No more cruise ships to Amsterdam?

Dutch media have announced that the new forming local government of Amsterdam has the plan to close the PTA (Passenger Terminal Amsterdam). So far this is not new. The PTA would be moved to make place for a bridge (far too low for cruise ships) for peds and cyclist to the north part of the city. A new terminal would be build further to the west of the city (possibly close where the old Scania terminal used to be). New is that no alternative terminal will be build at all. Citizens of Amsterdam and the local government are tired of the many tourists coming to the city and removing the terminal is one of the many measures proposed to slow down growth.

This will leave the Netherlands with just two cruise ports. The closest to Amsterdam would be IJmuiden. That would take a one hour drive by coach to the centre of Amsterdam, however, coaches will also be banned from the city. The only major cruise port left would be Rotterdam, a city still happy with tourists.

 

What would you rather do? Book a cruise that will skip the Netherlands completely, and opt for Germany of Belgium (though many cruises port at all three countries anyway)? Book a cruise to Rotterdam and visit our country's second city? Or book a cruise to Rotterdam and take a train to Amsterdam?

As more and bigger cruise ships get built, many 'destination' ports seem to be realising that they are a mixed blessing. A ship arrives and 3000+ passengers swarm off to wander around the local sights without actually spending very much at all. At the end of the day they go back to the ship to eat their evening meal.

 

Cities like Amsterdam and Venice do not need all these extra people; they want tourists who stay over in hotels and eat in restaurants. I can see port charges going up and the number of ships rationed in the not too distant future.

Interesting.

We took a cruise leaving from Rotterdam last year.

We spent several days in Amsterdam before the cruise - visited museums, did a canal cruise, etc. then took the train to Rotterdam to get on our ship.

 

No problem doing that again, if we wanted.

Whilst cruise passengers don't spend much on meals they do tend to spend on drinks (alcoholic and other) and some snacks, shopping and, particularly, on attractions. We, as a family, tend not to use cruise ship excursions but do tend to spend on local attractions and will stop for a beer/coffee and a light lunch. If we spend 100Euro in each port, and you extrapolate that out to each group on shore (maybe 1000 groups) that's 100,000 Euros per ship per day.going in to the local economy. How many ships visit Amsterdam every year?

 

If we were to dock in Rotterdam then we, personally, probably wouldn't journey in to Amsterdam.

I can understand the reason for this.

 

Perhaps with ships only leaving Rotterdam, more people will arrive early and spend a few days in both Amsterdam and Rotterdam before boarding their cruise. We've been to both cities and they are both great.

 

Since most flights from the US go to Amsterdam, it would be a shame not spending a few days there either pre or post cruise.

Thanks for the information. We have been through the sea lock at IJmuiden twice to reach Amsterdam from Rotterdam.

 

I see now that they are building a new large one to be completed next year. So will this be money wasted or will it be used just for cargo ships?

 

https://www.portofamsterdam.com/en/port-amsterdam/new-large-sea-lock

If we spend 100Euro in each port, and you extrapolate that out to each group on shore (maybe 1000 groups) that's 100,000 Euros per ship per day.going in to the local economy.

That rather proves the point: it's pretty small beer. Amsterdam would do better from groups that each spend that much during the day, the same again for dinner, and the same again for accommodation - although you'd be hard-pressed to find accommodation in Amsterdam for as little €100 per night for an entire family.

 

Against that money coming in, you must balance the costs to the local economy of being overrun by tourists. In London, it has been estimated that the additional cost burden to the local economy of hosting tourists is broadly the same as the amount of money they bring. In a city which has Amsterdam's additional challenges, I would not be surprised if the costs of hosting cruise ship passengers are higher than the money they actually spend there.

Whilst cruise passengers don't spend much on meals they do tend to spend on drinks (alcoholic and other) and some snacks, shopping and, particularly, on attractions. We, as a family, tend not to use cruise ship excursions but do tend to spend on local attractions and will stop for a beer/coffee and a light lunch. If we spend 100Euro in each port, and you extrapolate that out to each group on shore (maybe 1000 groups) that's 100,000 Euros per ship per day.going in to the local economy. How many ships visit Amsterdam every year?

 

If we were to dock in Rotterdam then we, personally, probably wouldn't journey in to Amsterdam.

 

A quick trawl of the statistics tells me that passengers ashore spend less than 50 Euros/Dollars each on average, but that is not the whole story. The ports get a considerable income from docking fees and local bus companies run a lot of tours. There is also income from the supplies a cruise ship will purchase.

 

Cruises that turnaround at a port generate a lot more in all areas except tours. For example, at Southampton, there is almost no local tour bus facility. On the other hand, many passengers stay at least one night before embarkation. It would need a lot more analysis to predict the pros and cons of moving ships to Rotterdam. People would still do tours, would still fly into Schipol and stay in the city before embarkation.

 

According to Wikipedia, almost 700,000 cruise passengers per year visit Amsterdam. This is not trivial, but even if the ships docked at Rotterdam, many of those visits would still happen. I suspect that London gets many more cruise tourists every year and hardly any ships actually dock in the City.

I am not familiar with what to do in Rotterdam or travel time to Amsterdam so I probably would opt to avoid the Netherlands.

 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Forums mobile app

A quick trawl of the statistics tells me that passengers ashore spend less than 50 Euros/Dollars each on average, but that is not the whole story.

That pretty much fits in with my rough figures then (I said 100Euro, but that's for 3 of us and I'm sure we spend less than most).

 

Of course, the other thing to bear in mind is that often people visit somehwere on a cruise and decidethat they would like to go back for longer at a future date.

 

I don't know how often this happens and, obviously, this isn't happening enough in Amsterdam.

Yep. We have only eaten 1 lunch at a restaurant in cinque terre in over 50+ cruise nights and never a dinner and are at about 100 euros for 4 persons per day excluding entrance fees and transport. Venice definitely does not need more tourists in the summer.

I am not familiar with what to do in Rotterdam or travel time to Amsterdam so I probably would opt to avoid the Netherlands.

 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Forums mobile app

 

These are great cities. There is so much to do in both of them. We spent a couple of days in Rotterdam before boarding our ship (having previously spent time in Amsterdam). We are typically not museum people but they have some great ones there. The one on taxation was fascinating and the maritime museum was excellent.

 

We did a lot of walking ... and eating :D

 

As for Amsterdam, a fantastic city and, like Rotterdam, easy to do on your own.

Nothing is definitive about this. It is more a (strange?) proposal by a new left wing city council. Plans are to build a new bridge over river IJ for bicycles which means no cruiseship can then enter the original cruise terminal as they will not fit sailing under this bridge. Also tourbuses will be banned getting into the city, Air B&B will get more restrictions etc. Of course this has also many people that donot agree.

Amsterdam is more or less suffering from getting too populair with tourists like many other cities in Europe.

For the time being cruises will sail to Amsterdam as before.

Rotterdam might get their chance and welcome more cruisehips in case this happens.

I am not familiar with what to do in Rotterdam or travel time to Amsterdam so I probably would opt to avoid the Netherlands.

 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Forums mobile app

 

Those cities are only about 45 minutes apart. From the Amsterdam airport even less!!! In many cities in the USA you need more time to go from east to west...........

Thanks for the information. We have been through the sea lock at IJmuiden twice to reach Amsterdam from Rotterdam.

 

I see now that they are building a new large one to be completed next year. So will this be money wasted or will it be used just for cargo ships?

 

https://www.portofamsterdam.com/en/port-amsterdam/new-large-sea-lock

Going from Amsterdam to Rotterdam you donot need to go through the locks. Only when sailing from/to Northsea going to Amsterdam.

The large new dock which costs more then expected course will gives access to larger cruise and cargo ships. If the Amsterdam cruise terminal will or might be closed in a few years there will be a new terminal along Northsea canal at another point.

Going from Amsterdam to Rotterdam you donot need to go through the locks. Only when sailing from/to Northsea going to Amsterdam.

 

Well, if you go by cruise ship from Amsterdam to Rotterdam v.v., then you definitely will need to go through them locks. By train of course you don't.

 

 

If the Amsterdam cruise terminal will or might be closed in a few years there will be a new terminal along Northsea canal at another point.

 

That's the whole point, the new forming local government has announced they do not want to open a new terminal along the North Sea Canal.

Going from Amsterdam to Rotterdam you donot need to go through the locks. Only when sailing from/to Northsea going to Amsterdam.

 

Yes, sorry. I meant I've been by cruise ship from North Sea/IJmuiden to Amsterdam and back.

Well, if you go by cruise ship from Amsterdam to Rotterdam v.v., then you definitely will need to go through them locks. By train of course you don't.

 

Yes you are right, I was thinking of traveling over land.

 

 

 

 

That's the whole point, the new forming local government has announced they do not want to open a new terminal along the North Sea Canal.

 

In the past Zaanstad as well as Beverwijk have expressed they would like to build a cruise terminal. Again no definitive decisions yet, but it would be a loss for Amsterdam tourisme.

Would this affect river cruise ships also, or just the ocean going ships (that carry so many more passengers)?

Nothing is definitive about this. It is more a (strange?) proposal by a new left wing city council. Plans are to build a new bridge over river IJ for bicycles which means no cruiseship can then enter the original cruise terminal as they will not fit sailing under this bridge. Also tourbuses will be banned getting into the city, Air B&B will get more restrictions etc. Of course this has also many people that donot agree.

Amsterdam is more or less suffering from getting too popular with tourists like many other cities in Europe.

For the time being cruises will sail to Amsterdam as before.

Rotterdam might get their chance and welcome more cruisehips in case this happens.

 

We are staying outside Amsterdam in a VRBO

apartment this September for 8 days. Will any of these tourism restrictions become reality by then? It seems to me that Amsterdam is a victim of its successful pursuit of a live and let live philosophy. Managing a successful business is easy compared to managing your success when it comes to be a reality. If Amsterdam and other destination cities don't want to be over run with tourists they will look elsewhere to spend their money. While we do not have any interest in legal pot or prostitution it certainly is an noval attraction to some. We see lots of visit The Netherlands commercials on American television. ..... guess they could save money by not airing them.

Hoping we will have a great time on our visit despite the growing resentment of tourism.

If Amsterdam and other destination cities don't want to be over run with tourists they will look elsewhere to spend their money.

You often see things like this said as if destinations ought always to be pathetically grateful to the tourists who bring shiny foreign cash with them, and that the cities concerned will inevitably make themselves worse off if they turn away that money which will then be diverted elsewhere.

 

There are many tourist destinations that do very well out of the money that tourists bring. But in the case of cities that want to restrict tourism, that is coming about because of all the hidden costs and losses caused by unrestrained tourism and the assessment that those costs and losses are outweighing the money coming in.

 

Indeed, there are some places - even entire countries - which have long had a policy of restricting tourism to certain types in order to prevent these disadvantages. Bhutan and Mauritius come to mind as prime examples of entire countries with restrictive policies for this reason.

I'm glad we leave soon on our cruise from Amsterdam. We'll get to have the experience! If later, cruises leave from Rotterdam, we'll get to see that city too! Regarding revenues, tourists and tourist money will have plenty of choice.

 

Just for the record, we will be spending a pretty penny in an expensive hotel for three nights on DAM square, including two I Amsterdam cards, restaurants, bars, etc. If the local economy doesn't welcome cruise tourist cash, I would like to know that.

 

If I were a business owner, or an employee of a business owner, I would not like a plan that reduces my customer base. however, if Rotterdam is so close, it may increase revenue. People will fly to Amsterdam, stay in Amsterdam, and then take transportation to Rotterdam on cruise day.

Edited May 19, 2018 by Richjoxyz

You often see things like this said as if destinations ought always to be pathetically grateful to the tourists who bring shiny foreign cash with them, and that the cities concerned will inevitably make themselves worse off if they turn away that money which will then be diverted elsewhere.

 

There are many tourist destinations that do very well out of the money that tourists bring. But in the case of cities that want to restrict tourism, that is coming about because of all the hidden costs and losses caused by unrestrained tourism and the assessment that those costs and losses are outweighing the money coming in.

 

Indeed, there are some places - even entire countries - which have long had a policy of restricting tourism to certain types in order to prevent these disadvantages. Bhutan and Mauritius come to mind as prime examples of entire countries with restrictive policies for this reason.

I think the reason the ultra left wants to restrict visitors is to restore a more local lifestyle to downtown Amsterdam. While that maybe a noble jester, I think it is just election hot air.

Local as well as corporate business will make sure it does not come to fruition... I hope!

Just tax the crap out of it. Worked for NYC.

I live close to New York city. We visit less frequently because of the Disney like atmosphere in the Time Square area and the extreme costs involved with sales, hotel tax. That has not stopped most from visiting though. Amsterdam locals will have to decide which way they want there bread buttered.

Just tax the crap out of it. Worked for NYC.

NYC is a different kettle of fish, though. It's a much bigger city, and its tourist areas are not geographically constrained in the way that central Amsterdam is. If you want to look at a true comparator, albeit one that suffers the same problems in an even more acute way, look at Venice: despite its huge appeal for tourists (indeed, it can be said with more justification that almost all of Venice is little more than a theme park for tourists), the city is taking real and serious measures, the highest-profile of which may be the forthcoming ban on large cruise ships.

Venice is an extreme example of this problem, although I believe some of the Carribean islands are also badly affected. The City Council have no doubt assessed the balance between the influx of huge numbers of cruise passengers who spend relatively little against the deterrent effect they have to the 'ordinary' tourist, who spends a lot, albeit in fewer numbers.

 

Amsterdam is much bigger and AFAIK is not sinking; that does not mean that they don't have a similar problem. It would not be hard to think of other cruise destinations that might ration visits: Santorini would certainly be one and I am sure that there are other cities/islands who are wondering whether cruise ships are quite the blessing they used to be when they were smaller and the pax wealthier.