Jump to content

New Report says Garden Island


 Share

Recommended Posts

From the start of this week (8th) until the end of the month (24days) there are cruiseships booked at OPT for 17 of the days, and we are not yet to peak season. We then see 26 bookings for November in the 30 days.

 

New arrangements are needed to cater for this growing demand.

 

In 2017 and beyond, there is no reason for the navy to be located at Garden Island. What was applicable 200 years ago no longer is today. Any threat to Australia is going to be from the north. Move the ships and affiliated Naval infrastructure to Darwin, Townsville, Broome etc, the Naval deskjockeys to Canberra and admin to regional locations, and give back the people of NSW Garden Is, including a cruise terminal.

 

I agree, anyway Donald T's USN will protect us from the 'Rocket Man' and others up north. To be truthful, we don't have much of a Navy.:o No aircraft carriers, no nuclear subs. No cruisers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the start of this week (8th) until the end of the month (24days) there are cruiseships booked at OPT for 17 of the days, and we are not yet to peak season. We then see 26 bookings for November in the 30 days.

 

There was no cruise ship at either OPT nor White City today - Friday. Still lots of tourists around - busy around Circular Quay, with ferries packed to Taronga Zoo and Watson's Bay, in particular. The latter ferry stopped at Garden Island, but no-one got off or on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's quite that simple.

 

Firstly, why does the navy need to be based in the heart of Sydney harbour? Apart from existing infrastructure, that is. Surely it could be based elsewhere, like Newcastle?

 

The Navy is in Sydney because it's always been in Sydney. Sydney was started as a Royal Navy venture. In some ways Sydney grew up around the Navy (RN and RAN).

 

At Federation the Navy was supposed to move to the Jervis Bay Territory, but the politicians found that:

 

1) It would be expensive.

 

2) The naval officers involved were quite happy billeting in Sydney and didn't want to move to the back of beyond.

 

So they did nothing.

 

The same two problems apply today.

 

Nowadays it would make great sense to base our naval assets to the north in either Townsville or Darwin, where they'd be days closer to any possible action. But apparently not to the Navy or the politicians who fund the Navy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are they talking about having a cruise terminal inside the Garden Island Dockyard or at the Wooloomooloo naval base. the Navy moved out of routinely tying up at Garden island and built the whaarf at Woolloomooloo to avoid the union disruption. The new wharf is manned by Naval personnel. Having tied up at both places it would IMO be the pits for a cruise ship. First view of Sydney Kings Cross great advertisement and then where to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's quite that simple.

 

Firstly, why does the navy need to be based in the heart of Sydney harbour? Apart from existing infrastructure, that is.

 

 

 

The existing infrastructure isn't something that can be easily overlooked like that.

 

 

We're not starting from a blank slate. Sure, if we were - or perhaps if the cruiselines are willing to fully fund the relocation, that option may actually be worth considering. But as with many things, both history and the future play a part.

 

 

Plus if it was that simple, why was a brilliant, deep water, 4 ship, passenger facility at Woolloomooloo Bay sold off just a couple of decades ago? And resold to private developers for their profit? Those have less call on remaining there than the Navy - yet oddly nobody brings that option up! As usual, the industry wants the easy option, with a handout from the government/public purse, than paying the true market cost of that access.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Plus if it was that simple, why was a brilliant, deep water, 4 ship, passenger facility at Woolloomooloo Bay sold off just a couple of decades ago? And resold to private developers for their profit? Those have less call on remaining there than the Navy - yet oddly nobody brings that option up! As usual, the industry wants the easy option, with a handout from the government/public purse, than paying the true market cost of that access.

 

Shhhh don't mention things like that, people might think they would actually have to pay for things instead of just having them handed to them. This is how the rich become richer and the rest complain the govt is broke................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would the viability be of buying back the finger wharf and converting that into a cruise ship terminal? Obviously you are going to have a lot of angry residents and developers but perhaps its better than pissing off the Royal Australian Navy? But I do agree with the fact that we do not need that much of Navy presence in Sydney anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two decades ago, when Sun Princess was built, she was the biggest cruise ship ever built. Now she's considered a relatively small ship.

 

It's possible that Woolloomooloo wharf would be too confined to handle todays mega-ships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two decades ago, when Sun Princess was built, she was the biggest cruise ship ever built. Now she's considered a relatively small ship.

 

It's possible that Woolloomooloo wharf would be too confined to handle todays mega-ships.

 

The Garden Island wharves are as old as the Woolloomooloo wharves, and naval ships are smaller than modern cruise ships. If that criticism were true, it would be as true at Garden Island.

 

 

 

Similarly the marina they have taken over was a deepwater container ship terminal through the 90s. Again, capacity, depth and space is not an issue in that area. It is ideally suited. It could easily handle 2 megaships based on current builds and with a ready extension even service 4. The previous container wharf would add another 1 mega, or 2 White Island size ship berths. The container wharf was also used for both container storage and also car import unloading back then so again capacity is not an issue.

 

 

Similarly the terminal interiors were used for major import/export and easily had enough capacity for passenger loads. They were about the size of 3 OPTs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking more of the space either side of the finger wharf. It's quite narrow. Yes, I know modern cruise ship are highly maneuverable but having a ship the size of Ovation of the Seas backing in or out of that confined space could be tricky. But if that wasn't an issue then it would be an option.

 

If Garden Island was converted to a cruise terminal I would expect it would need significant modifications. The wharves would have to be upgraded and lengthened for a starter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking more of the space either side of the finger wharf. It's quite narrow. Yes, I know modern cruise ship are highly maneuverable but having a ship the size of Ovation of the Seas backing in or out of that confined space could be tricky. But if that wasn't an issue then it would be an option.

 

If Garden Island was converted to a cruise terminal I would expect it would need significant modifications. The wharves would have to be upgraded and lengthened for a starter.

 

One side has shrunk (where the container wharf used to be) due to the addition of the marina with piers extending into the waterfront. They were added to go with the wharf conversion to apartments and at least a fair number are associated with the private apartments (since Rushcutters Bay around the corner is the primary berthing point and much longer standing for this part of the Eastern suburbs).

 

The right side is shared with the Garden Island expansion docks, and I believe they're the ones that have been used for the Cunard visits as well, as they have the most public access. (Other docks in Garden Island need to go through the secure area so are generally avoided for public use under current security operations.)

 

It should be added that modern cruise liners have side thrusters, whereas the previous container and navy ships utilised those spaces without them. Even if they need tug support, that's a requirement to operate in Sydney Harbour anyway. I take your point that for the largest ships e.g. Quantum, Oasis class they would take more space so limited to one on each side (as there wouldn't be enough space for two side by side to pass on either side), but that's still more capacity than at present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One side has shrunk (where the container wharf used to be) due to the addition of the marina with piers extending into the waterfront. They were added to go with the wharf conversion to apartments and at least a fair number are associated with the private apartments (since Rushcutters Bay around the corner is the primary berthing point and much longer standing for this part of the Eastern suburbs).

 

The right side is shared with the Garden Island expansion docks, and I believe they're the ones that have been used for the Cunard visits as well, as they have the most public access. (Other docks in Garden Island need to go through the secure area so are generally avoided for public use under current security operations.)

 

It should be added that modern cruise liners have side thrusters, whereas the previous container and navy ships utilised those spaces without them. Even if they need tug support, that's a requirement to operate in Sydney Harbour anyway. I take your point that for the largest ships e.g. Quantum, Oasis class they would take more space so limited to one on each side (as there wouldn't be enough space for two side by side to pass on either side), but that's still more capacity than at present.

 

Well going off what you have said I am surprised this hasn't even been discussed as an option. Obviously it would lead to a huge uproar by the local community and public however, meaning there would need to be a huge emphasis on public space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well going off what you have said I am surprised this hasn't even been discussed as an option. Obviously it would lead to a huge uproar by the local community and public however, meaning there would need to be a huge emphasis on public space.

 

Dollars.

 

I haven't tried to calculate the figures (if someone has the time you could look at the number of properties now there x sales history, plus concessions (hotel and restaurants), plus marina to get an idea. I doubt they'd want to budget that amount for compensation, plus then have the conversion cost.

 

The other angle which may have been financially possible would be to build up so you can still have the terminal facilities, plus add residential and commercial dining (somewhat like at Hamilton wharf in Brisbane). The difference is the Woolloomooloo wharf is on piers itself (likely still wooden?), and I believe heritage listed due to its size and history. Portside is mostly land so better supported and can be built higher on, plus doesn't have the heritage limitations. So they can't 'add value' at Woolloomooloo but just have to repurpose, which is how the apartments/hotel were done.

 

I'm sure it's a practical option, but ruled out for cost.

 

Whereas when they talk about Garden Island they just use the argument 'the navy should be somewhere else' to imply it's the navy's responsibility to find a new "better" home and move themselves, thus getting out of payment there. With the view it'll be likely transferred gratis to a cruise port authority - and who knows, the rest auctioned to developers for more private profit, and some land opened up to the public a la Barangaroo, as a sales pitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How come it comes down to Garden Island or move it out of Sydney? The only options that seem to come up are GI, Pt Kembla or Newcastle? There is another perfectly good port in Sydney that could already have the capacity to take as many cruise ships you want to throw at it? Plus you wouldn't have to upset the latte drinkers to build there........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How come it comes down to Garden Island or move it out of Sydney? The only options that seem to come up are GI, Pt Kembla or Newcastle? There is another perfectly good port in Sydney that could already have the capacity to take as many cruise ships you want to throw at it? Plus you wouldn't have to upset the latte drinkers to build there........

 

Probably because most who sail out of Sydney want to see the Coathanger and the Eggshells

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably because most who sail out of Sydney want to see the Coathanger and the Eggshells

 

got it in one there Mr Gut.

 

Again, there is not a single reason for the Navy to be at GI, other than they were already there. Move them on, and build a world class facility which includes a cruise terminal.

 

There will always be the negative nellies & neds of this world. There would be no harbour bridge, no opera house, no Darling Harbour etc etc if someone with a bit of gumption and foresight just didn't say "shutup - we are building it."

 

In this city we are finally starting to see the type of infrastructure we need as a 'world city' in spite of the whingers. We are getting roads, light rail, convention & entertainment centre etc etc. We just need a new cruise terminal and accompanying infrastructure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading through some of the senate estimate reports I can see why no one in NSW has been in a hurry to pull the trigger on moving the Navy out of Garden Island. For some reason I am not sure why they would want to move out an industry that brings in nearly a billion a year to Sydney? Not to mention the cost of moving it runs at a billion plus o.O

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spot on.

 

 

If the only reason you're doing something is for economic reasons, then it should be clear that there is an economic benefit from doing so - and weigh it up against alternatives.

 

 

In that respect, it seems very lacking; a bit like the pie in the sky dreams for a Gold Coast terminal - which had the same criticisms against those who don't support it, but which the numbers keep going up and up to try to come up with technical solutions against nature...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

got it in one there Mr Gut.

 

Again, there is not a single reason for the Navy to be at GI, other than they were already there. Move them on, and build a world class facility which includes a cruise terminal.

 

There will always be the negative nellies & neds of this world. There would be no harbour bridge, no opera house, no Darling Harbour etc etc if someone with a bit of gumption and foresight just didn't say "shutup - we are building it."

 

In this city we are finally starting to see the type of infrastructure we need as a 'world city' in spite of the whingers. We are getting roads, light rail, convention & entertainment centre etc etc. We just need a new cruise terminal and accompanying infrastructure.

Agreed. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

got it in one there Mr Gut.

 

Again, there is not a single reason for the Navy to be at GI, other than they were already there. Move them on, and build a world class facility which includes a cruise terminal.

 

There will always be the negative nellies & neds of this world. There would be no harbour bridge, no opera house, no Darling Harbour etc etc if someone with a bit of gumption and foresight just didn't say "shutup - we are building it."

 

In this city we are finally starting to see the type of infrastructure we need as a 'world city' in spite of the whingers. We are getting roads, light rail, convention & entertainment centre etc etc. We just need a new cruise terminal and accompanying infrastructure.

 

But how rapt are Joe Public and his mates going to be with your plan for a cruise terminal at Garden Island when they are told they have to cough up more than $40 each? That is every person in Australia would need to contribute through taxes over $40 just to move the Navy out, considering the cruiselines wouldn't be paying for it and only a portion of the population (those working or making an income) pays taxes.

 

It seems like a great idea to move them out but the cost to do it and the loss of revenue they bring to Sydney is unlikely to be exceeded by what it is replaced with. If it was then I have no doubt that the NSW govt and industry would have pushed it through a long time ago. We just have to face it that while we love to cruise out of the harbour with the great view it is going to be limited or we will have to pay for the privilege just like those who live on its foreshore do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we need a 'go fund me' page to raise the $s to move the navy and build a cruise terminal - I'm good for a hundred :D

 

I see the big ole smiley face at the end of your post ... however please consider this from my perspective .......

 

I do agree that cruisers need better arrangements to operate from Sydney but please try to balance the need of people to go on their holiday over those of us who may need to use GI to put their life on the line as a part of their job on a daily basis.

 

GI supports our war fighting naval personnel (who also transport equipment and supplies to our Army and RAAF personnel).

 

It seems there are those who think our military personnel are less entitled to continue to operate from their traditional 'home' and the problem can be simply fixed by moving our Defence operations to somewhere else.

 

Why should we taxpayers pay for the convenience of 'the entitled' cruisers who are put out by the lack of infrastructure available in Sydney.

 

Face it Sydney Harbour is FULL no more room here.

 

How about we pull down the Harbour Bridge and build a new one that is higher to enable the mega crooze ships to pass under .......

 

I have just put on my flame proof suit ......................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the big ole smiley face at the end of your post ... however please consider this from my perspective .......

 

I do agree that cruisers need better arrangements to operate from Sydney but please try to balance the need of people to go on their holiday over those of us who may need to use GI to put their life on the line as a part of their job on a daily basis.

 

GI supports our war fighting naval personnel (who also transport equipment and supplies to our Army and RAAF personnel).

 

It seems there are those who think our military personnel are less entitled to continue to operate from their traditional 'home' and the problem can be simply fixed by moving our Defence operations to somewhere else.

 

Why should we taxpayers pay for the convenience of 'the entitled' cruisers who are put out by the lack of infrastructure available in Sydney.

 

Face it Sydney Harbour is FULL no more room here.

 

How about we pull down the Harbour Bridge and build a new one that is higher to enable the mega crooze ships to pass under .......

 

I have just put on my flame proof suit ......................

 

OK I'll bite![emoji48]

 

Is that suit RAN issue?

 

Why does it matter to the military where they're based? The view? The proximity to 'the cross'? Or 'cause "we" got there first?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK I'll bite![emoji48]

 

Is that suit RAN issue?

 

Why does it matter to the military where they're based? The view? The proximity to 'the cross'? Or 'cause "we" got there first?

 

Maybe it matters so we have the ability to keep cruising? I don't know the reason why the Navy needs to be at GI, I am sure the govt does though or they would have moved after one of the several requests over the previous years. But going on the user pays option would you still be keen on cruising?

 

If the bill for moving the Navy out (not purchasing the land back or building any new facilities mind you) was footed by passing the costs on to the paying customers (that is you the cruiser) you would be looking at adding around $900+ to your fare in port costs *working on the assumption that there is a ship for all 365 days with an average of 3000 pax, even if you took it over 10 years at $90 you still need a ship every day which won't happen

 

 

Then you also have the residents of the Greater Sydney region who have to deal with the loss of around a billion $ from their annual GDP as it moves to another region.

 

Sydney is our favorite port to sail out of and it would be great to have more options however the harbor is full and sometimes I think we forget how much we already have and want too much more without looking at what it actually could cost. Maybe we have to accept it and look at alternatives, I honestly don't think the increase to the cruise industry is going to bring in more revenue than the Navy does to Sydney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...