Gold Coast cruise ship terminal, yes or no?

[MicCanberra]

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.

Everyone has a right to express an opinion and it is true, I have no evidence to show it won't work, but then there is no evidence to say it will work either. The only examples shown have been break walls and what is required is a functional wharf that can dock cruise ships and take on passengers and provisions safely in most if not all, weather conditions.

 

As for the tax payer dollars being spent on tourism infrastructure, I think improving existing docks such as Sydney, Newcastle, Brisbane, Geelong etc. and quite a few others may be better spent than on a project that is a possibility.

[ilikeanswers]

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.

 

I think the idea of a high speed train has a lot more merit than an open ocean cruise ships terminal. Not only would it be a fraction of the cost but it could be utilised by the locals to get around the coast, it would also increase tourism all year round not just when cruise ships are in port. Personally I would rather see money go into the development of a high speed rail network than on one cruise ship terminal.

 

It is amazing the passions this project seems to stir, I have to say I never realised it was such a big deal. This Glen from FB if his design has any effectiveness can it be put into a simulator so we can see it in practice? I know it won't produce a definitive answer, as they say scaling things up problems can become apparent that did not exist in the small version, and computers are only effective if you account for all the variables but at least it is a good way to verify whether an engineering project has any hope at all.

 

But I have to say I am mostly on the side of the "anti development greenie" (as I no doubt will be accused of being;p) This project makes no sense, even with the money tourism brings it still may take decades to recoup the costs and if the terminal does end up suffering recurring damage repairs will only eat into any potential profits.

 

On top of that I doubt passengers of cruise ships that carry thousands are going to find the 1km commute from ship to terminal appealing, (will there be a train on there? Buggies?) it may actually put people off from wanting to get off and I know for a fact that if a cruiser hates a terminal they will actively avoid cruises that start or end at troublesome ports. And that isn't even taking into account how you would get luggage, wheelchairs and supplies onto a ship with a 1km pier.

 

I don't believe it is impossible engineering wise but you do have to question if it is the best solution to increasing tourism on the Gold Coast.

 

On a side note, I know everyone gives Greenies a hard time for their zealotry but having visited the Gold Coast a few times and seen first hand the lack of green spaces I think it is a good idea to leave what little nature is left. Studies have found that cities with more green spaces have less people being diagnosed with anxiety and depression. A little green can be good for you:D

[bazzaw]

Once upon a time , there was an island called Stradbroke Island. Then one day, in 1896, a big bad cyclone came along and broke it into two pieces - now known as North and South Stradbroke Islands. The part where the big bad cyclone broke the island in half is exactly where everybody wants to build a cruise ship terminal

[banzaii]

Once upon a time , there was an island called Stradbroke Island. Then one day, in 1896, a big bad cyclone came along and broke it into two pieces - now known as North and South Stradbroke Islands. The part where the big bad cyclone broke the island in half is exactly where everybody wants to build a cruise ship terminal

So there may be a happy ending? 😛

[MicCanberra]

So there may be a happy ending? 😛

It may need to be somewhere else for that.:cool:

[Glen GC Offshore CST]

OK,lots of question, not too many of the 'nothing nowhere never' type thank goodness...

 

OK, the caisson breakwall in the concept is nothing like the Mulberry Harbour caissons or Costa Azul. the Costa Azul engineering proves the wall can be built, and built to survive in far more extreme conditions than the Gold Coast will ever experience. The Mulberry Harbour caissons still look pretty good for shoddily built temporary structures, and the fact that modern waterproof concrete is utterly impervious to salt water should ensure a long life for the breakwall.

 

The ships do not moor to the breakwall. They will dock at a double sided terminal building set some 80-100m inside the area of calm water provided by the curved caisson wall. This utilises the 'swell shadow effect' which creates an area of calm water immediately behind any obstruction to the swell. As the wall is 480m long on the eastern side and 240m long on the southern side, this should be a large enough area to safely dock any 2 of the world's largest ships at the same time.

 

There is no alternative to a rail link of some sort to shore. The overall distance to be travelled from ship to calm water ferry terminal is around 1500m. Cruise companies will not even consider a tender type setup, and it's probably a bit far for people to walk, although a walkway could be included in the plans.

 

There is no viable alternative for a cruise ship terminal on the Gold Coast. Building anything behind the coastline anywhere is simply not viable. If a terminal is ever built on the Coast, this is the way it will probably have to be done. This concept was born from people indicating that a terminal could be 'easily' built inside the Broadwater, but that option has proven to be utterly non viable, leaving this option as the only possible way forward.

 

Will it happen? I believe that yes, eventually it will. By say 2050 the Gold Coast will have its very own CST.

[ilikeanswers]

built to survive in far more extreme conditions than the Gold Coast will ever experience.

 

 

There is no alternative to a rail link of some sort to shore. The overall distance to be travelled from ship to calm water ferry terminal is around 1500m. Cruise companies will not even consider a tender type setup, and it's probably a bit far for people to walk, although a walkway could be included in the plans. .

 

Have you taken climate change into account? Regardless of what you think of climate change, investors do care how it might effect the future viability of off shore building projects and I don't know how you will convince companies to pour millions into an already risky, experimental project when weather modelling predictions indicate storms becoming more violent and frequent:o.

 

Will a rail link quickly and comfortably be able to disembark and re-embark up to 5000 passengers including the numerous cruisers who need wheelchairs:confused:? As cruise ships get bigger it will have to accommodate larger crowds, not to mention if you have cruises starting and ending at GC you'll have to accommodate luggage handling and the resupply of the ship.

[The_Big_M]

Ah, this gets more laughable. A 1.5km rail link!

 

The only thing I don't get is the motive. Vested interests? Or just massive dreams? Which QLD has had plenty of, to be fair.

 

Come to think of it, they should do a mock up with Clive Palmer's Titanic II. Seems appropriate...

[SinbadThePorter]

Will it happen? I believe that yes, eventually it will. By say 2050 the Gold Coast will have its very own CST.

 

It's not much fun being a Negative Nelly, but there are a host of reasons that a Gold Coast Cruise Terminal will not happen, most of which have already been gone over. But the biggest reason of all is that there will be two safe and secure deep water anchorages about an hours drive away, in the Brisbane river.

 

The only way this structure on the Gold Coast could be economically justified, was if it came attached with a casino license. Since it now doesn't, the whole project just will not fly.

[MicCanberra]

Some interesting points. It is now creating a safe harbour for the docking of the ships, that is somewhat different to the pictures and proposal that was first shown. I suppose all the people that would be affected (and environment studies have been done) are in favour of the proposal.

I do honestly wish the project well. :)

Although, if any of the people investing in this project have any spare cash, I have some beans for sale.:p