Selective Thinking – When Common Sense Works for Some Projects it Should Work for Others

Auckland’s ambitious port plans
Earlier in the year, I suggested that the Port of Auckland plans for expansion are over the top. The ambitious reclamation that the company claimed was required seemed to be a step or two away from reality in its projections of demand. And it was inconsistent with the Council's ambitions to turn downtown Auckland into a major destination for living, tourism, recreation, and business.

Applying a dose of reality

Now the Council is acknowledging that the port plans were unjustified.  It has received a commissioned report that went somewhat further than my thinking by addressing the potential for greater productivity to make better use of existing capacity on the port, deferring any proposed reclamation, and potentially reducing its scope.  The report also highlighted the potential in Auckland for increased congestion on related rail and roads.

It seems likely that the Auckland Unitary Plan, currently under preparation will adopt a more grounded approach to the provisions it makes for port expansion than anticipated by either the Port Company or, indeed, by the council itself in its earlier spatial plan. Less is definitely better in this case. 

Better planning

Indeed, promoting incremental investment around existing infrastructure often makes better sense than going for the big “transformational” spend.  Pulling back the planning time horizon to avoid the risk of locking communities into long-term projects that they don’t need or can't afford is also good economics.  Acknowledging that there is a range of possibilities for achieving desired outcomes, not all of which are obvious on Day 1, is sound planning.

The bigger picture

In the case of the development of our ports, there is much to be said for the wider perspective and the greater range of options that arise from taking the bigger view.  This means, among other things, \acknowledging the inter-connection of land and sea transport chains, and recognising in Auckland’s case that the future of its port cannot be separated from the future of other ports in the region – whether the region is the Upper North Island or the South West Pacific, and from ongoing changes in shipping and shipping companies.  

The report on Auckland’s port even goes so far as to acknowledge the possibility that at some time in the future New Zealand freight could trans-ship through a Sydney or Brisbane hub.

Now there is a distinct possibility, and it’s not all bad.  It may well reduce costs to our producers, in part through creating a greater diversity of (indirect) connections into Asia and the Americas where demand growth is likely to be concentrated.  (It happens already for much of our freight through different sea-sea and sea-land connections in places like Singapore or Rotterdam).

And it would incidentally breathe new life into regional ports, potentially reduce internal transport costs, and effectively create much more capacity – and more options – at Auckland.

Dealing with uncertainty by retaining options

Simply assuming “build it and they will come” does not make sense, especially when the build is out of proportion to the demand. Bold long-term plans full of commitments to expansion do not reduce uncertainty as some planners and politicians would like us to believe, they simply raise the costs increase the risks..

True, the uncertainty that we are faced with when contemplating infrastructure investment, land use changes, and urban development generally shouldn’t paralyse us, or lead to endless rounds of report proliferation and workshops rather than decisions.  But it does call for a degree of realism in our thinking, the avoidance of over-stretching, and recognition of when apparently bold plans are demonstrably bad plans.  And often decisions that consciously limit risk – including decisions to defer investment – may be better than no decision at all, and certainly better than those built on little more than blind optimism.

The elephant in the Council Chambers

So maybe preparing the Unitary Plan may be just the time to rethink the underground rail link.  The Council could apply a reality check to the demand thinking, the shonky economics, the flaky business case, the fiscal risk, and the land use assumptions behind the proposed underground passenger rail link, and just how far the spending on this transformational project will limit Auckland City’s options in the future.  

There may well be better, less risky ways of maintaining accessibility in and around the city than one which not only misallocates public resources but also locks in a particular and contestable image of urban form and assumptions about land use for a very long time. Isn't this just what has happened to those unrealistically ambitious port plans? 

Expanding Horizon: Rethinking Auckland’s Port Plan

Far-reaching plans

In my last blog I suggested that it’s time for a rethink of Ports of Auckland Ltd’s (POAL) plans for expansion. The current plan cements in a commitment to a critical downtown location by continuing to promote stepped investment, including substantial further reclamation.  The analysis of demand behind the plan seems too slight in content and too inflated in expectations to justify this costly long term commitment and the prospect of a four-fold increase in port related rail and road traffic. 

Today

 Source: Port Development Plan, Ports of Auckland Ltd, 2008

Tomorrow?

Source: Port Development Concept Plan, Ports of Auckland Ltd, 2008

Debatable assumptions

We are facing a period of unprecedented post-war change to the economies of New Zealand and our trading partners.  Who knows what the configuration of goods crossing our ports will be in 20, 30, or 40 years’ time?  Or the sorts of demands that might be made on some of the city’s most valuable real estate - currently occupied by a transport operator?   Obviously an efficient port is critical to New Zealand’s trading future, but that might just be why it is also important to consider radical alternatives: to achieve the efficiencies and flexibility that uncertain and challenging times demand.

This post provides a few more numbers to suggest why the POAL view of the future may be a little narrow .  It also proposes an alternative – no doubt just one of several that might be considered to promote the evolution of the nation’s long-term trade.

Changing production patterns erode Auckland’s primacy

New Zealand cargo figures from 1989 to 2011 (sourced from Statistics New Zealand 1) reveal interesting shifts. First, growth in cargo handled was slower at Auckland's port than elsewhere:

% Growth in Cargo, 1989-2011

That means its share of national trade has fallen.  I saw no analysis of the reasons for this in the port plan.  

Auckland Port’s Share of National Cargo, 1989 and 2011

In fact, if we think about it, its not  necessarily bad news.  For a start, Auckland’s sea trade is of a higher  value than elsewhere; between 1989 and 2011the unit value of its exports grew by 29% (in nominal dollars) compared with just 8% elsewhere, to reach $3,800/tonne (compared with $1,300/tonne). A  regional focus on higher value exports was reinforced  by the growing freight role of the Auckland International Airport which today accounts for 12% of New Zealand exports by value, and 21% of imports.

Also, Auckland seaport still takes a large share of national  imports reflecting the region's twin roles as centre of consumption in New Zealand and as a trans-shipment point for imports to other parts of the country.

Nevertheless, if more trade is being channeled elsewhere it suggests that there may be other options for growth which are less likely to adversely impact on Auckland's valued harbourside.

Looking to the wider region

Take a look at what is happening elsewhere in the northern North Island.  The ports at Tauranga and Whangarei have grown faster than Auckland, and today jointly account for a larger share of exports by value and tonnage.  Whangarei is, of course, a special case given the role of shipments to the oil refinery.

           Growth, 1989-2011                                                       Share of New Zealand, 2011

Responding to structural change?
These figures hint at an emerging specialisation.  Over the past thirty years, the primary processing industries on which Auckland’s export trade was built have moved out.  Consequently, the downtown port is a bit of an anomaly.  The migration of export trade to Tauranga simply reflects an adjustment in traffic to the changing geography of production.  As higher fuel prices bite, and the overheads of overloading Auckland's transport system increase, there may be good reason to act to sustain that trend.


Manufacturing has changed, too. The import-substitution industry which grew so strongly in Auckland between the 1940s and 1970s has been dismantled by a lowering of trade barriers and by the impact of the new manufacturing culture of North and Southeast Asia.

Today Auckland has a smaller number of specialised, hopefully more sustainable manufacturers.  Some of these do, however, rely for expansion on efficient channels to international markets.  Its is incumbent on the POAL to make sure it responds to their hopefully growing needs.

Is more specialisation an answer?

Of course, our analysis needs to delve deeper before we can be confident about the possible effects of ongoing structural change on the composition and volume of future trade.  But even the crude figures here suggest that there is an opportunity for greater specialisation and consequently more intensive and productive use of the assets of the three northern ports. 

For a start, a strong focus on value-based trade through Auckland seaport would enable the company to do more with less.  At the same time, fully exploiting its inland port sites as consolidation and break-down points for these and other more traditional trades should ensure that they too play a full role in integrating and streamlining internal and international transport.

Tauranga has boomed as a result of a booming rural sector – both by importing inputs and exporting products.  As a gateway to New Zealand’s most productive hinterland – the Waikato, Bay of Plenty and central North Island – we can expect this role to grow.  And if New Zealand’s trade future really is just “more of the same” as implied by the exponential growth on which the POAL port plan is based, then Tauranga  is an  obvious choice for  investing in the capacity to service the primary sectors and associated processing industries as these sectors expand, diversify, and intensify their output.

Whangarei’s long-term role is more speculative, but it possesses an underutilised port which can readily adopt and develop best practice commodity handling, as it has done for forestry.  There may also be real value in shifting lower value and bulk trades from Auckland’s downtown to Whangarei’s Northport as a means of extracting the greatest value out of both.  

Beyond the horizon: the logic behind Northport

Playing to and building on port specialisations would exploit existing investment in inland port operations and boost the productivity of any new investment across the entire transport chain.  It would probably require the rail link between Auckland and Whangarei to be upgraded and the Oakleigh extension to Northport at Marsden Point to be built.  This can probably be justified  anyway for the additional capacity it will provide on the  highway between Auckland and Whangarei by removing bulk traffic.  And by providing a sound alternative to  Auckland for high volume, low value trade  it will avoid  costly reclamation there, and help sustain the quality of Auckland's waterfront. 

The potential development of a new nearby Marsden City and the solid industrial base associated with the oil refinery mean that more trade and investment at Northport could play  a major role to play in  freeing some of Auckland's  harbour edge  for higher value uses.

Radical change calls for lateral thinking, and integrated action
This is just one option.  But looking at it – and others -  seriously might begin to meet former POAL board member Rob Campbell’s concerns about the narrow thinking that promotes incremental change at a legacy port as a way to cater for apparently undifferentiated volume growth - regardless of the wider costs.

Of course, any such suggestions may call for more than rethinking where and how different goods are shipped in New Zealand.  Perhaps the existing owners and operators cannot work together to extract the best out of their investment (for shippers or shareholders).  Perhaps current governance and ownership structures make that too big an ask, as suggested  by the Productivity Commission.

An important  part of the answer may lie in the emergence in New Zealand of an organisation -- or organisations -- capable of integrating and managing the flows across all modes to the advantage of individual trades, regardless of the ownership and management of individual components of the transport infrastructure. Actually, integration in response to globalisation is  not so radical, even if the notion of working together may be anathema  for some of  today's port players.

---

[1]               Value measured as nominal $CIF for imports and $FOB for exports.

All at Sea – Port Plan for Auckland

Critical Infrastructure at a critical location

Ports of Auckland Ltd (POAL) operates a substantial general cargo port and container terminal on the edge of Auckland’s CBD.   It occupies a critical site adjacent to  commercial, recreational, and residential zones.  Its future development will have a major impact on the city centre by way of land use options, traffic flows, harbour and harbour-side-based recreation and tourism, and the quality of central city life.

Rob Campbell’s concerns

It was disturbing, then, to read recently resigned Board member Rob Campbell’s view of the port’s future on Bob Dey’s Property Report website, especially in light of controversies about  port operations and plans.

As I read it, Campbell is saying that corporate plans for the port are really about more of the same – a harbour edge transport operation which does little to recognise the value of the site or consider how the company might increase efficiencies and returns by greater specialisation.  He calls for radical change: incremental gains in productivity are not enough.

He argues that POAL is not pursuing the gains that might come from exploring the use of surplus or lower cost capacity elsewhere.   This would take a quantum shift in thinking, though, including a willingness to cooperate with other northern ports (Tauranga and Northland).

The sector is due for a major shakeup in New Zealand if for no other reason than the uncertainty that  substantial long term increase in fuel prices create around future trade and shipping arrangements.  Our ports have to be able to respond.  Not only  that; our economy and the economies of our trading partners are undergoing transformations which are bound to impact on trade flows in ways that are difficult to predict.

The Productivity Commission’s focus: governance issues

Against this background of uncertainty the Productivity Commission in its International Freight Services Inquiry highlighted the difficulties in port management and development arising from current governance arrangements.  Local council control confuses purpose and direction, and prejudices governance in a commercial environment through the presence and expectations of elected representatives.  

This effect has been seen in Auckland where a prolonged industrial dispute has seen councillors taking partisan stands and where one of the most contentious issues in the Auckland Council’s Draft Spatial Plan was the proposed inclusion of a planned a 250m extension of reclamation by the port, since removed.

Revolutionary change – saving sectors

I have been involved in two sectors that underwent revolutionary changes to stay above water.  Both involved new players moving the ground from under conservative (and dominant) incumbents.

The New Zealand slaughtering and meat processing industry had to experience plant closures and company collapses to move from being a highly seasonal, over-capitalised, and non-viable industry to one that could compete internationally.  Long-standing work practises, fixed management thinking, and remote ownership prejudiced its ability to respond  to the trade upheavals that followed Britain’s move into the EEC in the 1970s.  It took new entrants with new ways of doing things to save it from crippling rigidities built on past success and current complacency.

In aviation, the beliefs of major western airlines that they were as streamlined and integrated as they could be and of  airlines in emerging nations that they could compete using the same management model but paying lower wages were turned over by a new breed of low cost carriers. Southwest pioneered the model in the US in the 1970s but it was not until the last 15 years that the LCC has really taken off. RyanAir and easyJet led the way in Europe in the 1990s. Air Asia has changed thinking about how airlines should operate in the developing world since then.  

These and their emulators re-invented the operational, management, and capital structures of aviation, forcing change on those traditional carriers that survived.  They have changed the way the public travels and have managed to restore a semblance of profitability to a sector in which that has been all too rare.

The Ports of Auckland Plan: back to the future?

The port industry in New Zealand may need a similar revolution.   I  looked for signs of revolutionary thinking in the POAL 2009 Development Plan.  All I could see is a commitment to more of the same.

The  analysis of future demand is central to any understanding of what the port expects to be doing, and how it might be doing it in the future. But there is no such analysis.  Instead, there is an extrapolation of TEU (20 foot container equivalent units) throughput and a conversion of this projection into capacity requirement.  A compounding 8% growth rate in TEUs handled from 1989 to 2007 was adjusted down to 5% as “a slightly more conservative long term growth rate” and used to project demand from 2008 to 2040.

This is anything but conservative   

When I looked at tonnage growth using the Statistics NZ Infoshare cargo figures from 1989 to 2010 I actually got a 4% growth rate, which raises a question over which figures to use.  However, anomalies in the historical figures fade into the background when we consider the impact of 5% compounding growth over thirty years: a four to five fold gain in container throughput. 

This raw projection begs a lot of questions about New Zealand’s changing trade profile.  That’s not the immediate subject of this blog.  Suffice to say, few commentators or policy makers are likely to see a fulfilling future as one built on exponential growth in trade volumes.

Ports of Auckland Vision for its Future

So why such a conservative response?

POAL does acknowledge uncertainty around the projections which inform its assessment of expansion options.  But none of the options canvassed (see pages 11 -13 in the Plan) envisage relocation of component trades or operations, although inland ports will no doubt play a significant role in the streamlining envisaged.  Instead a combination of progressive reclamation and new stacking operations is proposed.  The need to deal with larger vessels is also acknowledged in new berth design parameters and a channel deepening programme.  

No doubt efficiencies can be imposed at the margins through investment in new equipment and changing working conditions.  But what will this achieve in the long-term?  And how relevant will it be to New Zealand’s – and Auckland’s – economy in 2030 or 2040?

POAL is proposing to cement in a development plan  which imposes a singular and historical view of its place in New Zealand trade, and in the central Auckland cityscape.  If we are to go with Rob Campbell’s analysis, productivity will be diminished because a relatively low cost activity will be expanded over high cost (reclaimed) land. 

Its  hard to understand  how such a conservative approach to development can be founded on such a bullish vision of the future. Unless we actually suspend our belief in the projection, which seems like a sensible idea.

Time for a rethink

I’m not sure that this path is one that the country or the city can afford, at least not on such an apparently thin analysis of future demand. 

So it’s a wise move by the Council to omit the planned reclamation from Auckland’s Spatial Plan.  This is something that we need to think long and hard about.  We need to expand our thinking about the physical options facing trade in the northern North Island, for a start, rethink the role of the port in downtown Auckland, and perhaps heed the Productivity Commission’s advice regarding ownership and governance of the port industry.