Gold Coast cruise ship terminal, yes or no?

[NSWP]

The Grain Terminal at Fishermans Island is a bit rough, a shocker in fact. Had to berth there on QM2 in March, doing Syd-HK. Almost choked to death on the piled up grain swirling around. Put it in the same basket as Phuy Muy in Vietnam.:evilsmile:

 

The British Cunarders thought they were in a third world country, Brisvegas I said, it is Brisvegas.

[Aus Traveller]

The Grain Terminal at Fishermans Island is a bit rough, a shocker in fact. Had to berth there on QM2 in March, doing Syd-HK. Almost choked to death on the piled up grain swirling around. Put it in the same basket as Phuy Muy in Vietnam.:evilsmile:

 

The British Cunarders thought they were in a third world country, Brisvegas I said, it is Brisvegas.

Brisbane needs a terminal on the north side of the river, opposite the Grain Terminal. There is plenty of width in the river for a large ship to turn and no bridges to go under.:)

[GUT2407]

Agreed - my arguments made earlier. :) If they did build an off-shore facility, I wonder how often ships would not be able to use it because of big ocean swells.

 

 

Yeah, no idea how that could work long term

[NSWP]

Brisbane needs a terminal on the north side of the river, opposite the Grain Terminal. There is plenty of width in the river for a large ship to turn and no bridges to go under.:)

 

Indeed and most modern passenger ships have the Azipods for excellent maneuverability.:cool:

[Rencruzr]

 

The GC Terminal would involve the construction of rock walls 1km from the beach into open ocean. This has never been done, for the very good reason that it is a stupid idea. There are no offshore cruise terminals in unprotected waters.

 

The closest you can come up with was Costa Maya in Mexico, which is a smaller structure protected by offshore reefs and islands. It is not in open ocean.

 

Is it the intention to rebuild the structure every time a cyclonic storm passes by?

 

This is a silly idea even before we get to the problems surrounding sand migration up the coast.

 

Sinbad instead of being the typical anti progress negative greenie keyboard warrior why don't you educate yourself on the facts rather than what you think is the case.

 

It does not have to be a rock wall it can be on piers, as long as where the ships are have barriers that stop rough waves, the jetty out does not have to be rocks so your wrong on first count.

 

Second of all Glen who I have previously indicated runs the prob GC port Facebook group has consulted with engineers and cruise companies for years and all agree with the right design it's very feasible. What exactly your qualifications to comment??

 

A well constructed jetty can be rebuilt if a once in a 100 year cyclone came. My goodness let's not build anything a cyclone may demolish it!! That's how stupid that argument is. In any case with hundreds of milllions generated in tourism the costs of any repairs is minuscule.

 

If we listened to people like you in the past there would be no opera house, no harbour bridge and no snowy hydro electric scheme, they all had naysayers

[MMDown Under]

 

Sinbad instead of being the typical anti progress negative greenie keyboard warrior why don't you educate yourself on the facts rather than what you think is the case.

 

It does not have to be a rock wall it can be on piers, as long as where the ships are have barriers that stop rough waves, the jetty out does not have to be rocks so your wrong on first count.

 

Second of all Glen who I have previously indicated runs the prob GC port Facebook group has consulted with engineers and cruise companies for years and all agree with the right design it's very feasible. What exactly your qualifications to comment??

 

A well constructed jetty can be rebuilt if a once in a 100 year cyclone came. My goodness let's not build anything a cyclone may demolish it!! That's how stupid that argument is. In any case with hundreds of milllions generated in tourism the costs of any repairs is minuscule.

 

If we listened to people like you in the past there would be no opera house, no harbour bridge and no snowy hydro electric scheme, they all had naysayers

 

Your comments are uncalled for. Everyone has a right to express their opinion, in a polite manner.

[jspqld]

 

Sinbad instead of being the typical anti progress negative greenie keyboard warrior why don't you educate yourself on the facts rather than what you think is the case.

 

It does not have to be a rock wall it can be on piers, as long as where the ships are have barriers that stop rough waves, the jetty out does not have to be rocks so your wrong on first count.

 

Second of all Glen who I have previously indicated runs the prob GC port Facebook group has consulted with engineers and cruise companies for years and all agree with the right design it's very feasible. What exactly your qualifications to comment??

 

A well constructed jetty can be rebuilt if a once in a 100 year cyclone came. My goodness let's not build anything a cyclone may demolish it!! That's how stupid that argument is. In any case with hundreds of milllions generated in tourism the costs of any repairs is minuscule.

 

If we listened to people like you in the past there would be no opera house, no harbour bridge and no snowy hydro electric scheme, they all had naysayers

 

Rencruisr it's quite obvious you're very passionate about getting a cruise terminal/dock/jetty/whatever built off the spit there at the Gold coast. You seem to have a rebuttal ready for most replies against it. Heaps of experienced cruisers on here are saying it's a hell of a lot of money and infrastructure needed to be spent at great risk that it just might not work. I don't know what amount of cruise ships you have sailed on or what oceans you have traversed. Personally, I'm no Engineer, but I have been lucky to have been on a few cruises across many oceans, and I have had quite a few ports cancelled at the last minute due to rough weather, and it sucks when you have a port on your bucket list. On a transatlantic cruise we missed Ireland ports all together due to storms. One of my first cruises in the Med we missed Monaco due to heavy swells, and we got 17ft waves and a huge storm leaving Barcelona once that caused a lot of damage to the lido deck of the 110,000tn new ship I was on at the time. My point is this was in the Med, a relatively calm ocean in comparison to the East coast of Aus.

Mooloolaba on the Sunshine coast has similar huge swells and surf as the Gold coast, although it is slightly more protected by a small bay and headland. It has had about a dozen or more cruise ships scheduled to drop anchor in this bay over the last couple of years. About half so far have not even been able to get close due to huge swells and have had to cancel and look for other ports at the last minute. This is not only a disappointment to those on board but is a huge blow for the local economy who prepare for each visit through hiring extra staff, buying in extra food, etc, on ship days. So these types of similar rough waters circumstances would mean that probably half of all scheduled stops at the proposed Gold coast jetty would also be cancelled. Cruise Lines are not going to risk damage to their ships, especially big new fancy ones or the safety of their passengers if they look like they will be surfing a wave right onto the beach in heavy seas and taking out half the jetty and or ship in the process. Nor would port authorities want this if they have just spent millions building such a jetty. I think if the Businesses and people of the Gold Coast really want such a long jetty out at sea, well then they should be the ones putting up all the money at their own risk, not the money of governments or Cruise Lines who could better spend their money elsewhere, eg Brisbane.

I'm not against a cruise dock being built at the Gold Coast. In fact I think it would be great for tourism & I would like to also see docks built right along the Qld coast, including other places like Moreton Island, Sunshine Coast, Fraser Coast, etc, But, I just think a very long jetty straight out to sea off an unprotected surf beach is not the answer. Maybe the experts need to see if there is a safer, more viable option south near the Tweed river mouth, I don't know. Maybe go back to original plans and see if a compromise can be done with the greenies over a smaller, revised Broadwater plan, although I don't like the chances of that happening either.

[MicCanberra]

I just don't see how it would be feasible, there is just no natural protection for a pier or a wharf for just the standard weather patterns let alone storms.

[SinbadThePorter]

 

Sinbad instead of being the typical anti progress negative greenie keyboard warrior why don't you educate yourself on the facts rather than what you think is the case.

 

It does not have to be a rock wall it can be on piers, as long as where the ships are have barriers that stop rough waves, the jetty out does not have to be rocks so your wrong on first count.

 

Second of all Glen who I have previously indicated runs the prob GC port Facebook group has consulted with engineers and cruise companies for years and all agree with the right design it's very feasible. What exactly your qualifications to comment??

 

A well constructed jetty can be rebuilt if a once in a 100 year cyclone came. My goodness let's not build anything a cyclone may demolish it!! That's how stupid that argument is. In any case with hundreds of milllions generated in tourism the costs of any repairs is minuscule.

 

If we listened to people like you in the past there would be no opera house, no harbour bridge and no snowy hydro electric scheme, they all had naysayers

 

Your condescension is noted.

 

So we are building protective rock walls 1km out in the Pacific Ocean, but that's OK because the jetty to it will be on piers? That makes it so much better.

 

But a guy on Facebook has told you that it's all doable because he has talked to some experts he knows from somewhere.

 

As to my qualifications, not being on Facebook like Glen I suppose I don't have any you'd consider relevant.

 

There are big enough storms every year to make the whole project infeasible, usually several. I might remind you that we rarely have to rebuild the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge, or the Snowy Scheme and that none of them were built in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

 

I've wasted enough time on this silliness, so if you really think you can convince anybody of the merits of this harebrained scheme, then feel free. But I will repeat one thing, what you propose has never been done anywhere in the world, despite your misleading example. This is for the very good reason that it is a dumb idea.

Edited May 13, 2017 by SinbadThePorter

[Gwendy]

Cruise ships dock at PORTS. Gold Coast is not a port. It is not protected. I have been on cruise ships scheduled to stop at Port Douglas three times, never once got there. Seas too rough. Fishermans grain terminal comes in well against ports in Buenos Aires and Montevideo.

[lyndarra]

I'm no oceanographer. Would something like this work?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busselton_Jetty

[MicCanberra]

Cruise ships dock at PORTS. Gold Coast is not a port. It is not protected. I have been on cruise ships scheduled to stop at Port Douglas three times, never once got there. Seas too rough. Fishermans grain terminal comes in well against ports in Buenos Aires and Montevideo.

Agreed, I have been to many worse ports than the one at Brisbane's grain depot.

[MicCanberra]

I'm no oceanographer. Would something like this work?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busselton_Jetty

No for two reasons.

One - the Busselton pier currently cannot take cruise ships, so replicating this wouldn't work.

Two - Busselton is in a bay that is sheltered on three sides by land but mainly from any weather coming from the south, which is where the strongest and harshest wind/weather comes from.

[Aus Traveller]

I'm no oceanographer. Would something like this work?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busselton_Jetty

Ships do not dock at the wharf at Busselton. They anchor a kilometre or so off shore where the water is sufficiently deep and passengers are taken ashore by tender. They don't even go to that long jetty. The tenders go to a short jetty nearby. Maybe they could try something like this at the Gold Coast - have the ships anchor off-shore and tender ashore, but the delays in tendering are a problem.

[MicCanberra]

Ships do not dock at the wharf at Busselton. They anchor a kilometre or so off shore where the water is sufficiently deep and passengers are taken ashore by tender. They don't even go to that long jetty. The tenders go to a short jetty nearby. Maybe they could try something like this at the Gold Coast - have the ships anchor off-shore and tender ashore, but the delays in tendering are a problem.

Or the tenders could then transfer people directly to the surf life boats just outside the surf line, and people can row/surf into the beach.

[Aus Traveller]

Or the tenders could then transfer people directly to the surf life boats just outside the surf line, and people can row/surf into the beach.

I like it. :) Sorry. I have had a few glasses of champagne at an early Mother's Day lunch. :)

[MicCanberra]

I like it. :) Sorry. I have had a few glasses of champagne at an early Mother's Day lunch. :)

LOL, haven't started yet, but I think there is a glass of red with my name on it.:D

[madfisher]

Or the tenders could then transfer people directly to the surf life boats just outside the surf line, and people can row/surf into the beach.

There's an opening here for all cruise ships to introduce another water based excursion or two. Wind surfing, kite surfing, paddle boarding, whale watching,surfboarding, maybe get a few aamphibiouscraft to take people to the shopping areas.

[lyndarra]

Imagine the mix in November each year. Old schoolers and schoolies, what a party that would be.

[MicCanberra]

Wow, 1200 metres out to sea - http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/council/federal-environment-department-gives-green-light-to-gold-coast-cruise-terminal/news-story/eaa4e32eb5945cee0b6fe877a19770eb

[Rencruzr]

Good news with common sense prevailing and a major obstacle has been passed with the Federal Government giving the go ahead for the GC terminal, see article I link below.

 

Let's hope the vocal minority greenies who oppose everything will not take any cruises that will stop at the new GC cruise port otherwise they would be very hypocritical.

 

The sooner it is built the better, let's get this baby going now !!!

 

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/gold-coast-cruise-ship-terminal-proposal-clears-biggest-hurdle-20170516-gw6gs7.html

[Rencruzr]

He's entitled to comment just as you are.

 

One could make the same argument against you - if you're from Newcastle why would you care about a proposed QLD port I don't know...

 

He could have just as much an interest as you. After all cruises go to other countries - and it's closer to go from here to NZ than it is to the other side of WA!

 

He's entitled to his opinion but one would think people living in a country are more entitled to an opinion what happens in that country than non residents. Does he pay this country's taxes or do I? I also holiday regularly on the Gold Goast. So think with common sense.

[Rencruzr]

No for two reasons.

One - the Busselton pier currently cannot take cruise ships, so replicating this wouldn't work.

Two - Busselton is in a bay that is sheltered on three sides by land but mainly from any weather coming from the south, which is where the strongest and harshest wind/weather comes from.

 

Now we have non qualified engineers saying no to oceanographers? I'm sorry but it CAN work and it has at Costa Maya and as I've said before the plan developed by the offshore GC terminal Facebook page has been endorsed by experts. Please don't listen to armchair critics.

 

If the conditions are too rough you simply build a protective barrier that stops the waves.

 

See design at the following page which would work perfectly well

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/gcoffshoreterminal/?fref=ts

[The_Big_M]

He's entitled to his opinion but one would think people living in a country are more entitled to an opinion what happens in that country than non residents. Does he pay this country's taxes or do I? I also holiday regularly on the Gold Goast. So think with common sense.

 

I suggest you think with common sense.

 

Your first statement was he's entitled to his opinion. So what part of that statement entitles you to have a go at him for sharing it?

 

As for the rest of the comment about taxes, posting on a forum is nothing to do with whether something will be built or not - at taxpayer expense. Even taxpayers don't get a vote on whether infrastructure will be built, so that's completely irrelevant.

[Rencruzr]

I suggest you think with common sense.

 

Your first statement was he's entitled to his opinion. So what part of that statement entitles you to have a go at him for sharing it?

 

As for the rest of the comment about taxes, posting on a forum is nothing to do with whether something will be built or not - at taxpayer expense. Even taxpayers don't get a vote on whether infrastructure will be built, so that's completely irrelevant.

 

Big M I'm sure people from Guatemala or Scotland may have an opinion on a GC cruise port too and of course their entitled to their opinion, but do we in Australia take heed of their opinion for our major infrastructure projects, NO. I suggest if that's not common sense to you you may need to put your thinking cap on and think about it.

 

I pay $40,000 a yer tax for many years, have visited the Gold Coast many times spending tens of thousands of dollars in their Local economy. So if you think non paying taxpayers, non voting non residents decisions are more important on major infrastructure prohects than Australians then there's no way nice to say this but

your brain is ifrelevent