Port Botany cruise terminal

[brian1]

10 hours ago, MicCanberra said:

I like it. 😁

Cooked by the famous chef MIChel ROO from Canbereur.

[MicCanberra]

1 hour ago, brian1 said:

Cooked by the famous chef MIChel ROO from Canbereur.

I could do what I call a Hungryman Goulash, even use some Roo in it, but other than that I am not much of a cook.

[The_Big_M]

On ‎11‎/‎21‎/‎2019 at 12:32 PM, MicCanberra said:

So the Navy should go to Botany Bay with that reasoning.

 

Doesn't make sense to spend 10 billion+ just to move 10 km.

 

Moreover, there's a lot more docking for the Navy at Garden Island than the probable 2-3 berths we're talking about for cruises. Not enough space for them to move in any case.

[in rod we trust]

On 11/22/2019 at 10:27 AM, gbenjo said:

Me thinks the latter, probably never set foot on a cruise ship, favourite  colour is green and has a deep dislike for Royal Caribbean for some unexplained  reason???  the word troll comes to mind. Happy to be proven wrong.

 well me thinks wrong  .. been on plenty cruise ships altho the wife has been on more than me lol  .. but have a think about where the cruise ship takes us to awesome places..  im just trying to save one of those awesome places yarra bay .. I swim there and fish there , my family has been going there for over 40 yrs , have fond memories with the old man rip  going fishing there ,  …  if this goes ahead opposite the terminal is gas storage caverns if that goes up the cruise ships and all the passengers will go with it  ..im against royal carribean as they are the ones calling for botany bay other cruise lines don't want it and have ships in Wollongong , port kembla , and Newcastle ..  whats  so wrong with trying to protect what little we have left of our country  yarra bay is a place where  people  can unwind from the grind .....   about time people put there country first ..  if not for you than at least your kids future..  

 

[Chiliburn]

11 minutes ago, in rod we trust said:

 well me thinks wrong  .. been on plenty cruise ships altho the wife has been on more than me lol  .. but have a think about where the cruise ship takes us to awesome places..  im just trying to save one of those awesome places yarra bay .. I swim there and fish there , my family has been going there for over 40 yrs , have fond memories with the old man rip  going fishing there ,  …  if this goes ahead opposite the terminal is gas storage caverns if that goes up the cruise ships and all the passengers will go with it  ..im against royal carribean as they are the ones calling for botany bay other cruise lines don't want it and have ships in Wollongong , port kembla , and Newcastle ..  whats  so wrong with trying to protect what little we have left of our country  yarra bay is a place where  people  can unwind from the grind .....   about time people put there country first ..  if not for you than at least your kids future..  

 

If it makes you feel better rod , I think everyone would prefer garden Island .

Edited December 1, 2019 by Chiliburn

[By The Bay]

Good on you Rod. I see where you are coming from. I don't want and probably will never use Botany Bay, if it ever gets up. Garden Island is the way to go.

[The_Big_M]

8 hours ago, Chiliburn said:

If it makes you feel better rod , I think everyone would prefer garden Island .

 

Not really, since that doesn't make any sense to put them there when there's already a well established occupant.

[gbenjo]

16 hours ago, in rod we trust said:

 well me thinks wrong  .. been on plenty cruise ships altho the wife has been on more than me lol  .. but have a think about where the cruise ship takes us to awesome places..  im just trying to save one of those awesome places yarra bay .. I swim there and fish there , my family has been going there for over 40 yrs , have fond memories with the old man rip  going fishing there ,  …  if this goes ahead opposite the terminal is gas storage caverns if that goes up the cruise ships and all the passengers will go with it  ..im against royal carribean as they are the ones calling for botany bay other cruise lines don't want it and have ships in Wollongong , port kembla , and Newcastle ..  whats  so wrong with trying to protect what little we have left of our country  yarra bay is a place where  people  can unwind from the grind .....   about time people put there country first ..  if not for you than at least your kids future..  

 

Fair enough Rod, glad to see you are really "one of us"  🚢👍  . Like many others, I  too believe Garden Island should be the site for a third cruise terminal even to the extent that the Port  Botany " proposal" may, in my opinion, be a bit of a ploy to bring pressure on the Fed Govt to reverse their decision to rule out Garden Island.  However , if it is a legitimate proposal, I cannot see it turning Botany Bay into a barren wasteland as suggested. There is already a container terminal in the area and adding one more wharf and maybe a little  dredging would not have  much adverse effect on marine life in the area.  Obviously the  terminal itself and  infastruture  would be built on existing industrial land. 

I still don't agree with you that it is only Royal Caribbean wanting and pushing for the terminal. Royal ( and Celebrity)  have  also called into Newcastle and  Wollongong but like the other cruiselines, only as a port of call not as an embark/ debark destination.

      A third terminal in Sydney , regardless of where it is built, would ( IMHO) be under utilised and would really only be needed for maybe three moths of the year in the peak season and with Brisbanes new terminal coming online some of that pressure will also be eased .

  

 

[mr walker]

17 hours ago, in rod we trust said:

  .....   about time people put there country first .. 

 

or maybe we put the overall community first rather than the NIMBY's. Some would argue that this infrastructure would benefit the many & disadvantage the few. When anything is built, roads, rail, airports, hospitals, schools etc etc, it will always have impact on some members of the community, but for the greater good of the majority. That's how a society works.

You are happy to want your little patch protected, but are happy for others to be impacted at other locations. I am with others, GI is the logical place for the new terminal, but if the NIMBY's there & the chair polishers at Naval HQ stop that option, then I'm all for Yarra Bay

[Brisbane41]

On 11/25/2019 at 2:01 PM, The_Big_M said:

 

Doesn't make sense to spend 10 billion+ just to move 10 km.

 

Moreover, there's a lot more docking for the Navy at Garden Island than the probable 2-3 berths we're talking about for cruises. Not enough space for them to move in any case.

Garden Island is definitely not practical as a cruise ship wharf.

 

There are major issues about using Garden Island. 

 

First is the Captain Cook Dry Dock. It is kind of like a barrier to the rest of the island. It is difficult for coaches, cars and taxis to get past there and that area is more of a security risk. General public cannot and will never have access to that part of Garden Island. There is a reason why the heritage centre is only accessible by ferry and it is because that part of the island is industrialised, has security areas and is crumbling apart. At present there is work going on at the wharf to make the stronger and longer for naval ships.

 

Second the wharf opposite the Wolloomooloo finger wharf is not straight. It curves. It has hard enough getting QM2 into that wharf and the residents opposite would put up a major fight more than the people at Botany Bay.

 

Third there is no cruise terminal at that part of the wharf. A cruise terminal cannot be built there because of existing infrastructure that supports the naval ships.

 

Garden Island is literally boxed in and cannot be used where the only space exists to dock a ship.

 

The Federal Government knows what exists at Garden Island. I know what exists at Garden Island. There are secure and security areas there that the public do not know about and are oblivious to.

 

The only practical place on Garden Island to dock a cruise ship is far south right opposite the finger wharf and bringing a ships nose right up to Harry's Cafe De Waves. Sadly the other side has already been developed so is not practical.

 

Unless the government can repossess the finger wharf, demolish all those multi-million dollar units and hotel a cruise terminal on Garden Island will never happen.

[Brisbane41]

1 hour ago, mr walker said:

or maybe we put the overall community first rather than the NIMBY's. Some would argue that this infrastructure would benefit the many & disadvantage the few. When anything is built, roads, rail, airports, hospitals, schools etc etc, it will always have impact on some members of the community, but for the greater good of the majority. That's how a society works.

You are happy to want your little patch protected, but are happy for others to be impacted at other locations. I am with others, GI is the logical place for the new terminal, but if the NIMBY's there & the chair polishers at Naval HQ stop that option, then I'm all for Yarra Bay

As above there is no logic at all in using Garden Island particularly when you have no understanding of the layout and secure areas. The Captain Cook Dry dock makes that impossible. The only road around the dry dock that can get to the far side of the island goes past highly important buildings like Maritime Head Quarters and signals buildings where important work is done protecting this nation from attack, monitoring sea lanes and keeping the government operating. The areas the road goes past are a national security concern and areas are restricted as "top secret" with members needing to be cleared by ASIO before they go anywhere near it. It is kind of like Pine Gap. Those buildings have so much support infrastructure and sensitive equipment in underground bunkers that they will never be moved. The government knows exactly what is there and will NEVER allow a cruise ship to dock on that part of the island that involves coaches, passengers vehicles using the road past that vital area. It is never going to happen. It is completely illogical, irrational and a national security risk.

[GUT2407]

But all of Bris’s Issues are based on the Navy staying there, move the Navy out and every one of those disappear.

 

I agree it is probably all or nothing regarding Garden Island.

[gbenjo]

1 hour ago, mr walker said:

or maybe we put the overall community first rather than the NIMBY's. Some would argue that this infrastructure would benefit the many & disadvantage the few. When anything is built, roads, rail, airports, hospitals, schools etc etc, it will always have impact on some members of the community, but for the greater good of the majority. That's how a society works.

You are happy to want your little patch protected, but are happy for others to be impacted at other locations. I am with others, GI is the logical place for the new terminal, but if the NIMBY's there & the chair polishers at Naval HQ stop that option, then I'm all for Yarra Bay

So true ....it's just a shame that today the minorities always seem to win out regardless of what the majority want or say.......political correctness before common sense 😡😡😡 

[GUT2407]

5 minutes ago, gbenjo said:

So true ....it's just a shame that today the minorities always seem to win out regardless of what the majority want or say.......political correctness before common sense 😡😡😡 

What is this common sense of which you talk?

 

Seems to be a lost commodity.

[gbenjo]

31 minutes ago, GUT2407 said:

What is this common sense of which you talk?

 

Seems to be a lost commodity.

Yep.......not so common

[Brisbane41]

59 minutes ago, GUT2407 said:

But all of Bris’s Issues are based on the Navy staying there, move the Navy out and every one of those disappear.

 

I agree it is probably all or nothing regarding Garden Island.

It is not just the Navy at Garden Island. 

 

It is Maritime Head Quarters Australia and the signals building next to it that is providing vital defence to the nation that cannot be moved just at a whim. That infrastructure needs a secure location that is well connected and can be protected. It is that building that is off limits and even then if it were to be moved the whole area would still be off limits as there is equipment there that once decommissioned cannot be accessed by the public due to its nature. The whole area will remain off limits to the general public and that means the road alongside it leading to Garden Island on the base.

 

Even decommissioned warships that have been sunk off our coast still have compartments that are sealed permanently shut that cannot be accessed due to equipment that could not be offloaded. They are still monitored today to prevent access into the area.

 

It is a security risk and will never happen. It has nothing to do with the grey ships. Once there is equipment, computers and military hardware that can command our ships at sea and have access to our satellite information and control the entire nation then the public is not going to get anywhere near it.

[The_Big_M]

2 hours ago, Brisbane41 said:

Garden Island is definitely not practical as a cruise ship wharf.

 

There are major issues about using Garden Island. 

 

First is the Captain Cook Dry Dock. It is kind of like a barrier to the rest of the island. It is difficult for coaches, cars and taxis to get past there and that area is more of a security risk. General public cannot and will never have access to that part of Garden Island. There is a reason why the heritage centre is only accessible by ferry and it is because that part of the island is industrialised, has security areas and is crumbling apart. At present there is work going on at the wharf to make the stronger and longer for naval ships.

 

Second the wharf opposite the Wolloomooloo finger wharf is not straight. It curves. It has hard enough getting QM2 into that wharf and the residents opposite would put up a major fight more than the people at Botany Bay.

 

Third there is no cruise terminal at that part of the wharf. A cruise terminal cannot be built there because of existing infrastructure that supports the naval ships.

 

Garden Island is literally boxed in and cannot be used where the only space exists to dock a ship.

 

The Federal Government knows what exists at Garden Island. I know what exists at Garden Island. There are secure and security areas there that the public do not know about and are oblivious to.

 

The only practical place on Garden Island to dock a cruise ship is far south right opposite the finger wharf and bringing a ships nose right up to Harry's Cafe De Waves. Sadly the other side has already been developed so is not practical.

 

Unless the government can repossess the finger wharf, demolish all those multi-million dollar units and hotel a cruise terminal on Garden Island will never happen.

 

Spot on.

 

The real optimal place for cruise ships is where the passenger liners used to call - the Finger Wharf.

 

It is far more ideally located, better situated and would take it back to its original purpose so ticks all the boxes. No compromises required. The only issue is you have to buy it back from those who it was sold to a couple of decades ago - but it's the most sensible solution.

[The_Big_M]

2 hours ago, GUT2407 said:

But all of Bris’s Issues are based on the Navy staying there, move the Navy out and every one of those disappear.

 

I agree it is probably all or nothing regarding Garden Island.

 

Except there's no rationale to move them out, except another group wants it as a compromise solution.

 

If you're going to spend billions better to spend it on a more appropriate solution which is the finger wharf rather than incur long term national costs by relocation of part of a defence facility that has ties with many others in the area.l

[GUT2407]

18 minutes ago, The_Big_M said:

 

Except there's no rationale to move them out, except another group wants it as a compromise solution.

 

If you're going to spend billions better to spend it on a more appropriate solution which is the finger wharf rather than incur long term national costs by relocation of part of a defence facility that has ties with many others in the area.l

Actually there is another rationale and it was being discussed last century, as a military base it is a target in times of war, and do you really want a major target in a war in the centre of the city. It was a hot topic back when I was working at D.o.D and I finished there mid 90s. 

[Brisbane41]

14 minutes ago, GUT2407 said:

Actually there is another rationale and it was being discussed last century, as a military base it is a target in times of war, and do you really want a major target in a war in the centre of the city. It was a hot topic back when I was working at D.o.D and I finished there mid 90s. 

Actually that is not a logical target in a time of war. It would be foolish and stupid for any enemy to attack the wharf or docks where you can land ships. The reason is the infrastructure can be used to invade and set up and maintain control of an invasion.

 

The real targets Australia would face in time of war would be our power stations, dam walls, trade shipping with a goal to surrounding the Capital and taking out the government.

 

Thinking of a wharf as a target at a time of war is a rather childish and immature way of thinking particularly not the thinking of anyone in a military background. A wharf is an asset to both enemy and defender.

 

Shut down the power and water and cut off the fuel and food supply and you cannot control the population and the government falls. The enemy only needs to set up generators for themselves and supply fuel and water for themselves to take control. 

[GUT2407]

I guess you n3ver heard about Pearl Harbour, but then you would know more than the Minister for Defence and I can guarantee you that in the 90s Robert Ray and Iam MacLachlin both had concerns

[SinbadThePorter]

1 hour ago, Brisbane41 said:

A wharf is an asset to both enemy and defender.

It's an asset to the defenders and a target for the attacker. The point of an attack is to deny the enemy the use of such assets.

 

No attacker would foolish enough base his strategic plan on the off chance of capturing enemy port facilities intact.

[Brisbane41]

3 hours ago, GUT2407 said:

I guess you n3ver heard about Pearl Harbour, but then you would know more than the Minister for Defence and I can guarantee you that in the 90s Robert Ray and Iam MacLachlin both had concerns

That is a totally ridiculous and silly comparison to make. During WWII the attack on Pearl Harbour was targeting the Battleships and Aircraft carriers. Not the docks. The Hawaiian Islands were in a strategic position to defend and attack other areas of interest so anything based there would have been a target. By attacking ships there it delayed any American response to action.

 

The difference with Sydney is that it is not in a strategic location to attack or defend any area of influence in the Pacific. It would be a waste of resources to even attack it when the ammunition for an attack could be better utilised elsewhere. Besides Australia does not have any offensive armed ships. All our Naval ships are primarily defensive in nature. We are not capable of launching an offensive attack against another country.

 

Politicians have never been intelligent people to take notice of. What their concerns may be are nothing but imaginative to further their political career.

 

When you are an attacking force and Australia having distance as our main defence, no attacking force is going to be stupid enough to waste missiles and ammunition on low priority targets. A naval wharf would not be a target. They would be looking to keep it intact. Considering there is a massive dry dock there that could also be a vital piece of infrastructure to an attacking force to repair their ships on arrival.

[The_Big_M]

11 hours ago, GUT2407 said:

Actually there is another rationale and it was being discussed last century, as a military base it is a target in times of war, and do you really want a major target in a war in the centre of the city. It was a hot topic back when I was working at D.o.D and I finished there mid 90s. 

 

Technology and warfare has moved on a lot since then.

 

Sure, a base has targets of value - but it's not ww 2 when accuracy of 20 km is an issue, and it's also not the case that the base itself is a prime target. Taking out a dock for example has meaningless value when there are docks elsewhere, the docks themselves are useful to an invading force, and it's the ships for example that have more potency.

 

That isn't a meaningful argument in any military assessment. 

[Chiliburn]

Apparently Garden Island is owned by the state and is leased to the navy.

 I bet my bottom Onboard Credit that if it was owned by the federal government it would be sold and the money would be put into the future fund in 2 seconds flat.

Edited December 3, 2019 by Chiliburn