More Opposition to the Cruise Industry!

[Mary229]

59 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. 

I think regulations are the correct way to manage tourism or other immigration issues.  It is far less offensive, less condescending and sets clear goalposts.  As in your example it has positive outcomes for everyone.  
 

As an aside and as an example our community is experiencing unprecedented growth which is straining our resources.  We can’t very well  bar people from moving here but we can restrict building permits. 

[Hlitner]

I am going to push this back to the issue of specific ports.  While folks can certainly debate the environmental impact of cruise ships vis-a-vis the entire shipping industry, the anti-cruise issue often moves beyond that problem.  Consider cruise ports like Key West, Bar Harbor, La Spezia, and even Venice's Maritima.  What do they all have in common?  They are not commercial ports (one might argue that there is a commercial port near Venice).  Take the cruise ships away from Bar Harbor and Key West, and the complaints of the locals in terms of over tourism, kicking up silt in the nearby waters, and even some air pollution does mostly disappear.   As to Venice, the so-called "over pressure" issue in the Giudecca Canal (and the accelerating damage to nearby/delicate infrastructure) is mostly eliminated by simply banning large ships from that canal (and the cruise port).  Does that solve all the environmental issues facing Venice?  Of course not...but arguably it does improve the local environment.  Commercial shipping is necessary (and vital) for the world economy, but the cruise industry is just a small niche.  I cannot help but go back to the referendums in Key West, and how a large majority of locals realized they did not miss (or need) cruise ships..only after they stopped coming during COVID.  And believe me when I say that few who live and do business in Cinque Terre would miss the cruise ships now calling at La Spezia.  There was a time when DW and I would happily spend a few nights in one of those 5 villages, helping the local economy by staying in their small inns, eating in their restaurants etc.  Now, we would not even consider spending nights in any of those villages just like we would never consider a vacation on St Thomas.  And we are cruise lovers!  So, beat me with a wet noodle because that does make me a hypocrite.  But sometimes reality works that way!

 

Resort/Port cities can control growth through the use of building permits (mentioned by Mary).  Is that really much different than restricting the tonnage or size of ships?  I have not heard a lot of talk about banning (or even restricting) the cruise ships from large commercial ports such as Civitavecchia, Barcelona, NYC, etc., but it is different in the smaller less commercial ports.  Anyone old enough to remember when Charlotte Amalie was a cute shopping town can attest to the negative impact of so many cruisers (which can easily exceed 30,000 on a single day!)  While the cruise industry has certainly helped some companies, such as Diamonds International, it has helped to drive-out most of the decent linen shops which used to be a staple in Charlotte Amalie.  Do you think locals appreciate the wall-to-wall jewelry stores, liquor stores, etc?  

 

My goodness, What happens when RCI starts building 300,000+ ton ships with 10,000 passengers!  

 

Hank

[mnocket]

7 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

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

 

True. Obviously I don't believe they should have. 

[chengkp75]

22 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

I am going to push this back to the issue of specific ports.  While folks can certainly debate the environmental impact of cruise ships vis-a-vis the entire shipping industry, the anti-cruise issue often moves beyond that problem

And, yet, you started this thread with an article discussing pollution in a major commercial port, and continued to comment on shore power, which would almost never come to small ports.

 

As I said, if the locals feel that the number of tourists is damaging their city, or that other forms of tourism benefit the city more (most studies find that cruise, or day, tourists spend about half of what an overnight tourist spends in the local economy), that's fine.  Let them exercise all legal rights to limit tourism.  Just don't hide behind a "green crusade" facade.

[CunucuMom]

14 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

And, yet, you started this thread with an article discussing pollution in a major commercial port, and continued to comment on shore power, which would almost never come to small ports.

 

As I said, if the locals feel that the number of tourists is damaging their city, or that other forms of tourism benefit the city more (most studies find that cruise, or day, tourists spend about half of what an overnight tourist spends in the local economy), that's fine.  Let them exercise all legal rights to limit tourism.  Just don't hide behind a "green crusade" facade.

Well stated, @chengkp75.  At the risk of shutting down this topic and/or getting booted from CC, I'm skeptical of the climate change hysteria promulgated by the same global elites who unapologetically fly private jets to whatever world climate summit (I guess they're not familiar with Zoom calls?) then tell me, the proverbial little guy, that I'm not entitled to own a vehicle, travel the globe, enjoy a pleasure cruise or eat a steak all while turning a blind eye to the world's largest polluters, China and India. I also looked at the major funders of the NGO (transportenvironment dot org) that commissioned the study and lo and behold, Schwab Charitable Foundation, among others.  I'm more on board (no pun intended) with individual ports controlling their policies rather than blanket implementation of regulations per the recommendations.

 

I'm also leery of specific attacks on the cruise industry.  Should cruises to Antarctica and the Galapagos be shut down for climate and ecological concerns?  Those locations aren't my gig but I know there are plenty of folks for whom those destinations are bucket list dream vacations and I don't think they should be denied those opportunities while Jeff Bezos can go wherever he wants on his super yacht.  Rant over...I promise.  🫢

[K32682]

16 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

And, yet, you started this thread with an article discussing pollution in a major commercial port, and continued to comment on shore power, which would almost never come to small ports.

 

As I said, if the locals feel that the number of tourists is damaging their city, or that other forms of tourism benefit the city more (most studies find that cruise, or day, tourists spend about half of what an overnight tourist spends in the local economy), that's fine.  Let them exercise all legal rights to limit tourism.  Just don't hide behind a "green crusade" facade.

 

Environmental pollution takes more than one form and it includes damaging the social environment of a small community when the cruising hordes numbering in the thousands descend upon it. I've seen it from both sides. Appalled at the behavior of cruisers when seeing it as a land visitor, embarrassed to be among them when locals are treated disrespectfully by cruisers. It's not a façade if a community doesn't want that type of pollution. 

[K32682]

6 minutes ago, CunucuMom said:

Should cruises to Antarctica and the Galapagos be shut down for climate and ecological concerns?  Those locations aren't my gig but I know there are plenty of folks for whom those destinations are bucket list dream vacations and I don't think they should be denied those opportunities while Jeff Bezos can go wherever he wants on his super yacht.  Rant over...I promise. 

 

Yes. If it is shown that cruising is damaging the Galapagos and Antarctica cruises should be shut down. Their environments are far more important than some flabby first-world cruiser completing his "bucket list" and that includes a yacht ban too.     

[Hlitner]

46 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

And, yet, you started this thread with an article discussing pollution in a major commercial port, and continued to comment on shore power, which would almost never come to small ports.

 

As I said, if the locals feel that the number of tourists is damaging their city, or that other forms of tourism benefit the city more (most studies find that cruise, or day, tourists spend about half of what an overnight tourist spends in the local economy), that's fine.  Let them exercise all legal rights to limit tourism.  Just don't hide behind a "green crusade" facade.

With this we agree :).  We cannot discuss the "Green" topic without ruffling political feathers so I have learned to tip toe lightly.  But suffice it to say that many greenies are complete hypocrites.  They make the NIMBY folks seem tame, by comparison.  One has only to think through a State with electrical power shortages (and brownouts) moving to all electric cars.  Boggles this little mind.

 

Hank

[Mick B]

Hi all,

It is becoming a sad situation where we cannot visit by cruise ship some of our favourite ports of call anymore.

Some of it may be due to environmental issues, some may be due to the size of the ship either not fitting or causing damage or having too many passengers that overpower the area but do not necessarily spend that much money whilst there.

 

I don't have all (if any answers), but could the following suggestions not help.

 

1) Limit the mega ships to destination that can cope with the size of ship and influx of passengers - remembering that these megaships are so big that they become their own destination and may not require loads of ports of call on a 1 week cruise, as you could spend that time finding everything the ship has to offer instead of getting off.

 

2) Limiting only a fleets smallest ships to the ports that cannot handle too many passengers and also the cruise lines and ports working together to ensure that no more than 2 ships are docked at any time.

 

3) Possibly only allow cruise ships to visit certain ports at the start and end of a cruise therefore ensuring that those passengers may then have the chance to stay at the port for a few days either end and spend money. Only cutting the daytrip cruises. This could have been what Venice could have done instead of banning just about every ship.

 

4) If a port cannot cope with cruise ships anymore, then an alternative port close by should be used or built so that passengers can then travel to the port and have enough time there to enjoy it without being rushed. Yes, Venice comes to mind again, both Ravenna and Trieste seem too far for passengers to have a full day in Venice. A new port is needed closer so people can fly in, spend a few days there (and their money) and then get to the ship easily without the stress that Ravenna seems to have inflicted on some.

 

Not sure if all or any of these would help. Even if the ships were carbon neutral you still have the amount of passengers arriving in any given port on any given day. 

 

The cruise industry needs to sort this out between themselves before local authorities make the decisions for them.

It won't be easy, but it is possible. years ago a small island had several large pubs/bars but none of them were that busy, so they all worked together to take it in turns for each one to open on a certain day and the rest would close. Each one was full on the day it was open. So rivals could work together and everyone was happy. Would be interesting to see P&O, RCI and Disney agreeing to this type of arrangement.

 

The last thing I want to see is a massive increase in fare to the passenger. I hope that cruising will remain a holiday vacation for everyone and not just those with money.

 

Hopefully some new destinations may become available if the current ones no longer want our money!

 

Mick.

 

Edited September 15, 2023 by Mick B

[Mary229]

1 hour ago, Hlitner said:

With this we agree :).  We cannot discuss the "Green" topic without ruffling political feathers so I have learned to tip toe lightly.  But suffice it to say that many greenies are complete hypocrites.  They make the NIMBY folks seem tame, by comparison.  One has only to think through a State with electrical power shortages (and brownouts) moving to all electric cars.  Boggles this little mind.

 

Hank

I likely share your political bent but there are environmental issues outside of the popular ones.  Problems like water shortages, waste water treatment, garbage disposal.  Those are environmental issues and may be very expensive for small communities.  

[chengkp75]

37 minutes ago, Mick B said:

This could have been what Venice could have done instead of banning just about every ship.

As stated before, Venice's concerns with cruise ships were mainly with the large ships causing damage to the wetlands in the Bay, not really with the overcrowding, which is why they still allow smaller ships to dock in the city.  The overcrowding, they are trying to control with the "entry fee" scheme.

 

40 minutes ago, Mick B said:

If a port cannot cope with cruise ships anymore, then an alternative port close by should be used or built so that passengers can then travel to the port and have enough time there to enjoy it without being rushed.

Who pays for this new port?

 

43 minutes ago, Mick B said:

A new port is needed closer so people can fly in, spend a few days there (and their money) and then get to the ship easily without the stress that Ravenna seems to have inflicted on some.

I thought the ships were going to use the Marghera port, which is actually still part of the municipality of Venice.

 

44 minutes ago, Mick B said:

The cruise industry needs to sort this out between themselves before local authorities make the decisions for them.

So, the cruise industry needs to pay not only for new terminals, but for new ports as well?  And, yet you don't think these things would increase cruise fares?

[Mick B]

As I said, I do not have many if any answers.

 

Yes I too had heard about using Marghera but nothing seems to have become of this suggestion due to using the lagoon.

I was told sometime back by an Italian friend who lives in Venice that the water displacement caused by a ship leaving is far less than the total of all the other smaller ships, vapperettas and gondalas combined. Not sure if this is true or how that would play out.

 

And yes, the local authority should pay for the port. If they want the ships to bring in passengers then why not. Did they or did they not pay for the airports and train stations that bring in passengers? Or should cruise ship passengers be treated differently?

 

Cruise ships will go where cruise ships can and where they are welcome and where the costs allow. If the prices of cruising go up then anyone with a small amount of spare income will no longer be able to afford to cruise and that means loads of empty interior cabins as I am sure no-one paying big bucks will want them. Remember too that cruise lines are in the very good position to upsell just about anything onboard to passengers once on board and filling the ship with cheap cabins is a good way to get passengers to book.

 

Its becoming a mess, more and more places are becoming difficult to dock at and/or then have little transport in place to get passengers into and out of the destination in the time the ship is docked there. Of course the cruise lines can sell their tours that take away that issue - again a upsell.

 

Luckily (or selfishly) for me, I have been to most of the places I love enough times that I now look forward to just getting on a ship and sailing somewhere. We used to have 2 holidays a year, one a 2 week cruise and the other a 1 week cruise. After Covid it became two 1 week cruises and now with the cost of air travel and hotels around Europe it looks like one 2 week cruise such as a TA is the way we will be going for now. Got next years TA sorted but 2025 may be an issue depending on what ship is going from what port. Not know until around the end of November.

 

Mick.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 15, 2023 by Mick B

[chengkp75]

53 minutes ago, Mick B said:

I was told sometime back by an Italian friend who lives in Venice that the water displacement caused by a ship leaving is far less than the total of all the other smaller ships, vapperettas and gondalas combined. Not sure if this is true or how that would play out.

Your friend does not understand the problem of water displacement.  Yes, the aggregate total displacement of all the smaller vessels might possibly equal that of a cruise ship, but that is not the point.  When a hundred gondolas pass down a canal that is many times wider and deeper than the gondolas, they displace water, but not the majority of the water in the canal, and not all at once, and not with the force that a cruise ship exerts.  The size of the large cruise ships is nearly as deep as the canals, and nearly as wide as the canal, so as the ship pushes through the water, 80% of the canal's water, all at once, is forced into the small areas on either side and below the ship.  This increases the speed that the water has to flow to get out of the way of the ship, being hemmed in by the canal sides and bottom, and this increased flow speed means more erosion.  I can't even think of an analogy that would show how false this comparison is.  Maybe comparing trickling grains of sand through a garden hose full of water, to shoving a golf ball through the same hose.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Mick B said:

And yes, the local authority should pay for the port. If they want the ships to bring in passengers then why not.

You said that if a port "cannot cope with cruise ships" anymore, then they should opt to build a new port?  What do you mean by "not coping" with cruise ships?  Is it pollution?  Is it environmental damage? Is it too many tourists at one time?  Because if it is the too many tourists, then why would they opt to build another port to allow those same tourists to come again?  Not following the logic.

[Heidi13]

53 minutes ago, Mick B said:

I was told sometime back by an Italian friend who lives in Venice that the water displacement caused by a ship leaving is far less than the total of all the other smaller ships, vapperettas and gondalas combined. Not sure if this is true or how that would play out.

 

 

When referring to tonnage, displacement is the weight of water that a ship displaces, so is the actual weight of the ship. Using the RCCL Oasis Class, the tonnage provided to pax of 225,000 GT is a factor of total enclosed space, at a ratio of 100 cubic feet = 1 GT. The same ship will have a displacement of about 100,000 tons. This is the actual weight of the ship.

 

My understanding of the issue in Venice is the erosion of banks and buildings by the wash and wave action created by larger tonnage vessels. As a ship moves through the water it must displace a volume of water commensurate with its displacement. In confined and shallow channels there is considerably more impact from this displacement of water than from smaller ships. This concept is best explained by Panamax ships entering the locks of the Panama Canal. This minimal clearance down both sides and below the keel, considerable pressure is built between the ship and the lock, requiring considerable power to push the ship into the lock. My first experience saw SS Oriana pushing into the lock at 1/2 ahead until a few feet from the end.

 

The combined tonnage of Gondolas and Vaporettos may equate to the tonnage of a mega ship, but they will never cause the same impact as a mega ship, even the combined effect of multiple smaller ships. The smaller ships are operating all over Venice, and having minimal beam and draught there is lots of water to dissipate the water they displace.  Whereas the impact of a mega ship is concentrated in a single area, as the ship moves.

[Mick B]

Hi,

That figures!

Its a real shame as I had done the sail away from Venice many times and the ships tower above the city and you get a wonderful view for quite a long time.

However, sometimes it was foggy and not very clear and sometimes the ships got delayed and had to miss ports. 

Sometimes the locals had a regatta on and would block the area used by cruise ships delaying them again. Again this caused delays and ports to be missed and was upsetting for customers who had booked for a specific port of call and wasted another day at guest services in the queue to complain.

The last 2 cruises I did in 2017 and 2017 ended this way. A real shame. There was also protesters out in St marks square at this time too in support of a ban. Then there was that collision!

 

Luckily for now, Italian train travel is relatively cheap and some of the fast trains can get you to where you need to be pretty quick too, so you can get to most ports in a day. Only issue is you have to start adding extra days to your holiday to allow for possible delays and strikes and if you work, you may not have those extra days to play with. Anyone visiting Italy needs to spend a few days in Venice if you have never been before. It is magical in the fact that it has hardly changed unlike most cities. You almost get caught in time itself there. 

I don't know when I will get back there now. used to go every year but not on the list for the next few years due to all the silly price increases going on at the moment.

 

Mick.

 

 

 

[donaldsc]

To me it is very simple.  If a town wants to ban or reduce the number of ships in port for whatever reasons that they feel are important to them they should have every right to do so.  After all it is the place where the people live.  The only proviso should be that the people who live there should be willing to accept any economic effects of the ban.  We as' cruisers are guests in their town and guests can be kicked out if they are a pain.

 

DON

[Mary229]

1 hour ago, donaldsc said:

To me it is very simple.  If a town wants to ban or reduce the number of ships in port for whatever reasons that they feel are important to them they should have every right to do so.  After all it is the place where the people live.  The only proviso should be that the people who live there should be willing to accept any economic effects of the ban.  We as' cruisers are guests in their town and guests can be kicked out if they are a pain.

 

DON

And that was the issue in Key West.  The town’s impact also impacted the state and the state had and does provide a lot of funding to the city, some of that to build the port facilities which had brought much of the prosperity.  It seems Bar Harbor must not have accepted a lot of funding for port activities from either the state or federal government so have not been challenged by those entities.  

[JRG]

7 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

And, yet, you started this thread with an article discussing pollution in a major commercial port, and continued to comment on shore power, which would almost never come to small ports.

 

As I said, if the locals feel that the number of tourists is damaging their city, or that other forms of tourism benefit the city more (most studies find that cruise, or day, tourists spend about half of what an overnight tourist spends in the local economy), that's fine.  Let them exercise all legal rights to limit tourism.  Just don't hide behind a "green crusade" facade.

 

I think I can clarify somewhat because there were two issues at play.   The green crusade is not a facade to describe the discussion of pollution in a major commercial port.   What is important to point out that,  having the latest state of the art shore power allows the ships to stay in port without burning fuels into the port air.   That is the benefit derived when port authorities and port commissions have the taxpayer dollars fund shore power expansions through municipal bonds  and that is an improvement related to pollution but also facilitating port expansion, its definitely not hiding behind a green facade.

 

The other topic dealt with the geographical issues related to Venice and La Specia and also Amsterdam and the impact that displacement has on the water level which is an obvious bonafide reason to respect the limitations,   Key West is a different story.   Those are environmental and political.

 

Green crusade facade,  who knows?

[Aquahound]

1 hour ago, Mary229 said:

And that was the issue in Key West.  The town’s impact also impacted the state and the state had and does provide a lot of funding to the city, some of that to build the port facilities which had brought much of the prosperity.  It seems Bar Harbor must not have accepted a lot of funding for port activities from either the state or federal government so have not been challenged by those entities.  

And there lies the irony. There are 3 docks in Key West. One (Mole) is owned by the Navy. Another (Pier B) is privately owned by Margaritaville Resort. The third, city owned pier (Mallory), can only accommodate small ships….ships not much larger than the prohibition set by the voters of Key West. The most commonly used pier is Pier B, so the bulk of that port charge revenue is going into Margaritaville’s pockets. 

[dolittle]

On 9/14/2023 at 4:03 PM, Aquahound said:

 

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.  

Key west is not Venice locals will always find good reasons why others should stay away . In fact turtle's are having a boom in most of Florida .I am glad that you are into saving turtles (I am a huge turtle guy myself saving the eastern box here in Pa.)I wonder how much you cared about this before you moved to Key West.

[K32682]

33 minutes ago, dolittle said:

Key west is not Venice locals will always find good reasons why others should stay away . In fact turtle's are having a boom in most of Florida .I am glad that you are into saving turtles (I am a huge turtle guy myself saving the eastern box here in Pa.)I wonder how much you cared about this before you moved to Key West.

 

Having been accosted on Duval Street at 11am by drunken German cruisers demanding to know "Ver ist der Schloppy Choes," it's not hard to understand why Key West residents would want fewer of them.    

[Aquahound]

3 hours ago, dolittle said:

Key west is not Venice locals will always find good reasons why others should stay away . In fact turtle's are having a boom in most of Florida .I am glad that you are into saving turtles (I am a huge turtle guy myself saving the eastern box here in Pa.)I wonder how much you cared about this before you moved to Key West.

 

Is this supposed to be some sort of a joke?  I sure hope so because if not, you're about to be schooled yet again.  During my 20-year Keys residency, my wife ran a business that was lucrative due to tourism.  All of my neighbors, in some way or another, depended on tourism.  Several of my friends either ran fishing charters, owned restaurants, or worked in the service industry where their tips came from.....can you guess who?  Uh, tourists.  Even my snowbird neighbors rented their homes during the summer months to tourists.  So no, Keys residents do not want to stop tourism.  Context is key here, so pay attention.  They don't want megaships because of the congestion downtown and because of the environmental impact.  Period.

 

And as for the turtles, I spent 30 years in the USCG where I protected marine life both before, during, and after my time in the Keys.  

 

Anything else you'd like to say?

[ldubs]

On 9/14/2023 at 9:04 PM, Heidi13 said:

 

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. 

 

Do Venetians complain about tourist crowds?  Seems without tourists, there would be no Venetians.   

[ldubs]

13 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Your friend does not understand the problem of water displacement.  Yes, the aggregate total displacement of all the smaller vessels might possibly equal that of a cruise ship, but that is not the point.  When a hundred gondolas pass down a canal that is many times wider and deeper than the gondolas, they displace water, but not the majority of the water in the canal, and not all at once, and not with the force that a cruise ship exerts.  The size of the large cruise ships is nearly as deep as the canals, and nearly as wide as the canal, so as the ship pushes through the water, 80% of the canal's water, all at once, is forced into the small areas on either side and below the ship.  This increases the speed that the water has to flow to get out of the way of the ship, being hemmed in by the canal sides and bottom, and this increased flow speed means more erosion.  I can't even think of an analogy that would show how false this comparison is.  Maybe comparing trickling grains of sand through a garden hose full of water, to shoving a golf ball through the same hose.

 

Cruise ships approached the Venice Cruise Terminal via the large Giudecca Canal.  I understand the erosion problem and have little doubt it is real.   Early on there was talk of cruise ships reaching the Venice cruise terminal using the route commercial ships take to reach the mainland side of the Venice Lagoon.   By doing that, they avoid the Giudecca Canal altogether.  Anyone know why that alternative routing never materialized?