Question Time at Ruakura

Hamilton City Council has put the trailer before the tractor in its rush to make district plan changes to allow a huge truck-rail freight hub, inland port, and industrial development by Tainui Group Holdings at Ruakura.

And nothing makes the point better than an extensive report on future Upper North Island (UNI) freight requirements prepared recently for Waikato Regional Council by the global engineering consultancy company Aurecon.

The research, included on a WRC transport committee agenda earlier this month, suggests significant additional data would be required to inform prudent decisions on the location of any future UNI inland port. As for the Ruakura proposal specifically – which HCC, TGH, and Cr Dave Macpherson seem to think should be a done deal – the study lists several concerns.

Although Aurecon’s report underwent final revision, it was surprisingly withdrawn for further “peer review” at the last minute, possibly because its cautionary tone, realistic appraisal of needs and options, and lack of clear endorsement of Ruakura may not have been what councillors were looking for.

The 68-page report notes a surplus of available North Island industrial land “that could be used for an inland port”. Ruakura is but one option – albeit one worth hundreds of instant millions to TGH and development partner Chedworth Properties.

Aurecon points out a ”lack of data on freight origins and destinations”, absence of any “strategic framework for planning and management of freight”, “uncertainties” about Auckland and Tauranga port plans, and most fundamentally, a dearth of reliable information on future development patterns and necessary infrastructure. These would presumably be needed to properly assess Ruakura. Nothing in the authoritative Aurecon report suggests the TGH plan is the only, or even the best, option for UNI inland port development.

However, Aurecon does note the obvious downside – the TGH intermodal freight hub would directly abut established residential areas and a major university. “Potential operational requirements” of the proposed inland port would “require detailed consideration”, it states diplomatically. Aside from impacts on local “amenity values”, Aurecon cites potential effects on roadways and increased development pressure east of the expressway.

The research boils down to one thing. Before imposing massive permanent change on Ruakura, Silverdale and Hillcrest, HCC needs to taihoa.

Aurecon recommends HCC address “a number of issues” regarding “the impact” of the Ruakura proposal. This can only be accomplished by a robust economic, environmental and social impact study.

Here are some starter questions.

Among environmental impacts, noise pollution is guaranteed. As one Hamilton truckie put it to the Robinsons, inland ports “are noisy, smelly, and a certain eyesore”. There is 24/7 background sound from truck movements, queueing, and engine braking. But how many decibels and where? How about spike noise from trains, container shifting, and industrial activity?

How much direct and ambient light pollution of Hamilton skies? How much air pollution -- vehicular and other – is projected? How much chemical and other noxious industrial odour and overall degradation of urban air quality? What about accidental release of chemicals or biohazards? Might local area evacuation plans be required?

What about risks to water quality? How would industrial wastewater be managed? What about container washouts and spills? How many thousands of containers would be stacked and stored?

What are the projected losses to wildlife habitats and precious urban biodiversity from conversion of semi-rural land to industrial use?

The inland port would surely mean jobs. But how many? How many would be highly specialised or soon replaced by automation and robotics, as the developers have suggested? What is the likely net employment gain for Hamiltonians?

How would other commercial areas and the CBD be affected? Who would bear the brunt of devaluation, where, and how much? Would these impacts align with existing council strategies?

How would local, citywide and expressway traffic be affected? Which transport corridors would be severed and which areas disconnected?

What about rates? Would TGH pay full rates on their vastly increased land values? Would they pay full development costs – or negotiate concessions from their position of strength instead?

TGH says it would pay for “initial” infrastructure. But what financial burden can ratepayers expect to shoulder in future years to supply water, wastewater and stormwater treatment, roading, footpaths, public transport, and other upgrades and services? Can councils assure all future costs would be borne by the developers and not the public? If not, the port could make Claudelands look like a bargain.

Most critically, what are the potential impacts on community cohesion, families, schools, the elderly and infirm, lifelong residents? How many people would need or choose to move, and at what individual and social cost?

These are a just a few unanswered questions. It’s time for specific answers.

ENDS

© Scoop Media