Sydney answer by year end

[OzKiwiJJ]

The advantage of Garden Island is that, with a bit of modification to it's shape, it could handle at least four cruise ships of varying sizes. It's really the only place in the harbour, east of the bridge that could be converted to a modern terminal with multiple berths.

 

There is already a ferry terminal there and, like many overseas ports, they could run shuttle buses to a convenient place in the city.

[banzaii]

The advantage of Garden Island is that, with a bit of modification to it's shape, it could handle at least four cruise ships of varying sizes. It's really the only place in the harbour, east of the bridge that could be converted to a modern terminal with multiple berths.

 

There is already a ferry terminal there and, like many overseas ports, they could run shuttle buses to a convenient place in the city.

Perhaps a long-term strategy to move the Navy out starting with shared use with one side Navy and the other for Cruise Terminal.

 

Over time (say 10 years) the Navy can move their infrastructure to Jervis Bay and Darwin and GI can be reconfigured to host 2 or 3 ships up to mega size.

 

This seems to lend weight to this type of solution.

https://www.governmentnews.com.au/2017/10/park-cruise-ships-garden-island-government-told/

[By The Bay]

Good points in the article in #27. However, I cannot see it being a vote winner in State or Federal elections. To many NIMBY's who do not look at the big picture and that all re-development is bad. You just have to read all the negative comments in the Newcastle press about the proposed cruise terminal and light rail there.

[OzKiwiJJ]

Perhaps a long-term strategy to move the Navy out starting with shared use with one side Navy and the other for Cruise Terminal.

 

Over time (say 10 years) the Navy can move their infrastructure to Jervis Bay and Darwin and GI can be reconfigured to host 2 or 3 ships up to mega size.

 

This seems to lend weight to this type of solution.

https://www.governmentnews.com.au/2017/10/park-cruise-ships-garden-island-government-told/

 

Unfortunately that is the sort of hotchpotch solution that they are likely to agree to, and subsequent reconfiguring would be very expensive. They should sort it out now, then develop a top notch cruise terminal capable of servicing multiple ships, and do it right first time. Ah, I must be dreaming, they'd never do that! :rolleyes:

[MicCanberra]

But they may need expanding staff would need relocating, including getting more defence housing.

 

Equipment will need relocating.

 

My question is, transport to Garden Island if they did go there.

Defence housing is also located all around the nation near any base already, they could sell one in Sydney and buy 2 or more additional ones elsewhere.

[MicCanberra]

Willing to bet that Defense Housing cheaper anywhere outside of Sydney! :evilsmile:

 

Transport to GI better than White Elephant Bay!

Agreed.

[MicCanberra]

The advantage of Garden Island is that, with a bit of modification to it's shape, it could handle at least four cruise ships of varying sizes. It's really the only place in the harbour, east of the bridge that could be converted to a modern terminal with multiple berths.

 

There is already a ferry terminal there and, like many overseas ports, they could run shuttle buses to a convenient place in the city.

It is not the first time this has been suggested, I hope it is seriously considered.:D

[MicCanberra]

Perhaps a long-term strategy to move the Navy out starting with shared use with one side Navy and the other for Cruise Terminal.

 

Over time (say 10 years) the Navy can move their infrastructure to Jervis Bay and Darwin and GI can be reconfigured to host 2 or 3 ships up to mega size.

 

This seems to lend weight to this type of solution.

https://www.governmentnews.com.au/2017/10/park-cruise-ships-garden-island-government-told/

Interesting article, at least there is some motivation behind it..

[Docker123]

Defence housing is also located all around the nation near any base already, they could sell one in Sydney and buy 2 or more additional ones elsewhere.

 

Only about 1/4 of defence housing is owned by DHA. Most are leased from private owners and the tenanted on to personnel.

 

In my area, some of the leaves are 10 years, renewable. Good investments for those with some capital -- until defence decides to relocate.

Edited December 3, 2017 by Docker123

[GUT2407]

Only about 1/4 of defence housing is owned by DHA. Most are leased from private owners and the tenanted on to personnel.

 

In my area, some of the leaves are 10 years, renewable. Good investments for those with some capital -- until defence decides to relocate.

 

 

The same point I was going to make.

[NSWP]

I reckon dig a big canal from Sydney Harbour to Canberra, build the new RAN HQ/Naval Dockyard there. Plenty of room in NATCAP, right Mic?

[GUT2407]

Just thinking, bet the OPT site would be worth a few bucks if developed for housing etc. defray a lot of the cost of the navy relocating.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[MicCanberra]

Only about 1/4 of defence housing is owned by DHA. Most are leased from private owners and the tenanted on to personnel.

 

In my area, some of the leaves are 10 years, renewable. Good investments for those with some capital -- until defence decides to relocate.

Yes, I was referring to those that are owned, as for leases, I am sure some of the lease agreements will be cheaper as well

[MicCanberra]

I reckon dig a big canal from Sydney Harbour to Canberra, build the new RAN HQ/Naval Dockyard there. Plenty of room in NATCAP, right Mic?

I would love to have a canal from Canberra down to Batemans Bay, it would need some serious steps to rival Neptune's staircase though.

[GUT2407]

Yes, I was referring to those that are owned, as for leases, I am sure some of the lease agreements will be cheaper as well

But not if they have to service the balance of the ten years lease that’s no longer needed because the6 have moved out of Sydney.

[MicCanberra]

But not if they have to service the balance of the ten years lease that’s no longer needed because the6 have moved out of Sydney.

Okay for those, the family stays and the personnel Fly in fly out.

[palks]

I don't think it as easy or as practical to move the Navy out as some think, even without worrying about the cost of moving and the loss of revenue to Sydney. The Navy, its people and supporting services spend more money every year in Sydney than the cruise ship revenue will. And why should 6000 families be moved away from there home and supporting families, just for the cruise industry to have a 'free' terminal....none of the cruise companies are offering to pay for the move or any new terminal?

 

And some of the suggested places for the navy to move to would not be something that will happen in the short to medium term, such as Jervis Bay - a national park? Imagine getting planning approval for a big base in the middle of that?

 

And as a person who has extensive mariner experience, the problem is not just Sydney but the whole region,in that the Pacific Islands and NZ can't handle many more cruise ships. Most islands the ships visit could not cope with more than one per day and NZ is out during winter so it limits the itinerary ships can do in the ideal 7-10 day timeframe that most cruisers want. Yes those of us on here probably like longer cruises, but we are not the majority who can only get limited time of work or takes kids out of school for too long.

 

Moving the Navy would be a 10-15 year thing to do, something needs to be found that can be done sooner. And my personal opinion is that growth of the cruise industry in Australia is showing signs of slowing and people will soon get sick of the pacific island and NZ. And as we know, Australia is a long flight from most other parts of the world so we dont attract as many overseas cruisers as places like the Med or Caribbean. I would be concerned we will spend a lot of money on something that we know the moment the demand slows...they will move the ships away...take a look at Asia - some countries spent huge amounts of money on new terminals but the moment the demand drops - ships redeployed away.

[NSWP]

I would love to have a canal from Canberra down to Batemans Bay, it would need some serious steps to rival Neptune's staircase though.

 

A fairly serious number of locks down ye old Clyde, Mic.:')

[Docker123]

If they can have a submarine in Holbrook, they can have a whole navy in Lake Burley Griffin.

[MicCanberra]

If they can have a submarine in Holbrook, they can have a whole navy in Lake Burley Griffin.

Exactly.:D

[MicCanberra]

A fairly serious number of locks down ye old Clyde, Mic.:')

It would take two days and all the water in the murray to get down.:eek:

[bazzaw]

The answer is obvious - the Harbour Bridge needs replacing!!!

[MicCanberra]

I don't think it as easy or as practical to move the Navy out as some think, even without worrying about the cost of moving and the loss of revenue to Sydney. The Navy, its people and supporting services spend more money every year in Sydney than the cruise ship revenue will. And why should 6000 families be moved away from there home and supporting families, just for the cruise industry to have a 'free' terminal....none of the cruise companies are offering to pay for the move or any new terminal?

 

And some of the suggested places for the navy to move to would not be something that will happen in the short to medium term, such as Jervis Bay - a national park? Imagine getting planning approval for a big base in the middle of that?

 

And as a person who has extensive mariner experience, the problem is not just Sydney but the whole region,in that the Pacific Islands and NZ can't handle many more cruise ships. Most islands the ships visit could not cope with more than one per day and NZ is out during winter so it limits the itinerary ships can do in the ideal 7-10 day timeframe that most cruisers want. Yes those of us on here probably like longer cruises, but we are not the majority who can only get limited time of work or takes kids out of school for too long.

 

Moving the Navy would be a 10-15 year thing to do, something needs to be found that can be done sooner. And my personal opinion is that growth of the cruise industry in Australia is showing signs of slowing and people will soon get sick of the pacific island and NZ. And as we know, Australia is a long flight from most other parts of the world so we dont attract as many overseas cruisers as places like the Med or Caribbean. I would be concerned we will spend a lot of money on something that we know the moment the demand slows...they will move the ships away...take a look at Asia - some countries spent huge amounts of money on new terminals but the moment the demand drops - ships redeployed away.

I agree it would take time, and as such a gradual transfer for a partial dock use by the cruise ships would be most beneficial.

[GUT2407]

The answer is obvious - the Harbour Bridge needs replacing!!!

Even easier drain a few feet out of the harbour.

[MicCanberra]

Even easier drain a few feet out of the harbour.

That wouldn't work as it would just fill up again every time the Sydney siders flushed the toilet.:eek: