More Opposition to the Cruise Industry!

[chengkp75]

3 hours ago, ldubs said:

Anyone know why that alternative routing never materialized? 

Because it would require massive dredging (and resultant damage to the wetlands) to bring a long unused channel into use to connect the Marghera channel back to the Giudecca Canal.

[chengkp75]

13 hours ago, JRG said:

 The green crusade is not a facade to describe the discussion of pollution in a major commercial port. 

If the green crusade was not a facade, then it would address the pollution from the 95% of vessels that are not cruise ships, that are running their engines in major commercial ports.  Why are cruise vessels the only ones picked out by folks like those in the OP's article?

[K32682]

4 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

If the green crusade was not a facade, then it would address the pollution from the 95% of vessels that are not cruise ships, that are running their engines in major commercial ports.  Why are cruise vessels the only ones picked out by folks like those in the OP's article?

 

Because cruising is an indulgence and idle luxury for the first world and the relatively wealthy as opposed to war ships that keep the peace, ferries that transport people and vehicles, and cargo ships that support commerce and bring goods to consumers. Cruise ships go in circles, entertain and amuse those who can afford the fare and provide employment mostly to the residents of impoverished developing countries. 

 

If protecting the environment is the objective, cruise ships would be the first to go and they would be missed the least. 

[chengkp75]

12 minutes ago, K32682 said:

If protecting the environment is the objective, cruise ships would be the first to go and they would be missed the least. 

If protecting the environment is the objective, why not do what the IMO has done, and promulgate environmental regulations that apply to all shipping. 

[edinburgher]

22 hours 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.

 

Referencing the above post #37

 

Not wanting to get into any full on discussion about scrubbers or green issues, only wanting to mention that we were extremely fortunate, and over the years sailed into and out of Venice 7 times in total.  In more recent years when our ships were barely moving en route to the main terminal, we remarked on how very little water displacement there was from either the sides or the wakes of our ships, but  in sharp contrast, we could not help but notice that the water taxis in particular were overtaking us and travelling much faster and dispersing much more water from their sides and wakes as they made their way to or from Tronchetto. We did wonder why there didn't appear to be a speed limit for them- and perhaps there was but not all locals adhered to it.

[Joebucks]

On 9/14/2023 at 1:30 PM, chengkp75 said:

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.

 

The best comment in this thread. 

 

The green movement is a great political weapon to attack the things you don't like. As a post just above said, cargo ship pollution is good pollution because we need the things. We will whine about cruise ship pollutions but all of the other buses, planes, boats, etc. that we are not told to hate, are basically moving trees. Not to mention the damage to "fragile ecosystems" that occurs from the very existence of people including their recreation, littering, construction, and whatnot. I have no interest in debating intricacies of particular cities. I'm sure they exist, and have truth to them. They are not all that exist.

 

The fact is, I think back to the thread asking if we are spoiled, because the world is. Everyone wants what benefits them. Everyone continues to crowd in the same places. Cruising is one of, if not the most affordable ways to see popular destinations. With that, brings "undesirables." You're lying to yourself if you think there's no truth behind locals and especially wealthy locals in areas like Key West who want to enjoy their city without 1000s of riff raffs coming in and "ruining it" for them.

 

I can understand the negative impacts of ever-growing passenger ships into ports that stay the same size. However, it is a more complex issue than "cruise industry greed." The unfortunate reality is the world's population continues to grow and people continue to want to gather in the same spots. 

[cruisemom42]

9 hours ago, ldubs said:

 

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

 

Venice is a sad story, with regard to tourism (at least, to me). The city is hollowing itself out, literally, due to the huge number of tourists that go their every year (one story I read gave an estimate of tourists outnumbering residents by 10 to 1.  More and more Venetians leave the island every year because of certain tourism-related problems including:

 

-- Lack of stores that provide basics for living in an area: almost all of the available square footage that can be devoted to commercial use has been turned into stores and restaurants geared for tourists. There are few grocery stores and shops that sell the basic necessities for residents. Here's a quote from one article: "Many Venetians are frustrated having to travel to the mainland to buy undershirts because souvenir shops selling fake Murano glass have driven out businesses catering to locals.”

 

-- Lack of affordable housing:  similar to the above, more and more apartments that used to be available for long-term let (residents) have been converted to short-term holiday rentals, B&Bs or inns. This is probably the biggest reason Venetians are moving to the mainland. And of course, since Venice is an island, they can't exactly build more housing....

 

-- The constant crowds:  tourists throng the narrow streets throughout the day, making it a "Herculean task" to get around (again, wording from another article). Similarly, Venetians become frustrated with the tourists overcrowding and stressing local transportation like the ACTV water buses (vaporetti) that locals need to use to get around.

 

-- The unintentional damage:  I've read story after story about how expensive the simple "wear and tear" caused by so many tourists is. The city is constantly having to pay for repairs and restoration caused by things like tourists dragging (rather than lifting) heavy wheeled suitcases over ancient stone bridges with steps.

 

-- The single-minded focus on tourism crowds out other industries:  Venice used to be known as a center for publishing, for luxury fabric production (ever heard of Fortuny?), art, higher education, and more.

 

Visiting Venice now is bittersweet for me. I still think it is unique and beautiful, but it is also becoming/has become a sort of Disneyfied version of itself. I think what residents would like to see is not an end to tourism, but rather ways to have "sustainable" tourism and still be able to live in their city.

 

[JRG]

6 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

If the green crusade was not a facade, then it would address the pollution from the 95% of vessels that are not cruise ships, that are running their engines in major commercial ports.  Why are cruise vessels the only ones picked out by folks like those in the OP's article?

 

Actually,  the use of the word "Green"  (as used in this thread context) has become 'passe' and the world has moved on to "Sustainability",  a form of "balance". 

 

The second part of the quote is a question that would have to be asked of the author,  but I presume that non-cruise ships are omitted because they were not in the scope of the article.

 

 

 

Edited September 16, 2023 by JRG

[Hlitner]

We agree with just about everything Cruisemom has posted about Venice.  The Venice of today, is so different than the Venice we first visited back in the 80s.  DW and I still seek out the least touristy part of the city, which we have found in the area of the University (Foscari).  There is a small neighborhood that is more like a college town than being in an overrun tourist destination.   We also enjoy spending some time on the island of Burano, which although also a major tourist destination, is still a residential island.

 

All that being said, Venice can still be a fun place for a visit.  There are plenty of eating venues, the Peggy Guggenheim Museum, and even St Mark's Square can be somewhat magical, later in the evening, when all day tourists are long gone.   But perhaps it is telling that although DW and I will be in nearby Trieste (next spring) with a rental car and close to Venice, we have no plans on visiting Venice!  This will be the first time, ever, that we have been within a few hours drive of Venice and not spend a few nights in the city.  Instead, we will likely spend more time in Croatia and perhaps Slovenia or wherever else we stumble on during a few weeks driving trip.  

 

I cannot resist mentioning Yogi Berra's quote "the place is so popular that nobody goes there anymore."

 

Hank

[Toofarfromthesea]

11 hours ago, K32682 said:

 

Because cruising is an indulgence and idle luxury for the first world and the relatively wealthy as opposed to war ships that keep the peace, ferries that transport people and vehicles, and cargo ships that support commerce and bring goods to consumers. Cruise ships go in circles, entertain and amuse those who can afford the fare and provide employment mostly to the residents of impoverished developing countries. 

 

If protecting the environment is the objective, cruise ships would be the first to go and they would be missed the least. 

 

And yet you cruise?

 

As the wise man said: I'll believe in climate change when the people preaching about climate change start acting as if they believe in climate change.

 

The same goes for the people who gnash their teeth about, eg, Venice yet still go there.  Be the change you want to see.

Edited September 17, 2023 by Toofarfromthesea

[ldubs]

10 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Venice is a sad story, with regard to tourism (at least, to me). The city is hollowing itself out, literally, due to the huge number of tourists that go their every year (one story I read gave an estimate of tourists outnumbering residents by 10 to 1.  More and more Venetians leave the island every year because of certain tourism-related problems including:

 

-- Lack of stores that provide basics for living in an area: almost all of the available square footage that can be devoted to commercial use has been turned into stores and restaurants geared for tourists. There are few grocery stores and shops that sell the basic necessities for residents. Here's a quote from one article: "Many Venetians are frustrated having to travel to the mainland to buy undershirts because souvenir shops selling fake Murano glass have driven out businesses catering to locals.”

 

-- Lack of affordable housing:  similar to the above, more and more apartments that used to be available for long-term let (residents) have been converted to short-term holiday rentals, B&Bs or inns. This is probably the biggest reason Venetians are moving to the mainland. And of course, since Venice is an island, they can't exactly build more housing....

 

-- The constant crowds:  tourists throng the narrow streets throughout the day, making it a "Herculean task" to get around (again, wording from another article). Similarly, Venetians become frustrated with the tourists overcrowding and stressing local transportation like the ACTV water buses (vaporetti) that locals need to use to get around.

 

-- The unintentional damage:  I've read story after story about how expensive the simple "wear and tear" caused by so many tourists is. The city is constantly having to pay for repairs and restoration caused by things like tourists dragging (rather than lifting) heavy wheeled suitcases over ancient stone bridges with steps.

 

-- The single-minded focus on tourism crowds out other industries:  Venice used to be known as a center for publishing, for luxury fabric production (ever heard of Fortuny?), art, higher education, and more.

 

Visiting Venice now is bittersweet for me. I still think it is unique and beautiful, but it is also becoming/has become a sort of Disneyfied version of itself. I think what residents would like to see is not an end to tourism, but rather ways to have "sustainable" tourism and still be able to live in their city.

 

 

Oh, I agree with what you say.  I am not sure what "sustainable" tourism might be.  Apparently Venice is introducing a €5 fee for day trippers with the hopes that the percentage of overnighter visitors will increase.  I question that move will result in drastic changes.   The problem is those 50,000 or so residents and the thousands who commute there from the mainland for work need tourism.  I guess a sustainable tourism plan could operate with a reduced visitor headcount with emphasis on overnight visitors.  Less crowded but still enough to support a vibrate tourist economy I guess.   It also seems any rebirth of publishing, art, textiles, etc as economic drivers would be made possible by tourism.  Kind of a catch 22 in my view.  Does anyone have the answer, IDK.   

 

Kind of makes me smile that we complain about crowds in popular tourist destinations when we are part of that crowding problem.  

 

BTW, I read that of the millions of tourists who visit Venice annually, about 1% arrive via cruise ship.  It would be even lower if that stat were gathered prior to the cruise ship ban.  I also suspect that those who spend time pre and post cruise are not part of that 1%.  Instead they likely would be counted as arriving by plane or train.  

[cruisemom42]

28 minutes ago, ldubs said:

BTW, I read that of the millions of tourists who visit Venice annually, about 1% arrive via cruise ship.  It would be even lower if that stat were gathered prior to the cruise ship ban.  I also suspect that those who spend time pre and post cruise are not part of that 1%.  Instead they likely would be counted as arriving by plane or train.  

 

I don't believe that is accurate. A quick Google check just confirmed that for, 2019 (I chose that as the last full year before COVID and before the ban on cruise ships started to be implemented) there were a total of 5.5 million tourists (from Statista) of which ocean cruise ship passengers contributed  1,611,341 (from Europe for Visitors site).

 

That's nearly one-third. Not exactly close to 1%.

 

 

[ilikeanswers]

On 9/16/2023 at 1:02 AM, 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. 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?

 

I would say the main difference is airports and train stations serve the locals as functional transport. They are not built for tourists, tourism is an incidental benefit. Cruise ports would mainly serve tourists like hotels serve tourists and local authorities rarely pay for hotel builds. 

[ilikeanswers]

I think the whole issue with cruises is part of the issue of mass tourism in general. Even the article which focuses on pollution states the locals only saw it as a problem when the number of cruise ships visibly increased. With countries like India and China and their growing middle class you have even more people with means wanting to travel overseas so visitor numbers are only going to increase. Unfortunately people's holiday time isn't increasing so you end up with more day trippers than overnighters. At some point there will probably be no choice but to have daily visitor quotas. 

 

 

[ldubs]

25 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

I don't believe that is accurate. A quick Google check just confirmed that for, 2019 (I chose that as the last full year before COVID and before the ban on cruise ships started to be implemented) there were a total of 5.5 million tourists (from Statista) of which ocean cruise ship passengers contributed  1,611,341 (from Europe for Visitors site).

 

That's nearly one-third. Not exactly close to 1%.

 

 

I have to agree. If total arriving by cruise ship is 1.6 million, no way it could be 1%.   29% is high and most all would represent those same day trippers they would like to reduce in number.    

 

The article I read from Venice for Visitors listed Modes of Travel showing cruise passengers at 1%.  I think they did not understand or at least explain what they were quoting from a Venice Tourism Dept study.  Looking at that study, seems the 1% represents visitors arriving by cruise ship who completed a tourism survey.  Not even close to the same thing.    

[K32682]

11 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

And yet you cruise?

 

As the wise man said: I'll believe in climate change when the people preaching about climate change start acting as if they believe in climate change.

 

The same goes for the people who gnash their teeth about, eg, Venice yet still go there.  Be the change you want to see.

 

Sure. I'm in the first world and been pursuing idle luxury without apology for most of my adult life. 🙂

 

I have no illusions about cruising. Relative to other shipping it is from a personal and societal perspective the least important by a significant measure and is the "low hanging fruit" when it comes to the imposition of environmental restrictions on large ships.

[Joebucks]

On 9/16/2023 at 10:51 PM, ilikeanswers said:

 

I would say the main difference is airports and train stations serve the locals as functional transport. They are not built for tourists, tourism is an incidental benefit. Cruise ports would mainly serve tourists like hotels serve tourists and local authorities rarely pay for hotel builds. 

 

How did you come to this conclusion? Are the airports only for the locals to visit other places, but not for others to visit?

[JRG]

On 9/16/2023 at 9:10 PM, ldubs said:

I have to agree. If total arriving by cruise ship is 1.6 million, no way it could be 1%.   29% is high and most all would represent those same day trippers they would like to reduce in number.    

 

The article I read from Venice for Visitors listed Modes of Travel showing cruise passengers at 1%.  I think they did not understand or at least explain what they were quoting from a Venice Tourism Dept study.  Looking at that study, seems the 1% represents visitors arriving by cruise ship who completed a tourism survey.  Not even close to the same thing.

 

You are both right intuitively and its not worth splitting hairs trying to reconcile statistical percentages between magazine articles, just wing it here.

 

The broader point is that Venice can afford to say Arrivederci to some percent of tourist traffic (maybe 25% or more and I'm guessing) AND still achieve high levels of occupancy in its inns, restaurants and cafes, shops so they don't run the risk of losingthat same percent of business.  It makes total sense and that supports their argument to cut back on visitors, whether by ship or by feet.  Kicking out the bigger ships helps in that regard because everyone still wants to go to Venice and that isn't going to change,  (sorry Yogi Berra).  Visitors will continue to crowd Venice and still fill up the inns, restaurants and sidewalk cafes to full occupancy.    

 

We are actually shopping right now for a cruise that gets us to Venice in 2025,  probably in the shoulder season to avoid the crowds and probably on a smaller ship to get as close as possible but we may do a land visit too so we'll see.

 

I can't resist commenting on the spoofability of the Merchants of Venice being unable to purchase undershirts because of the over-crowded-ness, that makes it seem like they are suffering in poverty when they are probably really singing "Volare" or "O solo Mio" or "That's Amore".

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cruisemom42]

43 minutes ago, JRG said:

they are probably really singing "Volare" or "O solo Mio" or "That's Amore".

 

Well they wouldn't be singing "O solo Mio" as it is actually "O sole mio" .... and if you ask any Venetian they will immediately tell you that it is a Neapolitan song, not a Venetian one. It is only clueless tourists who request it of gondoliers.

 

😂😂

 

 

Edited September 18, 2023 by cruisemom42

[JRG]

You are correct,  it is their version of   "You are my sunshine".  It is Neapolitan in nature but the Romantic nature of Venice is probably why the cluless tourist request if from the Gondolas.

 

Venice's finest virture will always be its Romantic nature, nobody should ever forget that, right?

 

 

[JRG]

Its second finest virture may lie within the artistic domains,  and mask making is one of those.  We are lucky that somebody gave us a Venetian Mask years ago,   they are quite expensive but the detail is incredible.    Can't forget about that either when thinking about Venice.

 

 

 

 

[ilikeanswers]

12 hours ago, Joebucks said:

How did you come to this conclusion? Are the airports only for the locals to visit other places, but not for others to visit?

 

I think you misread my comment. I clearly said tourism is an incidental benefit so I never said tourists do not use airports but airports are not built for tourists the way cruise ship ports are. The main purpose of airports is to connect locals to wider communities and networks. It is why so many airports around the world are in debt and usually heavily subsidised by governments because they view isolation as having worst consequences than the debt of an airport. Obviously if a place becomes touristy resulting in more people using an airport it can lead to expansion of the airport because of tourists but airports don't get commissioned for the sole purpose of tourists. 

[JRG]

On 9/18/2023 at 8:41 AM, cruisemom42 said:

Well they wouldn't be singing "O solo Mio" as it is actually "O sole mio" .... and if you ask any Venetian they will immediately tell you that it is a Neapolitan song, not a Venetian one. It is only clueless tourists who request it of gondoliers.

 

I'm sure they would be willing to do requests too,   something like Love Me Tender by Elvis or  anything within within their range,  for a few Euros more.   

 

For us Venice is a green light to go and visit ,  "come hell or high-water"  as the saying goes.

 

But we have no issues with experienced repeat visitors who choose otherwise,  especially if they can offer up a restaurant tip or two.

 

 

[ldubs]

On 9/18/2023 at 8:46 AM, JRG said:

You are correct,  it is their version of   "You are my sunshine".  It is Neapolitan in nature but the Romantic nature of Venice is probably why the cluless tourist request if from the Gondolas.

 

Venice's finest virture will always be its Romantic nature, nobody should ever forget that, right?

 

 

Right, romantic nature fits well with Venice.  Someone enjoys the song to enhance the mood, have fun, enjoy, etc, then go for it.   Knowing or not knowing the origin of the song wouldn't matter, except to those who disapprove.  

 

We will be in Venice in a week and a half.  Arriving by train from Milan.  We are doing the day trip so one of our family who hasn't been there can see it for the first time.  

 

 

[ldubs]

On 9/16/2023 at 7:51 PM, ilikeanswers said:

 

I would say the main difference is airports and train stations serve the locals as functional transport. They are not built for tourists, tourism is an incidental benefit. Cruise ports would mainly serve tourists like hotels serve tourists and local authorities rarely pay for hotel builds. 

 

On 9/18/2023 at 5:21 AM, Joebucks said:

 

How did you come to this conclusion? Are the airports only for the locals to visit other places, but not for others to visit?

 

I cannot imagine tourism isn't part of the equation when many airports are being developed.  Further, I suspect it is a major consideration depending on the location. (like Honolulu Int'l).