Gold Coast cruise ship terminal, yes or no?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-1...vealed/8940824

 

Interesting that half the things we discussed have borne true.

Mic it may be true to the ABC which has proved itself many times to be far left wing and anti development BUT it is dependent on design.

Unfortunetaly the mayor has been to proud to fully embrace the design Glenn who runs the offshore Gold Coast cruise ship terminal and who has studied the design for over 12 years.

ANY cruise ship can cause damage in freakish storms, ie pasha bulka in Newcastle, but if you know anything about the cruise ship industry they study weather patterns well in advance and avoid trouble areas and skip stops.

I watched 4 corners last night and it was very anti development. Yes some of the council voting procedures are not the best but development MADE the Gold Coast so why do left wing greenys go to live there and complain about development? Go live in a forest for god sake.

There are 2 undeniable facts:

1. The cruise ship industry and market is increasing exponentially in Australia

2. The Gold Coast is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, tourist spots in Australia

Not mixing the 2 is not only dumb but head in the sand stuff

Mic it may be true to the ABC which has proved itself many times to be far left wing and anti development BUT it is dependent on design.

 

Unfortunetaly the mayor has been to proud to fully embrace the design Glenn who runs the offshore Gold Coast cruise ship terminal and who has studied the design for over 12 years.

 

ANY cruise ship can cause damage in freakish storms, ie pasha bulka in Newcastle, but if you know anything about the cruise ship industry they study weather patterns well in advance and avoid trouble areas and skip stops.

 

I watched 4 corners last night and it was very anti development. Yes some of the council voting procedures are not the best but development MADE the Gold Coast so why do left wing greenys go to live there and complain about development? Go live in a forest for god sake.

 

There are 2 undeniable facts:

 

1. The cruise ship industry and market is increasing exponentially in Australia

 

2. The Gold Coast is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, tourist spots in Australia

 

Not mixing the 2 is not only dumb but head in the sand stuff

I am not anti progress or anti development but I am against projects that end up being a waste of money and resource. I still feel that building a dock in open water is foolhardy at best and blacking out the parts of a report that are detrimental or may stop it is not the answer.

Perhaps the money would be better spent on a fantastic new Brisbane terminal.

In addition to this, a link to the very fast train system between Brisbane and Melbourne, with provision of stops for the Gold Coast, (20 minutes tops from Brisbane), Ballina, Coffs, Port Macquarie, Newcastle, Sydney, Canberra, Albury and Melbourne.

Still a definite no!

There are 2 undeniable facts:

 

1. The cruise ship industry and market is increasing exponentially in Australia

 

2. The Gold Coast is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, tourist spots in Australia

 

Not mixing the 2 is not only dumb but head in the sand stuff

There is one undeniable fact:

1. Building a cruise terminal into open ocean is not just stupid, it's insane.

Mic it may be true to the ABC which has proved itself many times to be far left wing and anti development BUT it is dependent on design.

What a lame attempt to shoot the messenger.

The report wasn't commissioned or prepared by the ABC. It was in fact paid for by taxpayers, but parts of it were hidden by council. All that's happened is the ABC has revealed those contents which had been covered up - effectively lying to us by council.

You really sound like a vested interest by trying to blame someone revealing the truth, and ignoring the actual content and cover up.

I wasn't buying into all of the anti ABC rubbish. As you say it is shooting the messenger.

More to the point is that the councillors are on the take and willing to push projects through without saying they have a vested interest and also by hiding aspects that may be against the project.

What a lame attempt to shoot the messenger.

The report wasn't commissioned or prepared by the ABC. It was in fact paid for by taxpayers, but parts of it were hidden by council. All that's happened is the ABC has revealed those contents which had been covered up - effectively lying to us by council.

You really sound like a vested interest by trying to blame someone revealing the truth, and ignoring the actual content and cover up.

The Mayor held a press conference today (excluding the ABC) and he said he will release the full report, if the CEO approves the release (Channel 10 News). Well Done Four Corners!

There is one undeniable fact:

 

1. Building a cruise terminal into open ocean is not just stupid, it's insane.

Agreed.;)

I guess it's about time I chipped in here, seeing as all the research on this concept has been done by me over the last 12 years...

OK, just for starters, a viable, safe, long lasting terminal breakwall can be built offshore from an open beach. It would be built from concrete caissons, filled with sand and locked together to form a curved wall about 750m long. A couple of examples for you are (historically) the caissons used for the Mulberry harbour off the Normandy beachhead on D Day, 6th June 1944. They're still right there where they dropped them, despite some 74 years of the worst storms the ocean could throw against them, and for a more modern, more applicable example, the 'Energia Costa Azul' breakwall off the Baja Coast of California. It's 720m long, in 25m of open water, and designed to withstand a 1 in 1000 year storm event with 18-21m waves crashing over it.

My concept is based on a similar wall, and as 98% of the swell reaching Gold Coast beaches every year is under 2m, the rare day or two where huge swells are running shouldn't be an issue.

I'm currently updating my facebook page with lots of information, so if you're interested in what I'm proposing, please come and visit.

https://www.facebook.com/gcoffshoreterminal/

For me I dont care yes or no, but if a terminal was built I would want to be able to get on and off the ship as quick as possible, no having to line up for monorails.

Just looking at the weather report for next 4 days

Gold Coast area

Cloudy. Very high (95%) chance of showers, increasing to rain at times. The chance of a thunderstorm each day

I guess it's about time I chipped in here, seeing as all the research on this concept has been done by me over the last 12 years...

 

OK, just for starters, a viable, safe, long lasting terminal breakwall can be built offshore from an open beach. It would be built from concrete caissons, filled with sand and locked together to form a curved wall about 750m long. A couple of examples for you are (historically) the caissons used for the Mulberry harbour off the Normandy beachhead on D Day, 6th June 1944. They're still right there where they dropped them, despite some 74 years of the worst storms the ocean could throw against them, and for a more modern, more applicable example, the 'Energia Costa Azul' breakwall off the Baja Coast of California. It's 720m long, in 25m of open water, and designed to withstand a 1 in 1000 year storm event with 18-21m waves crashing over it.

 

My concept is based on a similar wall, and as 98% of the swell reaching Gold Coast beaches every year is under 2m, the rare day or two where huge swells are running shouldn't be an issue.

 

I'm currently updating my facebook page with lots of information, so if you're interested in what I'm proposing, please come and visit.

 

https://www.facebook.com/gcoffshoreterminal/

The ships would have to be moored to this breakwall, a considerable distance offshore. How would you see access to the ship by passengers and also for the loading of supplies & luggage?

I guess it's about time I chipped in here, seeing as all the research on this concept has been done by me over the last 12 years...

 

OK, just for starters, a viable, safe, long lasting terminal breakwall can be built offshore from an open beach. It would be built from concrete caissons, filled with sand and locked together to form a curved wall about 750m long. A couple of examples for you are (historically) the caissons used for the Mulberry harbour off the Normandy beachhead on D Day, 6th June 1944. They're still right there where they dropped them, despite some 74 years of the worst storms the ocean could throw against them, and for a more modern, more applicable example, the 'Energia Costa Azul' breakwall off the Baja Coast of California. It's 720m long, in 25m of open water, and designed to withstand a 1 in 1000 year storm event with 18-21m waves crashing over it.

 

My concept is based on a similar wall, and as 98% of the swell reaching Gold Coast beaches every year is under 2m, the rare day or two where huge swells are running shouldn't be an issue.

 

I'm currently updating my facebook page with lots of information, so if you're interested in what I'm proposing, please come and visit.

 

https://www.facebook.com/gcoffshoreterminal/

Okay, let me say that I don't think I ever said the wharf/ dock couldn't be built to last.

My point was I don't think the ships could utilise it to dock very often due to the openness of the area. Winds and sea currents would make docking and stability very difficult. We have seen this at various ports around the world that have some protection but not total protection. Then there is the distance from the shore for getting people and provisions aboard and off again.

In any case, if the funds can be raised and the project built. I wish it well.

I guess it's about time I chipped in here, seeing as all the research on this concept has been done by me over the last 12 years...

 

OK, just for starters, a viable, safe, long lasting terminal breakwall can be built offshore from an open beach. It would be built from concrete caissons, filled with sand and locked together to form a curved wall about 750m long. A couple of examples for you are (historically) the caissons used for the Mulberry harbour off the Normandy beachhead on D Day, 6th June 1944. They're still right there where they dropped them, despite some 74 years of the worst storms the ocean could throw against them, and for a more modern, more applicable example, the 'Energia Costa Azul' breakwall off the Baja Coast of California. It's 720m long, in 25m of open water, and designed to withstand a 1 in 1000 year storm event with 18-21m waves crashing over it.

 

My concept is based on a similar wall, and as 98% of the swell reaching Gold Coast beaches every year is under 2m, the rare day or two where huge swells are running shouldn't be an issue.

 

I'm currently updating my facebook page with lots of information, so if you're interested in what I'm proposing, please come and visit.

 

https://www.facebook.com/gcoffshoreterminal/

Just a couple of points.

There were two Mulberry Harbours, one of which was completely smashed by a storm about a week after it was built. The second harbour was somewhat better protected and survived. However to claim that the caissons of the second Mulberry are just where they were dropped is something of an overstatement, as can be seen from this photo from many years ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulberry_harbour#/media/File:Arromanches_Mulberry-Harbour_Phoenix-Elements_1_90.jpg

The Energia Costa Azul breakwall is just that, a free standing breakwall. Ships do not moor to it, it exists to protect the onshore wharf from incoming seas. As such it is completely different from the design you have envisaged. If the Azul breakwall failed it would not necessarily lead to a failure of the port. It is also a commercial gas facility, so I'm unsure if it can be related to the safety requirements of a passenger cruise port.

I am also puzzled why you say that the "rare day or two where huge swells are running shouldn't be an issue". The exact issue are these "rare days". You'd expect any structure to survive good weather, it's when the 2% or even 0.2% hits, that you want to be sure that it can survive. I might remind you that a 0.1% event is one which could be expected every three years or so.

Also, as Mic has pointed out above, you have made no allowance for the impact on large ship mooring of the effects of wind and current at an unprotected open ocean anchorage.

I don't doubt that a breakwall of some kind could be built offshore from the Gold Coast, assuming that we have no regard for the movement of sand along the beaches. I do doubt that a long lasting one can be built. Anyway, I don't see where the casino goes. Without a casino any Gold Coast proposal is dead in the water, so to speak.

Lastly, the examples you cite are exceedingly rare. Which should tell you something about the practicality of the project.

Agree with the above. Similarly I have not said it is technically "impossible".

My challenge is on the economics, that it should pay its way, not just be something engineered for the sake of it, at any cost, to be borne by the taxpayers. And that as an investment it doesn't add up. None of the above addresses that.

If a gold coast consortium of businesses is paying for it (as was flagged originally), then taxpayers wouldn't need to be involved. I just cannot see why they would gamble on it.

If a gold coast consortium of businesses is paying for it (as was flagged originally), then taxpayers wouldn't need to be involved. I just cannot see why they would gamble on it.

Only if there was a casino involved.;)

If a gold coast consortium of businesses is paying for it (as was flagged originally), then taxpayers wouldn't need to be involved. I just cannot see why they would gamble on it.

Based on a proposal that's not approved, and not likely to be.

I can't see them funding a viable structure.

Only if there was a casino involved.;)

Agreed, although I am not sure how many people the Casino will draw from off cruise ships where there are casinos already.

Based on a proposal that's not approved, and not likely to be.

 

I can't see them funding a viable structure.

Agreed, although I am not sure how many people the Casino will draw from off cruise ships where there are casinos already.

I don't think they hope to draw people off the cruise ships to a new casino. From my understanding, the involvement of a casino was that a company or consortium would invest in the new GC terminal, provided they got approval to build a new casino. This casino would be for tourists visiting the Gold Coast and for locals.

I don't think they hope to draw people off the cruise ships to a new casino. From my understanding, the involvement of a casino was that a company or consortium would invest in the new GC terminal, provided they got approval to build a new casino. This casino would be for tourists visiting the Gold Coast and for locals.

That would make more sense.:D

Agreed, I just don't think it warrants Tax payer input (state or federal) either.

If it was a viable candidate (like the Brisbane cruise terminal), I'd think it would be worthwhile.

I just don't see that that can be the case.

Okay, let me say that I don't think I ever said the wharf/ dock couldn't be built to last.

My point was I don't think the ships could utilise it to dock very often due to the openness of the area. Winds and sea currents would make docking and stability very difficult. We have seen this at various ports around the world that have some protection but not total protection. Then there is the distance from the shore for getting people and provisions aboard and off again.

 

In any case, if the funds can be raised and the project built. I wish it well.

Mick I know you are probably the most prolific poster on the whole of the Australian posts so you have strong opinions on lots of things BUT i will have to strongly disagree with your opinion here.

Glenn has already outlined his 12 years studying the issue and giving you examples of projects that HAVE worked in similar rough type seas, so whether you think it would work or not is sheer conjecture and opinion, not validated by evidence.

Secondly if you think billions of dollars in tourist revenue is not worth public money spent, then exactly what is worth public money spent? Its madness, look at how many billions the industry injects into Sydney, how many hundreds of thousands of tourists would be getting off and spending at tourist attractions, food eateries, tourism operators etc. Those whining about public money clearly can't see the big picture.

Cruises that go around Australia are starting to call at Newcastle now, how much more is the Gold Coast a tourist dream if they could stop there, cruising into the iconic high rise area. I say bring it on and bring it on now and invest as much public money as required, due to EVIDENCE, not opinion or conjecture.

Glenn has already outlined his 12 years studying the issue and giving you examples of projects that HAVE worked in similar rough type seas, so whether you think it would work or not is sheer conjecture and opinion, not validated by evidence.

Evidence is thin on the ground. That provided by Glenn consisted of two examples. One of which was an emergency port built in WW2 which was not designed to last, and didn't. The other is a completely different design to the one Glenn proposes and not even a passenger cruise terminal. You previously provided one that was protected by a system of offshore islands and reefs.

There is no similar open ocean port anywhere in the world, that is not sheer conjecture or opinion.

And then there is the wind factor, The breezes on the Gold Coast are not what one would call "balmy".