Amsterdam - (proposed) closing cruise ship terminal

[Guest ldtr]

1 hour ago, OlsSalt said:

 

Not a fair comment. The wealthy in this town are either very low key, or they are generous private philanthropists. They like to live in Montecito mainly because the locals leave them alone.  

 

Their very long driveways,  tall hedges and vast acreage do not accommodate the unwelcome voyeurs in the first place. Nor was any interest ever expressed to view these local personalities, when I served as a port day cruise ship ambassador. 

 

When asked what some Montecito locals thought an about a certain very high publicity-loving recent couple who moved to these quiet neighborhoods, the steely answer was ....we don't. 

The real money is in Hope Ranch these days. A lot of big name money moved out of Montecito after the fire and flood.

[OlsSalt]

2 minutes ago, ldtr said:

The real money is in Hope Ranch these days. A lot of big name money moved out of Montecito after the fire and flood.

 

Zillow-surf both locations for eye-popping prices and locales. Both are wooded and lovely, but Montecito is more historic. Many an early industry movie was filmed on Montecito estates, which substituted for grand foreign locales. 

 

Problem with Hope Ranch is being under the flight path of the SB Airport - both private and commercial jets. Most airport noise complaints come from Hope Ranch, even though pilots try, when safe and feesble to make the wider arc and enter the run ways over the ocean, and not go directly over Hope Ranch. 

[Charles4515]

Cruise ships have not been banned from Amsterdam. 

[Charles4515]

Cruise ships have not been banned from Amsterdam. There is a proposal to pursue moving the cruise terminal out of the city center. 

[oakridger]

The Zuiderdam Trans-Atlantic leaving Ft. Lauderdale in May 2024 was already scheduled to disembark in Ijmuiden.  I was told here on CC that the docking/passenger fees there are less than Amsterdam.

 

~Nancy

[alcpa1]

The major cruise lines have contracts with the port into 2025.

The news reports are varied and some suggest that it will just be the day stops that are banned and embarkation and disembarkions will be permitted. I am wondering about overnights since we have one on Azamara next year.

The authorities are also banning weed on the streets and instituting restrictions within the Red Light District. Rowdy bachelor parties, especially British ones, are being discouraged. 

The Dutch want their Amsterdam back!!!!!!!!!!!

[jennjess]

8 hours ago, alcpa1 said:

The major cruise lines have contracts with the port into 2025.

The news reports are varied and some suggest that it will just be the day stops that are banned and embarkation and disembarkions will be permitted. I am wondering about overnights since we have one on Azamara next year.

The authorities are also banning weed on the streets and instituting restrictions within the Red Light District. Rowdy bachelor parties, especially British ones, are being discouraged. 

The Dutch want their Amsterdam back!!!!!!!!!!!

The terminal will not be closed for a few years but it will close eventually.  There is going to be a bridge built at that point in the city across the water to the northern part. River cruises may well take over the passenger terminal as they are less polluting and that is the foremost reason for Amsterdam wanting cruise ships out of the city centre.

I don't think another terminal will be built anywhere nearby.  Probably Ijmuiden will be the port of entry which will need much better facilities and transport links.

[farmecologist]

2 hours ago, jennjess said:

The terminal will not be closed for a few years but it will close eventually.  There is going to be a bridge built at that point in the city across the water to the northern part. River cruises may well take over the passenger terminal as they are less polluting and that is the foremost reason for Amsterdam wanting cruise ships out of the city centre.

I don't think another terminal will be built anywhere nearby.  Probably Ijmuiden will be the port of entry which will need much better facilities and transport links.

 

I agree...I'm really skeptical that river cruises will be banned once this is all said and done.  

 

[RICHARD@SEA]

16 hours ago, OlsSalt said:

 

Not a fair comment. The wealthy in this town are either very low key, or they are generous private philanthropists. They like to live in Montecito mainly because the locals leave them alone.  

 

Their very long driveways,  tall hedges and vast acreage do not accommodate the unwelcome voyeurs in the first place. Nor was any interest ever expressed to view these local personalities, when I served as a port day cruise ship ambassador. 

 

When asked what some Montecito locals thought an about a certain very high publicity-loving recent couple who moved to these quiet neighborhoods, the steely answer was ....we don't. 

I know Montecito extremely well...and I stand by my statement...Montecito is where the Billionaires live(some legit , others less so) Santa Barbara is where the help live....big difference.

[zitsky]

We are also those who stay in a city before and after.  I guess nobody cares.  I wonder if people complaining about tourists are ever tourists themselves?

[Labanos]

Amsterdam City Council wants to ban cruise ships

 22 July 2023

Just like in 2016, the city council of Amsterdam has expressed itself this week to restrict cruise tourism more. A motion by D66, GroenLinks and PvdA was adopted to that effect. The main reasons are the reduction of tourism in the city and, on the other hand, the impact on the city's climate.

Shore power

The coalition parties believe that cruise ships should become more sustainable more quickly. The fact that sea cruise ships now have to run their engines ashore is a sore point for them.

However, substantial investments will be made in shore power in the near future, because the award for the construction of shore power was finalized in May 2023, marking the start of construction. The cruise terminal will then be able to offer this in 2025, in time for Port of Amsterdam's vision that sea cruises must be emission-free by 2030. This follows EU legislation that states that in 2030 shore power will be available at the quays for cruise ships.

Reduce tourism

Nevertheless, the city council prefers that cruise tourism will decrease. She really wants to reduce the limit of 18 million tourist overnight stays in the city, and cruise tourism must also contribute to this. However, when and what exactly will be decided depends on the Board of Mayors & Aldermen.

The city would then join the ranks of Venice and Barcelona, which have also spoken out in favor of fewer ships.

[HappyInVan]

3 hours ago, zitsky said:

We are also those who stay in a city before and after.  I guess nobody cares.  I wonder if people complaining about tourists are ever tourists themselves?

 

No one has the constitutional right to cruise to a destination without the permission of the host city/country. We (the pax) debark in a port with the permission of the city, port authority etc; and in the manner prescribed.

 

The problem is that cruise pax (and other visitors) take up space used by the locals.

 

For example, the Vancouver Cruise Terminal is located on the waterfront of downtown Vancouver. The cruise industry has the bad practice of concentrating their ship arrivals on the weekend. Sometimes, 4 ships per day spilling 10k pax onto the city streets, and embarking 10k.

 

https://www.portvancouver.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-Cruise-Ship-Schedule-as-of-April-25.pdf

 

Necessitating the closure of the city streets outside the cruise terminal to general traffic (foot and vehicle). Thus, depriving residents (not just the rich) of their waterfront on their leisure days.

 

The economic solution would be to pay residents for the use of their waterfront. This can be achieved by managing the level of dock fees and hotel taxes to achieve an acceptable level of intrusion.

 

BTW, do hotels really welcome cruise pax? Most pax stay for only one night pre-cruise. The hotel has to prepare the room (fresh linen etc) for the next customer. This is costly. Moreover, the cruise customers block regular visitors who would stay 3-7 nights. I've been in this situation where I have to stay fewer days than I would prefer.

 

Cities/ports that don't proactively manage the cruise industry will find that the cruise industry won't manage itself. Cruise companies will push the envelop until the citizens respond. Either by voting for restrictions, or by 'direct action' (blockades and protests).

 

Why won't the cruise industry proactively address the overcrowding issue? They know how difficult it is to place restrictions on the cruise industry. Meanwhile, they're making money even if pax take hours to embark.

[zitsky]

4 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

 

No one has the constitutional right to cruise to a destination without the permission of the host city/country. We (the pax) debark in a port with the permission of the city, port authority etc; and in the manner prescribed.

 

The problem is that cruise pax (and other visitors) take up space used by the locals.

 

For example, the Vancouver Cruise Terminal is located on the waterfront of downtown Vancouver. The cruise industry has the bad practice of concentrating their ship arrivals on the weekend. Sometimes, 4 ships per day spilling 10k pax onto the city streets, and embarking 10k.

 

https://www.portvancouver.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-Cruise-Ship-Schedule-as-of-April-25.pdf

 

Necessitating the closure of the city streets outside the cruise terminal to general traffic (foot and vehicle). Thus, depriving residents (not just the rich) of their waterfront on their leisure days.

 

The economic solution would be to pay residents for the use of their waterfront. This can be achieved by managing the level of dock fees and hotel taxes to achieve an acceptable level of intrusion.

 

BTW, do hotels really welcome cruise pax? Most pax stay for only one night pre-cruise. The hotel has to prepare the room (fresh linen etc) for the next customer. This is costly. Moreover, the cruise customers block regular visitors who would stay 3-7 nights. I've been in this situation where I have to stay fewer days than I would prefer.

 

Cities/ports that don't proactively manage the cruise industry will find that the cruise industry won't manage itself. Cruise companies will push the envelop until the citizens respond. Either by voting for restrictions, or by 'direct action' (blockades and protests).

 

Why won't the cruise industry proactively address the overcrowding issue? They know how difficult it is to place restrictions on the cruise industry. Meanwhile, they're making money even if pax take hours to embark.

 

I keep hearing pax only stay one day!  You get that from a study?  I’ve never asked for an apology from people that stay in a hotel one day when I want to stay longer.

 

Has anyone done a study of positive and negative effects of banning cruise ships?  Since we don’t benefit these cities then they won’t miss the revenue I guess?

 

How do cities like Paris keep people away?  If a city like Amsterdam says they don’t want my money, I guess I can go somewhere else.

[Globaliser]

7 hours ago, zitsky said:

I keep hearing pax only stay one day!  You get that from a study?

 

As I've said above, you only need to read a few CC forums to get the strong impression that most pax only stay one pre-cruise night and no post-cruise nights. That's what people ask about here.

  

7 hours ago, zitsky said:

Since we don’t benefit these cities then they won’t miss the revenue I guess? ... If a city like Amsterdam says they don’t want my money, I guess I can go somewhere else.

 

Tourists can be very good at bigging themselves up as financial fairy godmothers to the cities that they visit. They're also very good at ignoring the costs - often hidden, and often non-financial - that their presence imposes on locals, costs that counterbalance the immediate cash input that the tourists bring. That's a side of tourism that isn't often looked at or quantified, but what's happening in Amsterdam shows that this is being taken much more seriously now.

 

A number of years back now, there was actually an economists' study of tourism in London that tried to estimate these imposed costs, and concluded that the net financial benefit of inbound tourism might be close to zero. So tourists really shouldn't flatter themselves about the money that they spend - especially those whose time in a city includes sleeping and eating on the ship rather than in local establishments. There are good reasons for tourism, but a narrow focus on money money money may well not be one of them.

 

I suspect that cities like Amsterdam or Venice, whose size and layout makes them particularly vulnerable, might mind it less if all cruises that called there had to make them turnaround ports, and there was a requirement that every embarking passenger had to stay for three pre-cruise nights and every disembarking passenger had to stay for three post-cruise nights. But the proportion of cruise passengers who would happily do this is pretty small. The rest will be taking their money to other cruises that don't have such requirements.

[C4HCG]

1 hour ago, Globaliser said:

 

As I've said above, you only need to read a few CC forums to get the strong impression that most pax only stay one pre-cruise night and no post-cruise nights. That's what people ask about here.

  

 

Tourists can be very good at bigging themselves up as financial fairy godmothers to the cities that they visit. They're also very good at ignoring the costs - often hidden, and often non-financial - that their presence imposes on locals, costs that counterbalance the immediate cash input that the tourists bring. That's a side of tourism that isn't often looked at or quantified, but what's happening in Amsterdam shows that this is being taken much more seriously now.

 

A number of years back now, there was actually an economists' study of tourism in London that tried to estimate these imposed costs, and concluded that the net financial benefit of inbound tourism might be close to zero. So tourists really shouldn't flatter themselves about the money that they spend - especially those whose time in a city includes sleeping and eating on the ship rather than in local establishments. There are good reasons for tourism, but a narrow focus on money money money may well not be one of them.

 

I suspect that cities like Amsterdam or Venice, whose size and layout makes them particularly vulnerable, might mind it less if all cruises that called there had to make them turnaround ports, and there was a requirement that every embarking passenger had to stay for three pre-cruise nights and every disembarking passenger had to stay for three post-cruise nights. But the proportion of cruise passengers who would happily do this is pretty small. The rest will be taking their money to other cruises that don't have such requirements.

I would like to see that study of London. As someone who visits there regularly I see many businesses that rely on tourists to survive, the impact of there being none would be massive, certainly not close to zero. 

[Globaliser]

18 minutes ago, C4HCG said:

I would like to see that study of London. As someone who visits there regularly I see many businesses that rely on tourists to survive, the impact of there being none would be massive, certainly not close to zero. 

 

It's net impact, taking into account the (often hidden) costs that Londoners currently bear. If there were suddenly no tourists, there would be lots of businesses that would go to the wall because they directly depend on tourist revenue. But the rest of London would be relieved of the costs, which are costs that tourists themselves are typically unable to see. That's why economists have to get to work on issues like these.

 

Unfortunately, the study was done before stuff was as readily available on the Internet as it is today. I would also love to have a copy of it. I don't actually personally believe that the figure would be zero, but from personal experience of the costs, I have no doubt that the net benefit is a rather smaller number than just adding up the money that tourists spend in London.

[AndyLovesCruises]

There are other sources saying that the Fjords will soon follow suit, sadly as mentioned above the major lines are more into churning out new ships yearly than looking into their environmental considerations.  Plenty of green washing of course!   

 

Barcelona which is the main departure port for most EU routes are going to be imposing larger tax's on cruise visitors which would be paid via the cruse fair . 

 

Restrictions on ports and ships will sadly increase the price of cruising across the board but I'm not sure if this is a bad thing? 

 

We recently had a trip to Mykonos (not on a ship)  the old town was a no go during the day, most days there will 2 / 3 ships in port and these little towns cannot cope with an additional 6 / 12 k people in peak season! 

 

Have RCI seen this coming for a few years now?   The latest ships donning the tag line 'we are the destination'  10 / 20 years from now will cruises to nowhere be the norm?  

[Ellen495]

I'm utterly confused. We just booked a trip on Norwegian (fully refundable ) and it goes to Amsterdam for a day which is what my daughter is most excited about. It doesn't start or end there. Maybe the wrong cruise. Will she get to enjoy Amsterdam?

[EDVM96]

5 minutes ago, Ellen495 said:

 Will she get to enjoy Amsterdam?

Only the City Cruise Terminal is affected.
The VCK Waterland Industrial Terminal outside of town will be used instead.

[Ellen495]

11 minutes ago, EDVM96 said:

Only the City Cruise Terminal is affected.
The VCK Waterland Industrial Terminal outside of town will be used instead.

I see. So easy enough to get in and spend the day there?

[zitsky]

I’m sure there are some places that want my money.

 

I’m sure during Covid and no tourists, these cities were all flourishing.

Edited July 24, 2023 by zitsky

[Mick B]

Hi,

Well, being British and enjoying cruising certaintly isn't easy anymore.

Firstly, it is becoming expensive to cruise out of Southampton, and cruising from Barcelona involves flying and flying to Europe is becoming silly price too, Venice has gone and now its Ravenna which is not easy to get to if on a time limit. So what about Amsterdam? Eurostar from London in a few hours then jump on a cruise. I was thinking of trying a TA to there and then the train back home - probably not going to happen now as I have next year sorted and possibly 2025 too.

 

Not all Brits are causing the issues with places like Amsterdam and not all cruise ship passengers are clogging up these cities either. I have been to some of these places that are still ram packed even when no ships are in port or nearby.

 

I also can't see why they would need to ban the small river cruise ships from Amsterdam. Surely those passengers can't make up a very high percentage of tourism? Venice only banned ships over a certain weight, not ALL (although most cruise lines don't have a ship that would fit that criteria anymore).

 

OK, so just like Venice, they want to ban large cruise ships. The problem here is the same problem they did in Venice, banning ALL large ships.

I used to to cruise out of Venice each year and fly down and stay over for a few days either end of the cruise. Whilst there I would spend lots of money on things like food at the restaurants, pay for hotels and city tax, pay for transports and so on. In fact the amount of money spent in Venice was more than the cost of the cruise. What Venice should have done is start by just banning cruise ships that pulled in for the day and not those that started and ended there. They could have done that for a few years and got some statistics from that and then made a choice based on that.

 

You cannot blame cruise ship passengers for having a nice big breakfast and then not bothering to spend loads of money on lunch if they are only going to be in the place for a few hours. That doesn't mean they are not spending their money on other things.

 

Last year I did a cruise from Barcelona to Copenhagen that called into Amsterdam and yes I had my breakfast on board, but then spent around 7 hours walking around the city having a spot to eat and drink at a cafe (struggled at first to find one as they were all jam packed and we were the only ship in and I don't many were off our ship) and also buying some new shirts for myself and a coat for my wife which cost $$$. We always try to buy our new clothes whilst abroad as the prices are just silly in the UK for the same outfits.

 

Anyway, if only the cruise industry could bash some heads together with each cruise line and come up with a plan where only 1 cruise ship is in a port at any given time, then surely that would be a start - and I mean ports where really only 1 ship should be allowed like small cities or islands.

 

I have been to places like Santorini where 4 cruise ships have pulled up. Thats probably over 10,000 people visiting an island where access to the city at the top of the mountains is via cable car or donkey - absolutely stupid when other islands are close by. No wonder ports are clamping down. CLIA should try to sort this before there is no-where left to visit.

 

So, please, please, please, if Amsterdam decides it wants to shift the cruise port a few miles out of the city centre, then fine, but please build a rapid light transport system (or equivalent) so us passengers can get into the city centre from the ship as quickly (and environmentally friendly) as possible as time in port can be short on some days anyway.

 

Something about Venice, I was told by a local that water displacement from ships was causing issues with the lagoon, but I was also told by the same chap that the total amount of Water Taxis, Gondolas and other canal users when added up at any one time displaced even more water collectively and that it was the lack of spending by cruise ship passengers that was the real reason why they wanted them gone.

Hopefully at some point in the future a cruise port outside the lagoon area of Venice will be built but with transport links so passengers can stay and enjoy the place again before and after their cruise without causing environmental issues. Ravenna is just too far.

 

Another thing, what about these new NPG or whatever ships. Will they be allowed into ports if they do not pollute the water. Or, will those ships be too big?

 

Looks like Caribbean ports and TAs may be the only thing left for us to enjoy in a few years at this rate.

 

Mick.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[zitsky]

Anyone know how much cruise lines pay in port fees at places like Amsterdam and how much if any do we pay as passengers in the form of a per passenger tax?

[Clemmnj]

I read yesterday that Amsterdam is going to be closing its cruise port. No date was specified. I have a cruise scheduled for May of next year that is leaving from Amsterdam but now don’t know what to do about hotels etc pre cruise. I don’t want to book hotels and transportation if that is not going to be the departure port. Does anyone know anything about when this might happen or how to handle this new dilemma? 

[cruisestitch]

Best estimates are “a long time from now”