More Opposition to the Cruise Industry!

[Hlitner]

We (and others) have previously posted about the growing anti cruise ship/industry trend that seems to be sweeping the world  There are many movements (mostly local/regional) that are working to limit of eliminate cruise ships coming to their waters.  Some examples are Venice, Charleston, Key West, Bar Harbor, La Spezia, Santorini, etc.   Here is another relevant article.  Should Cruises Exist? These People Say Absolutely Not. (msn.com)

 

To this article I would add that the cruise industry has very slowly been moving to shore-based power options.  This is something we have seen with quite a few newer vessels (designed with the electrical busing necessary to use shore-based electricity).  Modifying existing/older ships to accept shore-based power is much more complicated and expensive, so there is no rush (in the industry) to take this step.  Perhaps some other well informed industry insiders (such as ChangKP) will jump-in on this threat.

 

Speaking of the Port of Marseille, it also happens to be the busiest port in France and the 2nd largest Med port.  One might argue that focusing on the cruise industry is not fair since this port also handles an awful lot of other commercial shipping.  

 

Hank

 

 

[dolittle]

I think it is human nature to hate tourists until they are gone . In some cases like Venice and Santorini it is legit to question the amount of people in a small area. As far as Key West and Bar Harbor it is more likely locals who have moved to a nice place and don't want others in the rarefied air they breath. 

[capriccio]

3 minutes ago, dolittle said:

I think it is human nature to hate tourists until they are gone . In some cases like Venice and Santorini it is legit to question the amount of people in a small area. As far as Key West and Bar Harbor it is more likely locals who have moved to a nice place and don't want others in the rarefied air they breath. 

I was nodding my head yes reading your first and second sentences. The third sentence made me nod my head no.  Key West and Bar Harbor are definitely small areas too!  The opinions of all residents, whether the residents are "born-here or 'come-here'*, should be taken into account.

 

*What Shenandoah Valley natives call anyone living in but not born there.

[CunucuMom]

There's also a movement to ban personal vehicle ownership so this crusade against pleasure cruising is no surprise.  I'm still waiting for someone to articulate exactly how the electrified ports will be powered. I guess they're not concerned with coal-burning plant emissions and nuclear power is a NIMBY.

[dolittle]

12 minutes ago, capriccio said:

I was nodding my head yes reading your first and second sentences. The third sentence made me nod my head no.  Key West and Bar Harbor are definitely small areas too!  The opinions of all residents, whether the residents are "born-here or 'come-here'*, should be taken into account.

 

*What Shenandoah Valley natives call anyone living in but not born there.

Very few people were born in Key West most have moved to a big tourist town then turn around and say ''there are to many people here'' .

[LHT28]

34 minutes ago, dolittle said:

Very few people were born in Key West most have moved to a big tourist town then turn around and say ''there are to many people here'' .

yep  people move from the big cities to small towns  then want all the  amenities of the big cities  then complain it is too busy 😉

 

[edinburgher]

1 hour ago, Hlitner said:

There are many movements (mostly local/regional) that are working to limit of eliminate cruise ships coming to their waters.

I think the cruise industry has largely brought such criticism upon itself by building giant ships which can disgorge up to 5000 (or more?) passengers into small communities which lack the infrastructure to cope with such an influx and cause disruption to local residents. Tthey also have so many ships and berths they need to generate income from,  they now deploy them for longer  and appear to have extended the seasons they used to work to in the past.And so many ships on one day too!  So pleased we visited the likes of Santorini (twice) many years ago when it wasn't as crowded as it now appears to be.Of course, local authorities should also share some of the blame for allowing such high numbers in the first place.

 

Only last Saturday I read a long article in a newspaper  describing the concerns of residents of Invergordon (Scotlish Highlands) about both the number of ships and the size of them.  Whilst they mostly welcome the increased income, they object to the road closures which are in place during cruise calls, as they have few roads and locals struggle to go about their daily business as a result. Indeed some business apparently cannot function at all on these days.  And the article stated that apparently during "cruise season"lasting several months, there are very few days when cruise ships are not visiting, and they would like to see a reduction in  the number of ships and also a reduction in the size of ships, preferring fewer passengers and the possibility of keeping their local roads open to all, thereby making the visits more pleasant for locals and visitors alike.

 

I think the cruise industry needs to work with local authorities to strike "a happy balance" wherever in the world they are visiting, also that local authorities need to listen to and act upon the concerns of their residents.

[cruiseryyc]

"I think the cruise industry has largely brought such criticism upon itself by building giant ships which can disgorge up to 5000 (or more?) passengers into small communities which lack the infrastructure to cope with such an influx and cause disruption to local residents"

 

Bingo - you hit the nail right on the head!

[Heidi13]

3 hours ago, Hlitner said:

We (and others) have previously posted about the growing anti cruise ship/industry trend that seems to be sweeping the world  There are many movements (mostly local/regional) that are working to limit of eliminate cruise ships coming to their waters.  Some examples are Venice, Charleston, Key West, Bar Harbor, La Spezia, Santorini, etc.   Here is another relevant article.  Should Cruises Exist? These People Say Absolutely Not. (msn.com)

 

To this article I would add that the cruise industry has very slowly been moving to shore-based power options.  This is something we have seen with quite a few newer vessels (designed with the electrical busing necessary to use shore-based electricity).  Modifying existing/older ships to accept shore-based power is much more complicated and expensive, so there is no rush (in the industry) to take this step.  Perhaps some other well informed industry insiders (such as ChangKP) will jump-in on this threat.

 

Speaking of the Port of Marseille, it also happens to be the busiest port in France and the 2nd largest Med port.  One might argue that focusing on the cruise industry is not fair since this port also handles an awful lot of other commercial shipping.  

 

Hank

 

 

 

I'll suggest that this has been coming for many years, with the root cause the mass market cruise industry business model, one component of which is economy of scale. Ever increasing ship sizes and a reduction in standards/quality are keeping prices low, opening the market to ever increasing numbers of potential pax.

 

When I compare the cost of cruising on the original Princess ships back in the 1970/80's, the daily cost on a mass market line today, can at times, be virtually identical. This is achieved by economy of scale, hence we now have 6,000+ pax capacity, rather than 750. When we docked, many days we were the only ship in port, occasionally we had 2 ships, rarely 3 or more. Therefore, in most visits to Alaska, Venice, Santorini, etc we had 750 pax adding to the existing tourist traffic. These days, it is common to have well over 10,000 - 15,000 pax in these same ports.

 

I also consider the difference between travellers and tourists. While it may be a generalisation, in my experience, more experienced cruisers and holiday makers follow into the traveller category, while newer cruisers tend to be in the tourist category. I'll suggest the average spend for a tourist is less than a traveller, as many of the new cruisers book cruise line tours, or head to the beach and return to the ship for lunch.

 

I'll suggest the ports and adjoining communities are also at fault, as they initially welcomed the cruise ships and tourist dollars with open arms. Now, with ever increasing numbers of pax, in many small ports it is negatively impacting the local population, few of whom are receiving significant benefit.

 

How this plays out in the next few years will be very interesting. I recall back in the 70's when they had 7-night cruises visiting 5 or 6 ports. With the larger ships that has dropped to 3 or 4 ports on many cruises. As the number of ports welcoming these mega ships reduces, the mega ship cruise could potentially become a floating resort visiting only 1 or 2 ports.

 

With respect to shore power, I can't estimate the installation costs for shore power, as all our ships were built with shore power capability and have since the 1960's, so I have not estimated or project managed a conversion. However, it won't be cheap, as the cable size is significant and there will be numerous transitions through fire bulkheads. Another reason for slow implementation is that shore power is not available at the majority of cruise ship berths. In Vancouver, we are fortunate, having an abundance of fairly cheap, power that is from > 98% renewable resources. Unfortunately, not all ports have access to this type of power and at this price point. 

[chengkp75]

It is estimated that adding shore power capability to a cruise ship is well over a million dollars.  While that is not a really significant cost, if it allows the ship to continue to operate based on regulations, the real problem with getting shore power is one that the environmentalists don't think about.  That is the infrastructure required by the port to provide the power.  While not difficult to provide power for most cargo ships, only requiring about 800kw at 480 volts, supplying a single cruise ship is far different.  That cruise ship requires in the area of 8Mw (or the equivalent of 10 cargo ships), but at 10,000 volts.  So, the taxpayers are the ones who have the final say whether ports get shore power or not, as the cost of installing the additional power grid, the substations, the high voltage safety equipment, and the high voltage connection points is going to come from them, into their governmental port authority.  This is the true reason that shore power has moved so slowly.

 

As Andy says above, the price point for that shore power is also a consideration.  The taxpayers and the port authority will of course try to recoup the cost of the infrastructure by charging more for the shore power than say a land based industry would.  If that price point exceeds the fuel cost to power the ship in port, or the scrubber cost to clean the exhaust, then the ship will find another port that does not require shore power, and take their business elsewhere, and this goes for all ships, not just cruise ships.

 

And, singling out the cruise industry is facile.  As the person noted in the original article, there are far more cargo ships in the port, "but they benefit everyone" so its okay to breathe their pollution (and the typical cargo ship is in port longer than a cruise ship) because otherwise we would have to pay more for the "necessities of life" like our cars and tvs and cell phones that those ships bring.  Many articles mention the vast amounts of pollution that cruise ships are deemed to spew forth, but they don't mention that that is only when at sea, and that in port there is much less, since the power is much less.

 

A similar problem has been going on in the US for several years now, where states like Vermont have placed a hold on allowing new solar power projects, because the basic infrastructure needed to carry all the new power generated isn't there.  The same will hold true when EV's become more prevalent, it won't be a lack of charging stations that is the problem, it will be the lack of power generating stations, and the power lines and transformers to carry that power to the charging stations that will cause the problems.

[slidergirl]

I think everyone needs to live in a small port/resort town for a season and an off-season to get the effects of having all those people show up.   I live in a resort town.  It used to be basically a winter resort town and we all learned to live with the crowd when we went from 5,000 people to 30,000 people.  Restaurants did the "locals rate" or 2-for 1 meals to compensate us for enduring.  We grew into a year-round resort town.  What used to take me 10 minutes for my commute into town now takes 20 minutes regularly and 45 minutes in the winter.  No more specials.  I haven't been out to a sit-down dinner in the winter for years.   I can't even afford to go shopping on Main Street anymore.   But, there are still a couple of days here and there that are OK.  And, I love the surrounding area, although even the mountain campgrounds require reservations months in advance now.  

 

I worked with a kid who came to my one resort hotel to be trained as a Butler at the new St. Regis in Venice (the first one, not the current one).  He said Venice was now a difficult place to live.  Expensive for the locals who provided all the services for the tourists but little for the locals.  

[mnocket]

If local communities want to restrict cruise ships, that's entirely a matter for them to decide.  In the not too distant future, there may be quite a few places that you simply can't travel to by cruise ship.  It seems to me that the obvious option is for the industry to spread out. By that I mean they need to develop more ports of call and size ships to accommodate smaller ports. More ports lessens the density and impact of tourists in each port.  Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that the cruise industry has embraced this approach. To the contrary, it seems cruise lines are intent to exacerbate the problem by building  increasingly larger and larger ships. I don't see this ending well.

[chengkp75]

24 minutes ago, mnocket said:

If local communities want to restrict cruise ships, that's entirely a matter for them to decide.  In the not too distant future, there may be quite a few places that you simply can't travel to by cruise ship.  It seems to me that the obvious option is for the industry to spread out. By that I mean they need to develop more ports of call and size ships to accommodate smaller ports. More ports lessens the density and impact of tourists in each port.  Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that the cruise industry has embraced this approach. To the contrary, it seems cruise lines are intent to exacerbate the problem by building  increasingly larger and larger ships. I don't see this ending well.

Unfortunately, your approach using smaller ships means that the cruise lines cannot take advantage of the economies of size that the larger ships give, and therefore cruise fares will have to rise, and this can deter many demographics from cruising, thereby causing the cruise lines to lose business.

[Aquahound]

6 hours ago, dolittle said:

Very few people were born in Key West most have moved to a big tourist town then turn around and say ''there are to many people here'' .

 

Uh, no.  I lived in the Keys for 20 years and was not born there.  The issue with cruise ships goes much deeper than just how busy Duval St gets when there are 3 large ships in town.  Maybe a little education will help bring things into perspective.

 

The dredged shipping channel that runs from the reef line to the port is about 7 miles long.  It is surrounded on both sides by shallow flats that are covered in seagrass, which are turtle grounds.  Years ago, a local politician who happened to own a couple of the busiest bars on Duval, wanted to widen the channel by dredging and destroying those seagrass beds in order to be able to accommodate modern behemoths.  Part of the reef would have been dredged as well.  So yeah, destroy nature in order to put more money into his own pockets from bar revenue.  While that measure failed, it is not soon forgotten.  I, who absolutely loves cruising, also aggressively fought it.  

 

Today, despite that measure failing, the increased ships and people are having an adverse impact on the reef.  So please don't be so quick to assume that its only as simple as the number of people.  There's usually a much more pressing issue at hand.  I believe Venice also has a legitimate reason as well.  

[chengkp75]

Venice is worried about erosion of the mud flats as well 

[Hlitner]

I am delighted that some of the best experts, here on CC, jumped in on the topic.  I am starting to think that we are moving into an era when there will something akin to two different cruise worlds,  The biggest arm will be the large/mega ship companies (lets call anything over 1000 passengers large) that will move the most passengers and focus on fewer ports.  These ships are their own destination and will continue to attract millions of passengers per year.

 

The other arm of the industry will be the small ship premium/luxury lines that will focus on the ports.  Many of the ports that object to the large/mega ships, seem to OK with smaller vessels...especially when those vessels have passengers more willing to spend money ashore...than found on the mega ships.  This small ship market seems to be undergoing quite an expansion as several lines continue to add even smaller "exploration ships" and other lines expand.  To this we can add the new Explora Journey cruise line which is in the process of expanding to 6 new 900 passenger ships.  We already see some ports, such as St Barts, welcoming small luxury ships and discouraging visits from larger mega ships.  Bar Harbor's voters have, so-far, agreed to accept up to 1000 cruise ship passengers a day.  Even Key West voters seem OK with accepting a low number of cruise passengers (one proposal was no more than 1500 a day).

 

There also is a huge difference between the mass market mega ships and the small luxury ships, in terms of what is offered (onboard) and their targeted customers.  DW and I are somewhat weird in that we enjoy both the smallest luxury ships (just came off a ship with 400 passengers) and some of the larger mega ships (have an upcoming Sky Princess cruise).  Most folks we meet on the luxury lines do not want any part of the mega ships.

 

Hank

[mnocket]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

Unfortunately, your approach using smaller ships means that the cruise lines cannot take advantage of the economies of size that the larger ships give, and therefore cruise fares will have to rise, and this can deter many demographics from cruising, thereby causing the cruise lines to lose business.

True, but if the alternative is to be banned from more and more ports it might be something to consider along with developing new ports.

Edited September 14, 2023 by mnocket

[K32682]

8 hours ago, dolittle said:

Very few people were born in Key West most have moved to a big tourist town then turn around and say ''there are to many people here'' .

 

I've spent time in Key West before and after the mega-ships started arriving. Before tourism was visitors who made the long trek down the Keys, stayed in the community and spent there. They contributed more and behaved better than the frequently drunk and often obnoxious (expletives deleted) excreted from the big boats who overwhelm the small downtown for a few hours a day. 

 

[Toofarfromthesea]

Serious question:  have studies been done comparing the environmental impact between a ship self-generating electricity in port and tho total environmental impact of generating and transmitting electricity from land to the ship.  There would be a lot of variables as different ships and different ports would be at different stages of the modernity of their technology.

[ldubs]

When I read the linked article, I thought the thrust was pollution, not crowds.  Maybe I missed something.  Pollution is a valid concern and the shore power solution seems like something that should be pressed with some priority, at least in heavy use ports (yes we will ultimately foot the bill).   I didn't like the part of the article that deemed how other people might want to spend their leisure time as unworthy.    

 

I'm going to start a campaign to ban holiday weekends.  They generate crowds and too much traffic.  Makes it hard to get to places.  

[cruisemom42]

8 hours ago, mnocket said:

If local communities want to restrict cruise ships, that's entirely a matter for them to decide. 

 

Except in the case of Key West, it wasn't. The state of Florida stepped in and told them otherwise.

 

[Heidi13]

6 hours ago, mnocket said:

True, but if the alternative is to be banned from more and more ports it might be something to consider along with developing new ports.

 

There are already thousands of ports throughout the World that cruise ships don't or rarely use, as they aren't close to any attractions and/or nature. Pax also prefer not to be around bulk loading terminals.

 

The problem isn't about adding more berths, it is finding locations of interest to cruise pax. As an example, building new berths outside of Venice addresses the erosion problem, but doesn't address the number of pax being bused in for short periods. 

[Heidi13]

4 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

Serious question:  have studies been done comparing the environmental impact between a ship self-generating electricity in port and tho total environmental impact of generating and transmitting electricity from land to the ship.  There would be a lot of variables as different ships and different ports would be at different stages of the modernity of their technology.

 

The immediate impact at the port is beneficial when ships plug into shore power, even if using low sulphur bunkers and/or scrubbers. However, depending on what is used to generate the electricity determines the overall benefit.

 

In Port of Vancouver, our power is > 98% renewable, since we have an abundance of Hydro, so I'll suggest Vancouver is experiencing a positive impact on the environment. However, many areas are still using fossil fuels - oil, gas and even coal to generate power, so in areas where coal is used, I'll suggest the ship using low sulphur fuel and scrubbers would be better overall for the environment.

[CunucuMom]

5 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

However, many areas are still using fossil fuels - oil, gas and even coal to generate power, so in areas where coal is used, I'll suggest the ship using low sulphur fuel and scrubbers would be better overall for the environment.

The article recommends banning scrubbers.

Recommendation  6:  The  use  of  scrubbers,  especially  open-loop  scrubbers,  should  be  banned  in  all  of European  waters.  This  will  ensure  that  cruise  ships  at  the  very  least move towards distillate-type of fuels with  lower  sulphur  content  and  prevent  cruise  ships  from  potentially  polluting  the  oceans  with contaminated water. 

[chengkp75]

43 minutes ago, CunucuMom said:

The article recommends banning scrubbers.

Recommendation  6:  The  use  of  scrubbers,  especially  open-loop  scrubbers,  should  be  banned  in  all  of European  waters.  This  will  ensure  that  cruise  ships  at  the  very  least move towards distillate-type of fuels with  lower  sulphur  content  and  prevent  cruise  ships  from  potentially  polluting  the  oceans  with contaminated water. 

Yeah, got several problems with this "recommendation".

 

First is the most obvious, and one I mentioned before.  It wants to target 5% of the problem (the part of world shipping that cruise ships account for) because it doesn't affect them as the non-cruising public, but is willing to let the other 95% go along doing what they claim is harmful, because it would affect their ability to buy a new phone every year.

 

Second, they seem to realize that residual fuel is called that for a reason.  It is not a product that the refineries choose to produce, it is the residual left over from refining a barrel of crude oil as much as possible, and amounts to about 25-35% of each barrel of crude.  If ships are not to use this residual, what are refineries to do with it?  Pump it back into the ground?  The IMO has already accomplished something that many in the maritime and petroleum industries didn't think possible, the viable mandating of low sulfur fuel for ships, reducing sulfur content by 85% over the last decade, just in residual fuel.  And, that affects 100% of shipping, not just the small part that cruise ships are.

 

And, finally, has anyone studied an area of sea, say close to a port's entry, where lots of ships with scrubbers pass by, to see if the sea handles differently what are found to be pollutants in the air?

 

Does pollution by ships need to be addressed?  Sure.  Is it going to come with a hefty price tag?  Sure.  Should we do it anyway?  Sure.  Does singling out cruise ships provide an efficient way to accomplish this?  Only marginally, due to the percentages.  I won't argue the overcrowding, or the other environmental issues with large cruise ships in ports not designed for them, but the whole cruise ship fuel pollution argument is specious.  It hides a dislike of the "luxury" of cruises behind an environmental facade.