I think that most of you don't realise how much Auckland needs the container wharf. Most people seem to think that the shipping can just be moved to New Plymouth or Tauranga....but quite simply - it cant.
Tauranga hasn't got a big enough turning basin to support the biggest ships that come into Auckland....what that means is that ships come in then can't get back out. Also - the Tauranga Port cannot support the large amount of imports that come into Auckland.
New Plymouth.....well quite simply - it would be dangerous to send such a large amount of shipping into a port that is open to the Tasman sea. Ships can't get into the port when it is just slightly windy - and can you see a weeks worth of Aucklands shipping traffic just sitting there outside New Plymouth? New Plymouth also isn't big enough for the big ships and really isn't an option.

The other thing most of you don't realise is that 85% of what comes into Auckland through shipping - stays in Auckland. Can you imagine the disaster if that 85% then had to be put onto the roads and freighted into Auckland on trucks???

The other thing you all dont realise is that when the ARC refer to how bad the Stadium would be to the waterfront - they are referring to the 10 year plan that is in place for that part of the city. The Auckland waterfront will be much better if the plan is carried out than if a stadium is plonked in the middle of it.

Someone else said something about 60,000 people crossing the harbour bridge to get to Albany....you do realise that the harbour bridge can be opened up to have 6-7 lanes going northward, and that this HAS been done before. Also - there will be no more people travelling over the bridge to get to Albany, than would travel over it to get to the Auckland CBD - especially as the majority of Airport and south Auckland traffic would come via the SH20 ring road.

North Harbour stadium is surrounded by over 28 hectares which is zoned for Hotels, restaurants, pubs, bars, shops etc. etc. We really need to think about the future of the city with this stadium - not just the upcoming world cup. We don't need any more stadiums in Auckland - we have plenty....too many in fact. The National Stadium needs to be in Auckland - and since Eden Park is not an option (resource concent just to hold a concert) - we do have to look at what other stadiums could be upgraded - and it is my personal opinion that North Harbour is that stadium.

North Harbour is also not big enough. I'm also wondering why on earth NH are still suggesting themselves as a legitimate venue. I'd prefer Eden park to that joint. It's barely an Auckland stadium let alone a national one. They need to seriously wake up and smell the flowers, coffee and crap that is rotting between their ears.

North Harbour was designed to take 48,000 people, and has resourse concent for this many. It has 28 hectares to build on, and can easily upgrade to the 60,000 seats that are wanted for the world cup. It maybe small now - but it is a much better option that Eden Park or the Waterfront Stadium.

I ask you - have you EVER been down to Aucklands waterfront??? There is busy traffic there at ALL TIMES of the day and night. It CANNOT cater for the busses that will be needed. Mallard thinks that britomart will suffice by itself - but have you been there? Britomart really can't cope with 60,000 people leaving all at the same time.

Trevor Mallard has LIED to all of you. HE KNOWS that the only way he can get "Trevor Mallard Stadium" on the waterfront is if the general public do not know about the bid made by North Harbour Stadium, which is better than his bid in everyway. That is why he has turned this into "Eden Park vs Waterfront", instead of having a 3-way in the media.

You should all visit: this site

The simple fact is that the Waterfront costs to much, is impracticle due to transport issues, and will not be finished before the world cup. The guy who surveyed the site said it would cost upwards of $1000m - more than double what Mallard thinks he can build it for - and what does Mallard know about building stadiums???

Eden park is not an option because of needing resourse concent to have ANY night time event due to Joe Public purchasing houses next to a stadium and then expecting to be able to sleep.....this means it cannot sustain itself after the world cup due to low income.
Also costs too much for the required upgrade.

Only other REAL option...(only real option) is North Harbour. Lets see....It has already been DESIGNED, it already has RESOURSE CONCENT (which Mallard is trying to dodge for waterfront), nearby zoned area is for Pubs, Bars, Restaurants, Hotels and a shopping complex, it is right next to a BUS TERMINAL, and by the time it's finished, It will have TWO MOTORWAYS running past it and a passenger rail system to Britomart.
It costs a fraction of the cost of either Eden, or Waterfront.
An interesting fact is this: Eden Park has 9 Hectares, Waterfront will have 4, North Harbour has got 28 Hectares.

We HAVE to get past the fact that everywhere from Manukau up to Rodney District is a part of Auckland, despite having 11 or so councils. (I actually think we're down to 8....). If you go to Aussie - or any other part of the world - they don't think North Harbour is its own city - it IS a part of Auckland, and should be treated that way. If we need a National Stadium in Auckland - then North Harbour HAS to be considered.

Another simple fact is this: both Eden park and Waterfront will struggle to open before the RWC. Waterfront is super high risk timewise because of the fact that it is to be built on top of water which is an engineering feat in itself.
North Harbour stadium - if built - would be ready for the 2010 season.