Build a floating city on him and transfer the people of Christchurch to the new water village.
What Gerry really wants to do is frack Picton until he gets a decent shake, red zone it, grab the land and get on with it aye.
The question is you're now having a journey exposed to open water for a much longer period. What does any study say about how this would effect despatch reliability during rough weather?
There is an assumption made by several contributors here that a stand-alone passenger service into Picton is a financially viable one. I'd be very surprised if it was. I would guess that freight is subsidising passenger services to a very considerable degree.
Forget Lyttelton, at best, one ship could do one return sailing a day. CB, you can do 3. That means you will need 3 ships to carry the same amount of cargo accross the Strait if you go to Lyttelton. As for Picton 'missing out', it would actually become more 'exclusive' if they market themselves right.