Sydney answer by year end

[SinbadThePorter]

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

 

Why not? They're spending two billion dollars to knock down and rebuild a couple of perfectly good football stadiums.

[CroNich]

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.

 

Unfortunately, people and families are relocated all the time for public work, this isn't something new or traumatising, its just how it is. I really think focusing on the 6000 families that may have to move is nit-picking an issue that could potentially change Sydney's image and shape in the long run.

 

Its not about conducting a $6billion operation purely for the sake of 1-2 cruise berths, its about re-capturing land in one of Sydney's most prime and sort out locations and returning it for public use. I think the argument being made is, why do RAN NEED to be located in the middle of Sydney Harbour where there is plenty of other ports or locations where they can be relocated that would be more of a benefit for growth and security reasons. No one is saying moving the Navy is an easy option, but we have to realistic here and look at the bigger picture of Sydney's growth and tourism needs.

 

Ideally they need to return the land as a mixed use precinct with plenty of open public waterfront space, community faciltiies with a selection of commercial and residential development. Obviously one of the priorities would be to construct a world class cruise facility, however a lot of the funding would come from value capture and private investors. And before, people complain about private developers buying off the lane and 'privatising it', unfortunately thats the reality for any major urban re-development. As long as there is an abundance of open space and public access I honestly think Garden Island could change the face of Sydney.

[GUT2407]

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

A ban on flushing on days ships need to go under the bridge. See easy.

[The_Big_M]

Surely the navy can relocate to all the various areas around the country that already exist.:D

 

Not a lot of spare capacity/empty facilities - especially as much of it has now been "outsourced."

[The_Big_M]

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.

 

 

 

Not the only place that could be converted - the only "government-owned" place "close in" that could be converted.

[The_Big_M]

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.

 

 

 

Capital costs, yes. Ongoing costs, no.

[The_Big_M]

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.

 

Good analysis - agreed.

[The_Big_M]

Its not about conducting a $6billion operation purely for the sake of 1-2 cruise berths, its about re-capturing land in one of Sydney's most prime and sort out locations and returning it for public use.

 

It's already under public use!

 

And in fact, most of the discussion here is about moving it to private, commercial use. A terminal just like Sydney airport... And we know the experience and public opinion of that.

 

Obviously one of the priorities would be to construct a world class cruise facility, however a lot of the funding would come from value capture and private investors. And before, people complain about private developers buying off the lane and 'privatising it', unfortunately thats the reality for any major urban re-development. As long as there is an abundance of open space and public access I honestly think Garden Island could change the face of Sydney.

 

Uh, yes, the most recent example of a Sydney cruise terminal, Barangaroo, being converted in that way is a great example of that. Not.

[MicCanberra]

A ban on flushing on days ships need to go under the bridge. See easy.

What about if it rains on those days.:D

[OzKiwiJJ]

Not the only place that could be converted - the only "government-owned" place "close in" that could be converted.

 

It's the only place that is big enough yet compact, so cruise ships could dock on both sides of it. Also it's close to the city.

 

Rose Bay has a fair amount of waterfront that isn't privately owned, I think, but imagine the outcry if they built a cruise terminal there. And New South Head Rd is already quite congested and doesn't have space for widening.

[banzaii]

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.

 

 

 

This is why we need a staged approach. DHA Leases mature, equipment and assets age and depreciate before defence vacate for the most part.

[banzaii]

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?

 

 

 

We already have HMAS Harman Naval Base. It would be the driest dry dock ever.

 

If the canal goes past Fyshwick the sailors can do what they do best :o (aside from the great job they do defending the nation)!

[banzaii]

Unfortunately that is the sort of hotchpotch solution that they are likely to agree to! :rolleyes:

 

 

I'm channeling several different layers of government. Need to exorcise them! Demons begone! :evilsmile:

[beatleman]

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

Suggested Perth or Darwin on a different thread, the Navy needs to be relocated. This Thread is galloping Mic maybe needs lunch. What about a Pie?

[The_Big_M]

It's the only place that is big enough yet compact, so cruise ships could dock on both sides of it. Also it's close to the city.

 

Actually, the previous terminal for international cruise liners, the Woolloomooloo Finger wharf is big enough yet compact that it handled multiple ships on both sides of it - 4 back then. Furthermore, it's even closer to the city.

 

Rose Bay has a fair amount of waterfront that isn't privately owned, I think, but imagine the outcry if they built a cruise terminal there. And New South Head Rd is already quite congested and doesn't have space for widening.

The congestion isn't major enough that a few extra shuttles couldn't be handled; for example it's not as bad as Military road, or even the Spit.

 

As for outcry, decisions should be made for rational reasons, not just outcry. Just look at the outcry from 40% of the population who were just outvoted...

[MicCanberra]

We already have HMAS Harman Naval Base. It would be the driest dry dock ever.

 

If the canal goes past Fyshwick the sailors can do what they do best :o (aside from the great job they do defending the nation)!

Buy cars or furniture?;p

[MicCanberra]

Suggested Perth or Darwin on a different thread, the Navy needs to be relocated. This Thread is galloping Mic maybe needs lunch. What about a Pie?

That would be good.:D

[banzaii]

Buy cars or furniture?;p

I guess since internet streaming took over from videos and fireworks were banned - it would be used cars![emoji14]

[MicCanberra]

I guess since internet streaming took over from videos and fireworks were banned - it would be used cars![emoji14]

Yeah, all the other things that used to be here are either illegal now or online (or both) .

[Beanb41]

Not really a concern for me. BY the time they get around to getting the necessary consents, over coming objections and get the terminal built I will have finished cruising by around 10 years at best guess.

[lyndarra]

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

That would be too expensive. Cheaper option would be to dredge the harbour bottom under the bridge to drop the water level so ships can better fit under it.:evilsmile:

[Docker123]

I think they should leave the naval base, but relocate Sydney somewhere else.

[lyndarra]

I wouldn't be surprised that there isn't a long term plan to relocate the base already on the basis that in the event of a conflict it would be a high priority target - remember Pearl harbour, Darwin etc. And, therefore, would a government be comfortable having high density civilian population so close?

[MicCanberra]

All good ideas being put forward, which one would get the most backing by the pollies though.

[banzaii]

All good ideas being put forward, which one would get the most backing by the pollies though.

Knowing those guys this is the obvious answer!

I think they should leave the naval base, but relocate Sydney somewhere else.

I understand RCI has put a bid in to move the opera house to Alaska via Honolulu for the northern summer. I'm not sure if they realise the sails don't work!

 

Anyway P&O have offered to put up several ezy up marquees on the opera house steps in case they are double booked at OPT during Oz winter.