Are big ships ruining ports around the world?

[Skoogs]

There was a short news segment on CBS Saturday morning about how popular destinations around the world (Rome, Dubrovnik, Santorini...) are getting overrun with tourists. Part of the reason, they speculated, was not only more and more people traveling, and the popularity of cruising, but also the size of the new cruise ships. I know that when 5000 passengers arrive at a port at once it's just too much. And when two or three of those monsters are in a port at once it's overwhelming. Even Holland America seems compelled to build bigger and bigger ships We just got back from a cruise to Norway on the Koningsdam. That was the biggest ship I've been on and it just loomed over some of those Norwegian villages we visited. When we arrived in Amsterdam to board the ship, the driver from the airport to our hotel told us that the new city government was beginning a "push-back" against cruise ships. As someone who makes his living from tourism he lamented that they were going to "kill the goose that lays the golden egg". It's really a conundrum.

 

 

 

I don’t think it’s just the big ships that are hurting the “popular destinations”. It’s human beings, there are a lot more of us than fifty years ago and we have more “disposable income” and better living conditions than our parents and grandparents. Otherwise we wouldn’t be able to travel (sea and land), and apparently humans love to travel to other places and see things, I know I do.

Someday things will change, oil becomes too expensive, humans become enlightened, we go back to wind powered ships (I think they were called sails) or whatever happens. Traveling will slowdown and the popular destinations will be able to recover, maybe.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[bUU]

The reality is that the number of tourists are increasing rapidly and are overwhelming tourists sites all over the world.

Precisely. Again, the whole hullabaloo (and especially the focus on cruise ships) is deceitful.

 

And this isn't new, either. For quite a while we've seen this unfounded sense of entitlement projected by some, centered around the fact that they have to share tourism with other tourists, a significant number of whom are a reflection of the increased affordability of tourism. So anything that makes tourism more accessible to others will spike their ire.

[Floridiana]

I’m embarrassed to admit it but I own all the Rick Steves DVDs up to 2012. Based on those I’m guessing its: Munich, Berlin and Rothenburg on the Romantic Road.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

Exactly. :cool: Munich and Berlin can handle crowds, it's the airbnb issue. Berlin has outlawed them as illegal and tax evading sublets. Munich probably too. Being small, Rothenburg and Neuschwanstein Castle are overwhelmed.

 

There are still plenty of "undiscovered" places on and off cruise ship itineraries, but more people want to visit well known sites.

[ChinaShrek]

Even Holland America seems compelled to build bigger and bigger ships We just got back from a cruise to Norway on the Koningsdam. That was the biggest ship I've been on and it just loomed over some of those Norwegian villages we visited. When we arrived in Amsterdam to board the ship, the driver from the airport to our hotel told us that the new city government was beginning a "push-back" against cruise ships. As someone who makes his living from tourism he lamented that they were going to "kill the goose that lays the golden egg". It's really a conundrum.

 

Yes, I also heard that Amsterdam wants to move the cruise terminal outside of the downtown core or make them leave from Rotterdam. I was told by a hotel manager in Amsterdam that cruisers only spend a day or two in the city before or after their cruise and only contribute to overcrowding.

[ChinaShrek]

For profit cruise lines claim that they need a minimum number of pax per vessel to make a profit. Last time I saw the numbers it was in the neighborhood of 3000 passengers.

 

OTOH, ruining a tourist destination is largely a function of local policies and regulations. Local authorities are well within their right to limit port visits or other methods to keep tourism within reason.

 

So, my answer to the question is No...it's not the big ships it is the local tourism policies that are impacting the sites.

 

If local authorities restrict or prohibit port visits by large ships, the cruise companies will modify their products....by using smaller ships or finding other ports to visit.

 

But is a small town like Flam or Bar Harbor really able to bargain/negotiate with a multi-national cruise line? I don't think so. Often development decisions are made at the national or state level ignoring the wishes of local people.

[Stratheden]

They both don't fit under the bridge, the Amsterdam will, which is too bad ,because I'll be on her..

The Noordam does fit under the bridge. We boarded her at White Bay. No idea about the other ship.

[Globehoppers]

The greatest "problem" is the greed of the cruise lines and their focus on building larger and larger ships to maximize profits per sailing. Cruise lines have little interest to insure that ports are not overcrowded. Small places like Dubrovnik are now considering limiting total visitors, cruise and land, to 10,000/day. I recall visiting Dubrovnik many time during the late 1980s when it was a real pleasure to visit, walk the Stradun and eat in the small uncrowded restaurants. Large cities do not have a similar crowding problem as most also willingly accommodate land tourists.

 

Maybe countries/cities will get smart and limit ship sizes to 2500 passengers or less and leave the mega ships to places like the Caribbean. One of the reason we focus sailing on Prinsendam and the R-class ships (Azamara and Oceania). We do also enjoy Celebrity's Millennium class for cross-ocean cruising and places where the larger cities easily accommodate the larger ships, such as Asia.

[cruisemom42]

Precisely. Again, the whole hullabaloo (and especially the focus on cruise ships) is deceitful.

 

And this isn't new, either. For quite a while we've seen this unfounded sense of entitlement projected by some, centered around the fact that they have to share tourism with other tourists, a significant number of whom are a reflection of the increased affordability of tourism. So anything that makes tourism more accessible to others will spike their ire.

 

You are painting with a pretty broad brush. I don't think that's why all of us are concerned. Some people are capable of genuine concern and of altruistic thought, if not always behavior. While the crowding can be bothersome, it is the damage to places and sites that concerns me more.

 

I struggle mightily with this situation. I pay carbon offsets where I can, but I'm at a loss as to what else I, personally, can do beyond staying home. I do try to stay in local hotels, hire local guides (if any are needed) and use public transportation when I travel. However, my passion in life is classical history and ruins, and unfortunately there are not any Roman or Greek ruins on my side of the pond....

 

Cities like Rome and Paris can absorb a lot of tourists, and I don't necessarily think cruising plays a huge role there. (I'm not saying tourism isn't a problem, just that the impact of cruising is less of a factor.) But in places like Santorini or Dubrovnik, the changes visible since cruise ships came calling are very much in evidence. And in Venice there is another issue in play -- the delicate balance of a city literally built on water in the middle of a delicate ecosystem (the Venice lagoon). The large ships coming down the Giudecca canal have been shown to do damage to the very foundations of the city.

[sammiedawg]

It is hypocritical for locals to complain about cruise visitors “overwhelming” a port or city. Many local economies are dependent on tourism. Many local economies purposely developed tourism to boost jobs and employment. They will sing a different tune when the economy slows down and people reduce travel.

 

There are wealthy enclaves that do not welcome day visitors of any kind. St Barth’s is one. The Hamptons do not want day visitors driving in, they don’t even have accommodations for week long visitors. Homes are rented for the season.

[cruisemom42]

It is hypocritical for locals to complain about cruise visitors “overwhelming” a port or city. Many local economies are dependent on tourism. Many local economies purposely developed tourism to boost jobs and employment. They will sing a different tune when the economy slows down and people reduce travel.

 

 

I don't think it's hypocritical. Unless someone takes a 'responsible' long view, the things that draw tourists to a particular place may become less desirable and then tourists will stop coming altogether. What is worse -- limiting tourists to a reasonable number for the foreseeable future, or doing a 'boom and bust' -- letting them completely overwhelm the place like a cloud of locusts until they've ruined it (physically, or just its appeal) for others?

 

Unfortunately, most places are unable -- politically or financially -- to take a 'responsible' long view.

[kazu]

You are painting with a pretty broad brush. I don't think that's why all of us are concerned. Some people are capable of genuine concern and of altruistic thought, if not always behavior. While the crowding can be bothersome, it is the damage to places and sites that concerns me more.

 

I struggle mightily with this situation. I pay carbon offsets where I can, but I'm at a loss as to what else I, personally, can do beyond staying home. I do try to stay in local hotels, hire local guides (if any are needed) and use public transportation when I travel. However, my passion in life is classical history and ruins, and unfortunately there are not any Roman or Greek ruins on my side of the pond....

 

Cities like Rome and Paris can absorb a lot of tourists, and I don't necessarily think cruising plays a huge role there. (I'm not saying tourism isn't a problem, just that the impact of cruising is less of a factor.) But in places like Santorini or Dubrovnik, the changes visible since cruise ships came calling are very much in evidence. And in Venice there is another issue in play -- the delicate balance of a city literally built on water in the middle of a delicate ecosystem (the Venice lagoon). The large ships coming down the Giudecca canal have been shown to do damage to the very foundations of the city.

 

I don't think it's hypocritical. Unless someone takes a 'responsible' long view, the things that draw tourists to a particular place may become less desirable and then tourists will stop coming altogether. What is worse -- limiting tourists to a reasonable number for the foreseeable future, or doing a 'boom and bust' -- letting them completely overwhelm the place like a cloud of locusts until they've ruined it (physically, or just its appeal) for others?

 

Unfortunately, most places are unable -- politically or financially -- to take a 'responsible' long view.

 

Two excellent posts IMO :)

 

You said it better than I could have. Thank you :)

[navybankerteacher]

 

...

 

Cities like Rome and Paris can absorb a lot of tourists, and I don't necessarily think cruising plays a huge role there. (I'm not saying tourism isn't a problem, just that the impact of cruising is less of a factor.) But in places like Santorini or Dubrovnik, the changes visible since cruise ships came calling are very much in evidence. And in Venice there is another issue in play -- the delicate balance of a city literally built on water in the middle of a delicate ecosystem (the Venice lagoon). The large ships coming down the Giudecca canal have been shown to do damage to the very foundations of the city.

 

Good focus on the topic of this thread — it is generally the small island, or remote area, which has been most heavily impacted by the surge in cruising.

[wales4ever]

Hmm.. Did that taxi driver notice the cruise line under whose flag that ship sails is HOLLAND America Line? Maybe the driver is not Dutch but newly imigrated with no allegiance yet?

 

No to the orignal question.

 

 

Plus - HAL is not Dutch, it is US owned.

[LondonTowner]

You are painting with a pretty broad brush. I don't think that's why all of us are concerned. Some people are capable of genuine concern and of altruistic thought, if not always behavior. While the crowding can be bothersome, it is the damage to places and sites that concerns me more.

 

 

 

I struggle mightily with this situation. I pay carbon offsets where I can, but I'm at a loss as to what else I, personally, can do beyond staying home. I do try to stay in local hotels, hire local guides (if any are needed) and use public transportation when I travel. However, my passion in life is classical history and ruins, and unfortunately there are not any Roman or Greek ruins on my side of the pond....

 

 

 

Cities like Rome and Paris can absorb a lot of tourists, and I don't necessarily think cruising plays a huge role there. (I'm not saying tourism isn't a problem, just that the impact of cruising is less of a factor.) But in places like Santorini or Dubrovnik, the changes visible since cruise ships came calling are very much in evidence. And in Venice there is another issue in play -- the delicate balance of a city literally built on water in the middle of a delicate ecosystem (the Venice lagoon). The large ships coming down the Giudecca canal have been shown to do damage to the very foundations of the city.

 

 

 

I'm surprised that Venice didn't ban large cruise ships years ago. For a long time the authorities have been saying the buildings are becoming destroyed and sinking.

 

As much as I enjoy a cruise, if I want to see something in particular I find it better to visit on a land based holiday.

 

The sheer numbers of tourists in European cities at times can be quite overwhelming. I even try o avoid going into central London these days.

 

I think the vast numbers of cruise passengers descending on a place probably does more harm than good, especially as many don't spend much money, if any at all.

 

The largest ship we have sailed on had around 3000 passenger capacity, but we prefer smaller.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[TonyC1952]

We've been going to Riomaggiore (town 1 in the Cinque Terre) since 1998, on the advice of Rick Steves. In the intervening years, before the cruise ships arrived, the towns during the summer months were filled to capacity, and the trail between Vernazza and Corniglia was packed to the max. The experience was substantially downgraded. But then the cruise ships arrived, filling towns already filled with overnight visitors with day visitors as well. You can't easily get from town to town now on the train. The trails are packed with people essentially walking in a line, face to back, to get from town to town. This is not simply "the cruise ships' fault". Rick Steves tours now, when they're in the "Cinque Terre" stay two towns further up the tracks, OUTSIDE of the Cinque Terre. The capacity is simply not there to accommodate all the visitors. La Spezia reaps the major benefit with port fees and such. But the residents of all those once quiet villages are paying the price. It's too bad. The region just got "too popular".

[TonyC1952]

One of my most memorable experiences was cruising down the Giudecca canal into Venice, on my first cruise. It was amazing- but not sustainable in the long run. We've been going to Venice since 1998, and Venice, between the Rialto Bridge and St. Mark's square has always been a mob scene. Hard to say if cruise passengers have made that any worse. However, during the overnight stay in Venice on that trip, about 6PM the town cleared out, quieted down, and became a once again charming place. Can't place all the blame on the cruise ships, as there are day trippers that show up too, but the way the streets just cleared out at 6PM can't all be day trippers. As a cruise passenger, it'll be sad when they banish the ships to another commercial port that requires additional connections to get into town, but the damage to the canals from the ships can't be ignored. I believe that is the impetus for considering banishing the cruise ships to another locale.

[bennybear]

IMO people want to see what is recommended and what they have heard about. We have had experiences sadly ruined. We find going to places we research that are not overrun and not on everyone’s recommended list have given us amazing experiences. We realize that cruises and tours make things easy. But our best experiences have been off the beaten track. We like to have a more local experience.

[LondonTowner]

IMO people want to see what is recommended and what they have heard about. We have had experiences sadly ruined. We find going to places we research that are not overrun and not on everyone’s recommended list have given us amazing experiences. We realize that cruises and tours make things easy. But our best experiences have been off the beaten track. We like to have a more local experience.

 

 

 

Yes, I agree. We tend to take our land based holidays in more off the beaten track places. Some years ago we stayed in a trullo in Alberobello, Puglia and whilst there we visited Matera, which wasn't very well known. It's now become very popular.

 

I also visited Cinque Terre some years ago when there was only a handful of visitors. If that pompous man that's full of misinformation, Rick Steve's is responsible for crowding in so many places, I loathe him even more.

 

A lot of the overcrowding is due to nations like the Chinese having more money than they did before and more accessible travel.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[JMorris271]

OK. So which of us will forgo our cruise plans to save the ports?

[LondonTowner]

OK. So which of us will forgo our cruise plans to save the ports?

 

 

 

Well, I would never book one of those huge ships.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[cruisemom42]

If that pompous man that's full of misinformation, Rick Steve's is responsible for crowding in so many places, I loathe him even more.

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

 

It's funny -- Rick Steves is, to me, the farthest thing from 'pompous'. The adjective more universally applied would be something like 'accessible'.

 

Rick Steves is to inexperienced travelers as Mary Beard is to those who don't know much about ancient Rome. That is to say, they both are good at making their topic interesting and easy to grasp.

[JMorris271]

Well, I would never book one of those huge ships.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

Nor take an excursion?:rolleyes::eek::rolleyes:

For gosh sakes, don't rub the foot on St Peter's statue at the Vatican.

[kazu]

OK. So which of us will forgo our cruise plans to save the ports?

 

We are going on a little ship and hitting some unusual ports, so hopefully we won't be overwhelming people. Most people in ports welcome this ship because of her size.

 

And no, I'm not cancelling ;)

[tommui987]

 

A lot of the overcrowding is due to nations like the Chinese having more money than they did before and more accessible travel.

 

We could enact a Chinese Exclusion Act except the Asians might retaliate by excluding the non-Asian travelers from overwhelming their area like China, Japan, SE Asia, Indonesia etc.

[navybankerteacher]

The answer really has to be for the “stewards” of special places: the people who live there and the governments who are in a position to control over exposure, to take the long view and limit, not just ships but all visitors who now come in numbers sufficient to destroy what they supposedly want to experience.