Help save Western Springs Speedway

[richard 384]

4 hours ago, E30 325i Rag-Top said:

 

Even heard about a case of a woman moving into a new estate on the edge of a country village, then complained about the "noise of the cows" and the fact they would stand in the field at the end of her garden and "look at her" - yup true story.

 

maybe they where wondering why she was on the out side and not part of the herd.

[richard 384]

3 hours ago, gjm said:

Could be. I'd not seen that. I think there is a family speedway at Waikaraka already? Might make sense to put money into developing one site rather than having two.
Of course, that might mean more racing (as opposed to once a month) and that'll doubtless upset the locals (see Jon's post above!)

I live 3km from waikaraka as the crow fly's , when the wind blows my way we get it . when there is concerts at Mt smart we get it.

I'm all for people having fun, but the move  into "my area" so they can is wrong.

it's not just the noise but the parking, traffic control/management.

and what's to say that they wont close that down in the future

[E30 325i Rag-Top 2958]

And therein lies the problem, the locals don't want it where it is, but try moving it to somewhere else and the locals there don't want it "in my backyard" either. It certainly would make sense to combine the Springs and Waikaraka Park into one bigger, better location.

 

[richard 384]

yes it is a problem.

Combining it is a bigger problem too, Waikaraka Park run a top notch line up, full grids. Where do they expect to fit in...   midget,   tq's

[gjm 3258]

Looks like it is all a bit academic now.

Auckland Council have decided that the speedway will go - last races will be in 2019. 

Western Springs have done a huge amount of work to reduce noise, dust and generally fit in with the neighbours, and have promoted the sport exceptionally well along the way. On this occasion it seems it is less a case of NIMBY-ism, but more a case of a bloody-minded council determined to do things their way.

[zero 1162]

30 minutes ago, 3pedals said:

The usual lightweight dross that floats up masquerading as discussion / debate.

Cities evolve and in 1929 Western Springs was on the fringe - since then the fishing boats have gone out of the harbour, boatbuilders have moved out of what was the swamp now known as Freemans bay and Herne bay, the coal works have gone from Victoria park as have stinking fish factories and  the meat works from Otahuhu - Shortly all the fuel tanks will be gone from the waterfront . Should get rid of those container ships and cement silo as well most other international commerce / trade cities did it decades ago.  

Where do you suggest the container ships go?

[richard 384]

22 minutes ago, 3pedals said:

First of all what is the real cost of bringing them into Auckland - the channel is only 10 metres deep in places so regular dredging is required and large ships cannot enter ( you pay for the dredging in your rates) what is the impact on traffic movements and what is the risk. 

Trio  of ideas:

 1) being dutch - reclaim the Karore bank next to the airport - deep water channel 20 metres from Manukau heads all the way to the airport - reclamation could add 500 - 800  hectares to the warehouse park  currently at the airport , establish car handling facility - connects onto motorway system on the ring road not the central feeder, links to existing warehousing and logistics and airport? 

2) Whangarei also deep water 15 metres all the way to the working wharves they have been crying out for something to do and a port for decades and Whinnet will get some brownie points. - needs a rail link to Aucks - actually we have one still it just got trashed . 

3) Drop a nuke in Kawhia and put a rail link through to the inland port at Hamilton. 

All short term reasonable investments with HUGE long term benefits. 

 

 

Ron, Sam, Dutch what ever your name is today, your options must be challenged ...

option 1,   the Manukau harbour is never going to be an option that's why the cement boats have stopped .  the channel can only be entered at high tide or the bigger ships carrying 2000 plus contains will ground. not to mention turn around area restriction with other ships ( the LPG one for starters).

Option 2 will never work.  A)  the trains would be 24 km long for each ship unload 2000 x 40 foot container = 80000 feet or 24km

Option 3 we are nuke free here  

[richard 384]

36 minutes ago, 3pedals said:

Like the idea of a challenge but how about a constructive challenge --  I don't buy into the imediate pessimistic response  but thats why we are still having this debate 40  to 100 years after most other countries worked it out - they are problem solvers kiwis still hang onto  the British 'it will never work culture and knock every  idea that will bring about change'  - go the pregnant one ---  a republic before the baby is born and Peters can be our first figure head president. 

1) Nope Manukau is deeper than the Auckland harbour all the way  and it was the first choice for a port in the 1850's - cement boats went out because they no longer manufacture in NZ so the boats & port facilities were redundant -  then some idiots got talked into spending $18 mil of rate payers money for the new silo at the port so they can off-load cheap imported cement. Facts and better homework please 

2) Only if you do it as one train,  average train is 660 m long - thats only 36 .4 standard trains - so  18 and a bit trains a day is only 2 days with a train every  hour  and  --  how many containers currently go out of auckland port on trucks - how many truck trips is that at two containers per truck 12 ,000 truck trips  ? never mind we like trucks wrecking our roads don't we.

3) Well maybe a small nuke then or maybe Aotea Harbour next one up or even better Raglan as it is a shorter route to Hamilton - I mean someone trying to jutsify the existing port got the rate payers to spend $250,000 investigating Muriwai as port - really now that is stupid. ? 

option 1 ) so a hundred years ago they pictured ships 399m long 59 m wide and a draft of 14.5 m. 2500 containers per ship. Nope. this is the future , right. Hong Kong , China, Singapore  flattered Islands or just made land , we cant do that.

Option 2)  even with your figures WHY would you put this on the tracks. you have unloading times, storage areas and so on. To far wrong place.

option 3)  the firth of Thames is the best bet. Its in the golden triangle , Auckland , Hamilton , Tauranga. lots of land and deep water.

Option 4)  move the Navy to Whangarei free up Devonport  and turn it in to a car yard for import's.

[zero 1162]

5 hours ago, 3pedals said:

Trio  of ideas:

 1) being dutch - reclaim the Karore bank next to the airport - deep water channel 20 metres from Manukau heads all the way to the airport - reclamation could add 500 - 800  hectares to the warehouse park  currently at the airport , establish car handling facility - connects onto motorway system on the ring road not the central feeder, links to existing warehousing and logistics and airport? 

2) Whangarei also deep water 15 metres all the way to the working wharves they have been crying out for something to do and a port for decades and Whinnet will get some brownie points. - needs a rail link to Aucks - actually we have one still it just got trashed . 

Whangarei cant be done. The containers cant even fit through some of the train tunnels, let alone being able to move that amount of containers. On top of that you would drastically increase costs to the consumer for all the extra travel.

The only person who thinks it can is Winston Peters, and we all know just how reliable his "facts" are.

[zero 1162]

3 hours ago, 3pedals said:

2) Only if you do it as one train,  average train is 660 m long - thats only 36 .4 standard trains - so  18 and a bit trains a day is only 2 days with a train every  hour  and  --  how many containers currently go out of auckland port on trucks - how many truck trips is that at two containers per truck 12 ,000 truck trips  ? never mind we like trucks wrecking our roads don't we.

No matter where the port is you still need trucks to take the goods from the port or the train.

 

[richard 384]

OK, lets start with the manukau harbour. here's a pic of the entrance. you'll have to use the north channel as the south is to shallow how will you deal with the north channel bar. it's about 10m at low tide and 2.5 km wide. the ships are Triple E class 399m long 59m wide have a draft of 14.5m carry 20000 containers. May as well do the big one if were moving the container terminal.

what sort of health and safety plan would you have in place in the event of a disaster ( they happen just look at the Rena )

[richard 384]

the manukau bar changes on a regular bases you would have to dredge on a weekly / monthly bases. The Waitamata is yearly at the moment.

health and safety would have two different senrioes  east coast has no bar crossing and would be ezyer to manage.     West coast  1). narrow entrance.   2). 4-6 meter swells. . regularly   3).  wind

and your ship is 399m long 59m wide and a draft of 14.5 m

[zero 1162]

4 hours ago, 3pedals said:

Really - no imagination and no homework - sharpen up guys 

Its not a case of imagination - alternative port options have been extensively explored, and the current setup is the best solution.

About 70 per cent of what goes into Auckland's ports stays within the region. Instead, everything that goes to Auckland would have to go through Whangerei.

And with Northland being so distant from Auckland, Tauranga and Hamilton, population hubs termed the 'Golden Triangle' by economic commentators, meaning shipping companies would likely choose to dock in Tauranga rather than Whangarei if presented with such a choice. 

[polley 916]

On 03/04/2018 at 9:51 PM, 3pedals said:

1) Yes they did and then they built them, we only get the tiddler class container ships, the big mothers have over 20,000 container units on board , which by the way is a 6 metre unit.

Container ships are designed around a maximum draft of 15 m to enable them to use existing ports. Auckland  port  has never measured up at only 11m without constant dredging . Tauranga is deeper does bigger ships up to 9,000 containers that's why their freight volumes are increasing in and out.  Whangarei and the Manukau and Tauranga all have far more future-- the Auckland horse has been flogged and the public suckered into paying for it - time to bury it.

 

The only reason tauranga is deep is because it is dredged all the time.... I believe they recently dredged it even deeper to allow bigger ships.

[Driftit 2078]

On 4/3/2018 at 4:34 AM, richard said:

Option 4)  move the Navy to Whangarei free up Devonport  and turn it in to a car yard for import's.

Oh imagine the Nimby's for that idea.  Lake Road says no.

On another note the closure of Western Springs has bummed a few Americans out too.  Met a bunch of guys from one of the US teams whom have been going for years.
I met them at a Tractor Pull in Maryland.  Of course.

[huff3r 347]

4 hours ago, 3pedals said:

Option 4 is an epic fail because once you have all those shittty imports there  devonport has no transport network connections to get them off the wharf - maybe put them back on aboat and out to Whangarei or Tauranga.

Speedway is such a minority sport and it has bullied other park users out and time has caught up withem - last dinosaur standing time go was a decade ago.

We get it, you don't like speedway. Plenty of people do, and I wouldn't say it's that minor at all. It has a huge following. But of course you'll have an explanation why that following is actually small or non existant.

I don't like it so people shouldn't do it. Cool story bro. 

[kwhelan 241]

6 minutes ago, huff3r said:

We get it, you don't like speedway. Plenty of people do, and I wouldn't say it's that minor at all. It has a huge following. But of course you'll have an explanation why that following is actually small or non existant.

I don't like it so people shouldn't do it. Cool story bro. 

Don't react to trolls, your being played with.

[Palazzo 477]

What are the spectator stats for Western Springs, the actual subject?