Amsterdam - (proposed) closing cruise ship terminal

[Hlitner]

We have posted (in other parts of CC) about the growing trend (around the world) to ban or restrict cruise ships.  In our own country (USA) we have seen locals support bans (or very severe restrictions) in Key West, Bar Harbor, Charleston, and probably some others of which I am not aware.  Why?  We have all heard the complaints about huge ships (some with over 6000 passengers) but the debate in Key West showed there are other issues.  As a lot, cruise ship passengers are not major contributors to local economies.  That anti-cruise crowd in Key West argued that cruisers are not big spenders and take more from the economy than they give.  Cruise ships also seem to spur the creation of many touristy stores/shops which drive-out smaller locally owned businesses and cute boutiques.  Just consider places like Diamonds International, Tanzanite International, Anything International, etc.

 

There are still places that welcome small luxury ships while wanting nothing to do with larger ships.  St Barts is a good example.  Other ports have tried to limit cruisers with mixed success (i.e. Santorini).  As both frequent cruisers and avid DIY land travelers we have mixed emotions.  For example, we did think that Venice's ban/restrictions were an excellent idea...even though we have enjoyed cruising in and out of Venice.  Standing along the water side near St Marks Square, and watching a huge megaship coming down the Giudecca Canal, was almost obscene!  One did not need to be an activist to realize that this was not a good thing for the delicate shoreline underwater structures being damaged by overpressure not to mention the risk of a major accident.

 

We also think some government agencies are their own worst enemies.  The new trend of cruise ships porting at La Spezia is a good example.  The Italians should have never allowed this place to be used as a cruise ship port and now they are having regrets.  We think its only a matter of time until this port is closed to most or all ships.  And we could list many ports in Europe that welcomed cruise ships and are now questioning the wisdom of such a decision.

 

Hank

[EDVM96]

4 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

and probably some others of which I am not aware.

Monterey, CA and Yorktown, VA.

[keysey222]

Many cruise itineraries used to embark/disembark from Amsterdam. We did one last year and spent time in Amsterdam both pre-cruise and post-cruise - staying in hotels, dining out, visiting museums, shopping, etc. (Our cruise was moved to Rotterdam at last minute, so we just used uber to go back and forth.) For many cruisers, I have to think a stay in Amsterdam before or after the cruise is a big draw. It was for us and we spent a pretty penny while there. Oh well. 

[Harters]

4 hours ago, Megabear2 said:

they most certainly do not come by cruise ship

Agreed. Of course, they don't arrive by cruise ship. Britons wanting to party in Amsterdam will take the short 75 minute flight on one of the budget airlines, like Ryanair. 

 

I suppose instead of the 10 minute drive to my local airport, I could opt to arrive by sea. That'd involve a three hour drive to the port and an overnight sailing (dep - 17.00, arrive - 09.25). Similar times in  reverse of course. Not an appealing prospect and my guess is that few do it as a means of getting to party. 

[lexmiller]

3 minutes ago, keysey222 said:

Many cruise itineraries used to embark/disembark from Amsterdam. We did one last year and spent time in Amsterdam both pre-cruise and post-cruise - staying in hotels, dining out, visiting museums, shopping, etc. (Our cruise was moved to Rotterdam at last minute, so we just used uber to go back and forth.) For many cruisers, I have to think a stay in Amsterdam before or after the cruise is a big draw. It was for us and we spent a pretty penny while there. Oh well. 

Thank you, I was just going to write nearly the exact thing - we've sailed in and out of Amsterdam many times, with Amsterdam as either the point of embarkation or debarkation.  We always spend several nights in the city, eating, touring, spending all sorts of money - this is a common thing for cruisers to do when talking about a point of embarkation or debarkation, which Amsterdam is (or was!), a major cruise port.  Amsterdam will be losing quite a bit I believe, if they move forward with this plan.  

[9tee2Sea]

just wondering.......so ships with approx 4-5000 passengers docks miles away from the town they are to visit.  Most of those passengers will then be required to motor into town, for a shorter period of time

( travel time to/from town center).  Most of those passengers will be on private tours ( such as a car that holds only 4).  With many more vehicles motoring into the town center, that would increase the wear and tear on the roads, increase motorcar accidents, increase traffic, and increase pollution.  I understand the need to protect Heritage sites, so future generations can learn/enjoy them.  It's a big puzzle.   Maybe build newer ports, closer to town,( don't use the industrial ports) and the cities can provide a shuttle bus ( like a big tour bus ) into town for drop off and pick ups on a set schedule.  Glad Im not a city planner

[lostchild]

I seriously doubt that removing Amsterdam's cruise port would affect Amsterdam's tourism much.   We just came back from our Apex cruise out of Rotterdam.  We stayed at Amsterdam for a week before we went to Rotterdam.  You still have to fly into AMS even if the port is at Rotterdam so might as well visit Amsterdam.  Just from reading the roll call thread, it seems that most people visited and stayed at Amsterdam either before or after the cruise for a period of time.

 

But I think even if you remove all the cruise visitors in all the ports of Netherland, it is still not going to affect Amsterdam much.   The taxi drivers told us that they are trying to get all the cars out of Amsterdam by blocking road into the city and doing a whole lot of construction just to make driving hell.   They want everyone to either bike or take public transport to reduce pollution and combat climate change.  One thing we learnt on that cruise all the different European countries is that climate change topic is much more serious there than here.   That's all they talked about.   Well that and the war.

 

Our hotel at Amsterdam was east of the city so every day when we took tram to the city, we passed by the Amsterdam cruise terminal.   When there are ships there, the line outside around noon to 2 were super long with no shade.   And there would be line of folks walking to the terminal from Amsterdam Central Station all slightly uphill with their luggage.   We were thinking that this is what it would be like when we board Apex at Rotterdam in a week.   Turns out Rotterdam cruise port was AMAZING.   Maybe because there was only 1 ship there, the terminal inside was huge and everyone could have a seat and wait there in A/C.   I saw a lounge for suite guests and no one was there because everyone got there immediately get to board.  We were there 1 hour earlier than our scheduled boarding time and we just went straight in.   This will probably change when Amsterdam port get shut down and every ship is going to Rotterdam.

Edited July 21, 2023 by lostchild

[gerelmx]

We have a B4B next year onboard the Silhouette, 3 from Rotterdam and 1 from Amsterdam.  It’s only 30 minute train from one city to the other.

Edited July 21, 2023 by gerelmx

[terrydtx]

45 minutes ago, lostchild said:

I seriously doubt that removing Amsterdam's cruise port would affect Amsterdam's tourism much.   We just came back from our Apex cruise out of Rotterdam.  We stayed at Amsterdam for a week before we went to Rotterdam.  You still have to fly into AMS even if the port is at Rotterdam so might as well visit Amsterdam.  Just from reading the roll call thread, it seems that most people visited and stayed at Amsterdam either before or after the cruise for a period of time.

That is about the same for our Apex roll call, the majority of passengers are still staying in Amsterdam pre cruise, like us. A few have moved to Rotterdam pre cruise but they are the minority.

[HappyInVan]

4 hours ago, bobfoo said:

A cruise ship is a very large visible presence and it is therefore easy to come to the conclusion that it has thousands of people, therefore that's why the city centre is so busy and thus makes them an easy target.

 

But given that nearly all ships are gone come evening time that's having no input on overcrowding in the evening and during the night, and during the day they represent a single digit percentage of total tourists in the city at any given time.

 

That may be true of Manhattan or Central London. But, cruise ships can unload a very large number of pax for smaller cities like Santa Barbara or Monterey. Even on the waterfront of Vancouver in BC, the debarking of 2 or 3 ships create havoc for several hours. I'm in agreement on restrictions for the number of ships per day.

 

More info on Amsterdam here...

 

https://ca.yahoo.com/news/amsterdam-ban-cruise-ships-city-091936330.html

 

 

 

 

[just_cruising_along]

According to this news source there is no set date, nor plan yet:

Amsterdam is set to ban cruise ships from the city centre as it seeks to lower pollution and reduce tourist numbers.

However, there is no clarity about when the move will take effect. A spokesperson for the city council told The Independent: “The municipality of Amsterdam will now investigate how this proposal can be implemented...

At present any ships scheduled to call at Amsterdam will be able to continue. Given that some cruise itineraries are published for 2025, it may be that the ban is introduced progressively.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/amsterdam-cruise-ship-ban-city-centre-b2379489.html

[Globaliser]

4 hours ago, bobfoo said:

It obviously is a non-zero number, but I can't help but think that this is one of those decisions that will not have anywhere near the effect people think it will have.

 

A cruise ship is a very large visible presence and it is therefore easy to come to the conclusion that it has thousands of people, therefore that's why the city centre is so busy and thus makes them an easy target.

 

But given that nearly all ships are gone come evening time that's having no input on overcrowding in the evening and during the night, and during the day they represent a single digit percentage of total tourists in the city at any given time.

 

Even if the decision was simply based on the number of passengers (which the responsible articles make clear was not the case), it's not only a question of numbers: cruise ship passengers bring less net economic benefit to their ports of call than other kinds of tourists and visitors. So if you want to effect (say) a single-digit percentage point reduction in tourist numbers, it wouldn't be a bad idea to start by targeting the less profitable.

[Ine]

The plan seems to be to build a new terminal more west of town in the Sloterdijk area. That means people need transfer by bus or cab into town. So in my opinion hardly a good decision as at the moment people can walk into town. .

A bridge for bikers might be built where the terminal is now, so people can bike from the northern part of town into the center. Also a strange decision since  there are many ferries doing that crossing for bikers and people who walk. 

Donot expect the closure in the near future, it will takes some years. 

[Ine]

No reason to panic yet, it will take some years before the terminal will be closed. The plan is to  build a new terminal more west in town, close to the Sloterdijk area. No more walking in town from the terminal then, but bus or cab will be needed. To me it is a strange decision. 

[Meander Ingwa]

12 minutes ago, Ine said:

but bus or cab will be needed. To me it is a strange decision. 

certainly a tram or train is a more ecologically efficient thing, but from what I have seen here, so many are intimidated by public transport systems and logistics.  Planning to move a port elsewhere and then not have infrastructure to eliminate cars needed is confounding me

[bobfoo]

55 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

 

That may be true of Manhattan or Central London. But, cruise ships can unload a very large number of pax for smaller cities like Santa Barbara or Monterey. Even on the waterfront of Vancouver in BC, the debarking of 2 or 3 ships create havoc for several hours. I'm in agreement on restrictions for the number of ships per day.

 

More info on Amsterdam here...

 

https://ca.yahoo.com/news/amsterdam-ban-cruise-ships-city-091936330.html

 

 

 

 

This is a discussion about Amsterdam making a decision about Amsterdam. Not Santa Barbara or Monterey or some tiny Greek island with a population of 100 that's seeing 5,000 people pitch up for a day.

 

As stated, cruise pax represent single digit percentage of total tourists. Any resident who thinks this solves the issues they have are sorely mistaken.

 

48 minutes ago, Globaliser said:

 

Even if the decision was simply based on the number of passengers (which the responsible articles make clear was not the case), it's not only a question of numbers: cruise ship passengers bring less net economic benefit to their ports of call than other kinds of tourists and visitors. So if you want to effect (say) a single-digit percentage point reduction in tourist numbers, it wouldn't be a bad idea to start by targeting the less profitable.

Except the statement makes it clear numbers are at play. "cruise ships in the city center do not fit into Amsterdam's assignment to reduce the number of tourists".

And if you look at resident frustrations, they are upset at volumes of people.

Now yes, starting with the least profitable is a logical step, however as before, it does not resolve the complaints of overcrowding and that's the point being made.

[HappyInVan]

3 minutes ago, bobfoo said:

This is a discussion about Amsterdam making a decision about Amsterdam. Not Santa Barbara or Monterey or some tiny Greek island with a population of 100 that's seeing 5,000 people pitch up for a day.

 

As stated, cruise pax represent single digit percentage of total tourists. Any resident who thinks this solves the issues they have are sorely mistaken....

Now yes, starting with the least profitable is a logical step, however as before, it does not resolve the complaints of overcrowding and that's the point being made.

 

Yes, and the people of Amsterdam are prepared to cut the number of tourists. They're waiting for the regional and federal governments to act.

 

Once cruise ships are transferred elsewhere, there will be a perceptible difference on the waterfront and downtown. Vancouver has a population similar to Amsterdam. Can't wait for the cruise industry to spread the ships over the entire week, instead of concentrating the ships on the weekends. 🙄

[Globaliser]

25 minutes ago, bobfoo said:

Except the statement makes it clear numbers are at play. "cruise ships in the city center do not fit into Amsterdam's assignment to reduce the number of tourists".

 

But this was only the third of the three reasons given, "in addition" to the first two. So it is clear that the decision was not simply based on reducing numbers. Pollution was first, followed by the inhibition of a second IJ bridge. The D66 statement was headed "Gemeenteraad: maak eind aan vervuilende cruise in Amsterdam" (machine translation: "City council: put an end to polluting cruise in Amsterdam").

 

The D66 party leader's quote in full was: "De vervuilende cruise past niet bij de duurzame ambities van onze stad. Ook het realiseren van een tweede brug over het IJ naar stadsdeel Noord, is niet mogelijk als de cruiseschepen blijven. Daarbij passen cruiseschepen in het stadshart niet in de opdracht van Amsterdam om het aantal toeristen te reduceren. Oftewel, Amsterdam vaart beter zonder de cruise."

 

Machine translation: "The polluting cruise does not match the sustainable ambitions of our city. The realization of a second bridge over the IJ to the Noord district is also not possible if the cruise ships remain. In addition, cruise ships in the city center do not fit into Amsterdam's assignment to reduce the number of tourists. In other words, Amsterdam sails better without the cruise."

[Host Jazzbeau]

Why no mention of adding shore power capability to the Amsterdam port to solve the pollution issue?  Many other ports are doing this, and most new cruise ships are built with shore power capability.

[JG&Lcruisingnewbies]

1 hour ago, Ine said:

No reason to panic yet, it will take some years before the terminal will be closed. The plan is to  build a new terminal more west in town, close to the Sloterdijk area. No more walking in town from the terminal then, but bus or cab will be needed. To me it is a strange decision. 

I’m not sure about years

 

between Venice authorities agreeing a ban, and implementing the ban, it was only 4 months.

 

before they manage to sort out Sloterdijk terminal, they’ll just say use Rotterdam Or IJmuiden

[commodoredave]

The intention to ban cruise ships in Amsterdam is part of a growing trend among popular tourist destinations to reduce carbon emissions, reduce daily visitor numbers, make cities more attractive to local residents, and increase the economic value of each visitor (spend).

One of the unfortunate aspects of this kind of ban is that it may not distinguish between mega-ships and small ships, or obnoxious visitors and respectful ones. It also doesn't allow for a reduction in daily cruise ship visits to address over-crowding and reduce environmental impact, as they have recently done in Norway and before that in Alaska.

This trend will likely continue and may pick up steam as local resentment against tourists grows in some regions.

The cruise industry has brought some of this on itself by building ever-bigger mega-ships with too many passengers on them, and sailing too many of them into the same ports on the same days and weeks. The impact at times can be over-whelming to local residents and their environment.

Unfortunately, I don't think we cruisers are going to get a lot of sympathy from the general public for this situation. In fact, (excuse the pun), the tide has turned against us.

The only saving grace may be that these types of bans and limits may reduce cruise line demand for mega-ships, and increase demand for smaller ships. It may also require spreading out passenger visits to a port and/or region over a longer season, which would reduce over-crowding and make our visits more enjoyable for all. 

But no matter what new rules are adopted, smart people and companies can and usually do figure out a way to make things work for the benefit of most. 

 

 

 

 

 

[farmecologist]

5 hours ago, lexmiller said:

Thank you, I was just going to write nearly the exact thing - we've sailed in and out of Amsterdam many times, with Amsterdam as either the point of embarkation or debarkation.  We always spend several nights in the city, eating, touring, spending all sorts of money - this is a common thing for cruisers to do when talking about a point of embarkation or debarkation, which Amsterdam is (or was!), a major cruise port.  Amsterdam will be losing quite a bit I believe, if they move forward with this plan.  

 

We are doing a river cruise very soon, leaving from Basel and arriving in Amsterdam.  Like you, we will spend several days in the Amsterdam area after the cruise.  We are actually staying in Haarlem this time and will take the train back and forth into Amsterdam.

 

I haven't seen anything yet that says river cruises will be affected.  However, maybe it was an oversight, or they just didn't mention it.  Should be interesting to see what happens.

 

Edited July 21, 2023 by farmecologist

[kdr69]

Amsterdam will no longer allow cruise ships to dock in the center of the city.  I think it was just last week i saw a review where they had docked in the center of the city and now its no longer allowed.  Interesting comment from the Mayor.  

 

"Amsterdam Mayor Femke Halsema has previously spoken out about the benefit of cruise ship passengers visiting the city, saying the travelers stay for only a few hours, “eat meals at international brands and had little time to visit museums.”

[HappyInVan]

1 hour ago, commodoredave said:

The cruise industry has brought some of this on itself by building ever-bigger mega-ships with too many passengers on them, and sailing too many of them into the same ports on the same days and weeks. The impact at times can be over-whelming to local residents and their environment.

Unfortunately, I don't think we cruisers are going to get a lot of sympathy from the general public for this situation. In fact, (excuse the pun), the tide has turned against us.

The only saving grace may be that these types of bans and limits may reduce cruise line demand for mega-ships, and increase demand for smaller ships...

 

 

+1

 

IMHO, the go-go days of cruising are over. In that biz model, CCL would just add several copies of a ship, and fill them at econo-prices. “Our pax count went up by 15% again this year!!!”

 

In the future, the industry needs to re-organize itself. There's room for mega-ships that are floating resorts. They can sail in a circle for several days, departing from and returning to a tourist town (FLL) or a commercial port (Rotterdam).

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Rotterdam

 

There's room for those who like a long stretch of sea days. Cunard does this well.

 

There's room for HAL's forte. An itinerary with interesting coastal ports. For example, the Greek Islands, the coast of Spain, North Africa and the Azores. This is best done with medium size ships like the Prinsendam.

 

What no longer makes sense are the itineraries with 6 European cities in 7 days. From downtown Amsterdam, the TGV only takes 4 hours to arrive at downtown Paris. Board at your leisure without security hassles. Travel in comfort in biz class. Disembark and walk to your nearby hotel, with a sense of the real city.

 

Cities can aid this transition by raising their dock fees to the level where they get the value they like. Pax with premium cruise brands are more likely to spend real money onshore. Rather than rush to/from the airport. “Can we catch the 11am flight?”

 

[Roz]

I'm surprised to see river cruise ships included.  They typically carry 100-200 passengers, so there's not the visible impact that a ship carrying thousands of passengers has.  

 

A  very popular itinerary is Amsterdam to Basel down the Rhine.  Don't know what the river cruise companies will do if they can't start or end in Amsterdam.