Great Article on Overtourism - Shouldn't Cruise Lines Mix Up Their Itineraries More?

[slidergirl]

On 8/15/2019 at 11:05 AM, mnocket said:

 

It's really getting bad at many places.  I'm recently retired and so I'm now traveling and visiting many places for the first time, so I don't really have a "then vs now" point of comparison.  However, I recently visited London after not having been there for 20+ years.  Twenty years ago I made no advanced reservations for the popular tourist attractions and as I recall I just walked right into most of them.  This trip, even with "skip the line" reservations there was often a bit of a line, and without reservations you would be stuck in a line for hours.  Huge difference from 20 years ago.  I hate lines and can't imagine ever waiting an hour in one to view the Mona Lisa - which I guess means I will never see it. 

Every museum it seems has one piece that every tourist wants to check off their "must see" list, ignoring everything else.  I see people on here saying they got their tickets to "see David" in Florence, seemingly ignoring all the others things in the Academia.  People say they are going to see the Sistine Chapel, ignoring the magnificent paintings and sculptures and tapestries along the way in the Vatican Museums.  It took me 4 trips to Rome before I finally said I'd to into St. Peters Basilica for my one definite things to visit.  I actually forgot the Pieta was in there, so I was pleasantly surprised to see it.  The first time I went to the Louve, I didn't even thing about going to see the Mona Lisa - spent most of my time in the Egyptian section.  When I did get there again, I wasn't looking for it, but I ended up passing by it - hoards of tourists with those freakin' cellphones out and taking photos, with some dumb enough to not know to TURN OFF THE FLASH.  

[slidergirl]

On 8/15/2019 at 11:05 AM, mnocket said:

 

Edited August 17, 2019 by slidergirl
sorry - CC duplicated it

[clo]

9 minutes ago, slidergirl said:

Louve,

We far preferred the D'Orsay.

[slidergirl]

I'm not sure why CC reposted my reply above - it was several days ago.

 

Anyway, I read somewhere in the past 2 days (sorry, can't remember where) about cruise lines starting some new ports/destinations in 2020/2021.  One that stuck out was that Celebrity was going to stop in Marina di Carrara, Italy.  If you don't know the area, it sounds good - the home of the Carrera Marble quarries.  BUT, there isn't really anything else (well, there is a small crowded beach there).  Why, then, would Celebrity stop there? It's very close (30 minute drive)to La Spezia, where everyone takes the trips to Cinque Terre.  It's still too far to really go to Florence.  So, it's a very sneaky way of overcrowding Cinque Terre even more without stopping in La Spezia like the other ships.  

[clo]

4 minutes ago, slidergirl said:

overcrowding Cinque Terre even more

Ugh.

[Thecat123]

They reckon there is going to be a Bumper cruise season in NZ

Part of it is here

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12257887

[ilikeanswers]

4 hours ago, slidergirl said:

Every museum it seems has one piece that every tourist wants to check off their "must see" list, ignoring everything else. 

 

Most people who go see the Mona Lisa are people who don't normally frequent museums. It is a double edge sword for museums having a star display. It gets people into the museum but that doesn't necessarily translate to them exploring the museum. Especially with art. Most people would tell you that they don't understand art so wondering around and looking at something they don't understand isn't really appealing but at least if it is famous you have familiarity to make up for lack of understanding. 

[ontheweb]

4 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

Most people who go see the Mona Lisa are people who don't normally frequent museums. It is a double edge sword for museums having a star display. It gets people into the museum but that doesn't necessarily translate to them exploring the museum. Especially with art. Most people would tell you that they don't understand art so wondering around and looking at something they don't understand isn't really appealing but at least if it is famous you have familiarity to make up for lack of understanding. 

It helps when going to a museum if your DW is an art teacher.

[sverigecruiser]

8 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

It is a double edge sword for museums having a star display. It gets people into the museum but that doesn't necessarily translate to them exploring the museum.

 

They have to pay to get in even if they don't exploring the museum. People really interested in the other parts of the museum gets a less crowded experience so maybe it's good for everyone.

 

1. The museum get many visitors  = lots of money.

2. Some people see the "Main attraction", for example Mona Lisa.

3. Some people can explore a not too crowded museum.

 

Win, win, win! 

[cruisemom42]

12 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

Most people who go see the Mona Lisa are people who don't normally frequent museums. It is a double edge sword for museums having a star display. It gets people into the museum but that doesn't necessarily translate to them exploring the museum. Especially with art. Most people would tell you that they don't understand art so wondering around and looking at something they don't understand isn't really appealing but at least if it is famous you have familiarity to make up for lack of understanding. 

 

It's more than just not understanding art. I don't know why it is, but so many people (mainly Americans I'm sad to say) that I come across when traveling have it almost as a point of pride that they "don't like museums" or "aren't the museum type". 

 

My goodness -- why?  Not all museums are art museums -- there are all kinds. Coin museums, science museums, museums about an individual's life (e.g., Galileo), or even open-air archaeology museums. It's like there is some strange anti-intellectual bias: "I mustn't like museums, those are for snobby, over-educated folks."

 

I enjoy all types of museums and I find they are in themselves quite a good learning tool. The more you see, and then think about how it compares to what you've already seen elsewhere or know, the more you learn and understand. 

 

A lot of the really large, world-famous museums are just too big to absorb in one "go".  I've visited the Louvre, the Vatican Museum, Prado, Capitoline Museums, British Museum, and many others (even the old Egyptian museum in Cairo!) several times each, and each time I find I'm interested in different areas. It's best to just focus on one or two areas at a time -- look for something that interests you. Once I went to the Vatican museum just to see the (mostly neglected) Etruscan section. Hardly a soul in there, in comparison to the rest of the place....

 

 

[chipmaster]

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/overtourism-cruise-industry/index.html

 

Everybody is jumping on cruising as the rooted of all problems, LOL

 

In 2019, 30 million passengers are expected to cruise, up from 17.8 million a decade earlier. So what impact are they having on destinations, and what can be done about it?

 

Let's not forget 

 

Griffiths is keen to place the cruise ship boom in context, saying that in increasingly crowded cities like Venice, Dubrovnik or Barcelona, ships only account for 5% of visitors. "So even if we were to take cruising away from those destinations, it really wouldn't address a lot of the overtourism problems that we see,"

 

[ilikeanswers]

6 hours ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

They have to pay to get in even if they don't exploring the museum. People really interested in the other parts of the museum gets a less crowded experience so maybe it's good for everyone.

 

1. The museum get many visitors  = lots of money.

2. Some people see the "Main attraction", for example Mona Lisa.

3. Some people can explore a not too crowded museum.

 

Win, win, win! 

 

I did once see a TV interview with a staff member at museum in Europe (I wish I remembered its name) who was complaining that the non star attraction departments of that museum were allocated smaller budgets and resources in comparison to the star attraction. I have always wondered if this happens at all museums or is this just a one off?

[slidergirl]

1 hour ago, chipmaster said:

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/overtourism-cruise-industry/index.html

 

Everybody is jumping on cruising as the rooted of all problems, LOL

 

In 2019, 30 million passengers are expected to cruise, up from 17.8 million a decade earlier. So what impact are they having on destinations, and what can be done about it?

 

Let's not forget 

 

Griffiths is keen to place the cruise ship boom in context, saying that in increasingly crowded cities like Venice, Dubrovnik or Barcelona, ships only account for 5% of visitors. "So even if we were to take cruising away from those destinations, it really wouldn't address a lot of the overtourism problems that we see,"

 

Well, that is a 5% decrease in crowding.  Better than nothing.   What suggestion do you offer to help address over tourism? Venice wants to implement a "day visitor" fee.  Cinque Terre wants to figure out a way to close access daily once a certain number of people arrive.   Some have an opportunity to regulate before it gets bad.  Port Canaveral is a regional example.  There was a day a few months ago when 5 ships were docked.  It was not pretty.  It is usually 2 at a given time.  There just isn't enough cruise tourist infrastructure in the area.  Canaveral/Cocoa Beach is still basically beach and a couple of mini golf courses.  A few kayak companies.  Drive to KSC or make the trek to MouseLand.  I guess some could do what they do in Cozumel and just get off the ship and park oneself at the bar of the restaurants at the Port.  Carnival is building a new terminal and is going to homeport the new behemoth, the Mardi Gras, there, apparently.  RCI has been porting the Harmony of the Seas there.  NCL has been porting the Sun and Breakaway this year.    It's just too much.  Even my friend, who still lives in Cocoa Beach and whose family developed the Port at the beginning and started Premier Cruise lines agrees that it is too much.  

[sverigecruiser]

1 hour ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

I did once see a TV interview with a staff member at museum in Europe (I wish I remembered its name) who was complaining that the non star attraction departments of that museum were allocated smaller budgets and resources in comparison to the star attraction. I have always wondered if this happens at all museums or is this just a one off?

 

I don't know if that happens on many museums but I think that it makes sense that the star attraction get a higher budget if it attracts lots of visitors paying the entrance fee.

 

I guess it can depend on who owns the museum. A private owned museum may only be interested in the entrance fees but a government owned museum may be more interested to show everything they have.

 

[chipmaster]

1 hour ago, slidergirl said:

Well, that is a 5% decrease in crowding.  Better than nothing.   What suggestion do you offer to help address over tourism? Venice wants to implement a "day visitor" fee.  Cinque Terre wants to figure out a way to close access daily once a certain number of people arrive.   Some have an opportunity to regulate before it gets bad.  Port Canaveral is a regional example.  There was a day a few months ago when 5 ships were docked.  It was not pretty.  It is usually 2 at a given time.  There just isn't enough cruise tourist infrastructure in the area.  Canaveral/Cocoa Beach is still basically beach and a couple of mini golf courses.  A few kayak companies.  Drive to KSC or make the trek to MouseLand.  I guess some could do what they do in Cozumel and just get off the ship and park oneself at the bar of the restaurants at the Port.  Carnival is building a new terminal and is going to homeport the new behemoth, the Mardi Gras, there, apparently.  RCI has been porting the Harmony of the Seas there.  NCL has been porting the Sun and Breakaway this year.    It's just too much.  Even my friend, who still lives in Cocoa Beach and whose family developed the Port at the beginning and started Premier Cruise lines agrees that it is too much.  

 

So you believe in a fee, how much.  I think a fee for anywhere or any attraction is a reasonable expectation to pay for what we tourist bring with us and need to cleanup the mess we bring too, but what and who does all the $$$$$$$$$$ it go to.

 

In some places the fee is very large and goes to fund the local folks infrastruture/education or some other good, but the question how big a fee.   Believe it or not lot of middle class will pay 100/day or maybe more for access, thus in the end the places will generate revenue, lots if it, so their incentive will be to maximize revenue, believe it or not I think it won't solve crowding.

 

The hardline is to limit based on set space, but who decides that and what is their motive, for the locals ( revenue? ) or preservation ( means very limited access and or crazy lottery and or super high prices ), really hard to manage in this day and age.  I'll take as an example hiking Yosemite half dome, did it several times, now want to take my kids but impossible to secure a spot, but now so limited and random lottery, so many want to do it but can't, what's that tradeoff of access to public yet limit for safety and preservation is a very hard question and who get's to decide?

 

I won't bore you all with my own thoughts of how to fix the problem, the point was to point out cruise ships are not the problem at all, but people like to beat it like it will solve the problem, LOL

 

Edited August 18, 2019 by chipmaster

[ducklite]

As far as high costs to access certain places and things, it's the law of supply and demand.  If a tariff was too steep for my budget, I'd either reallocate my disposable income away from other wants, or just skip it. 

We can't always have everything we want.  I'd like to have a two week cruise on a private super yacht in the Med.  I can't afford it, I'm never going to be able to afford it, so I move on to enjoy things that are within my means.  

[cruisemom42]

3 hours ago, chipmaster said:

 

 

Griffiths is keen to place the cruise ship boom in context, saying that in increasingly crowded cities like Venice, Dubrovnik or Barcelona, ships only account for 5% of visitors. "So even if we were to take cruising away from those destinations, it really wouldn't address a lot of the overtourism problems that we see,"

 

 

While this may be true in the overall picture (e.g., over the course of a year), the day-to-day effect can be very disproportionate. Just ask anyone who's been in Dubrovnik or Santorini when five large cruise ships are there simultaneously, versus days where only one ship is in port. It makes an ENORMOUS difference.

 

Edited August 18, 2019 by cruisemom42

[cruisemom42]

35 minutes ago, chipmaster said:

 

I won't bore you all with my own thoughts of how to fix the problem, the point was to point out cruise ships are not the problem at all, but people like to beat it like it will solve the problem, LOL

 

 

I certainly would not say cruise ships are not the problem "at all". They are part of the problem.

 

But this is a cruise forum. It would make little sense to talk about solutions not related to the part of the problem caused by cruises.... 

[chipmaster]

10 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

While this may be true in the overall picture (e.g., over the course of a year), the day-to-day effect can be very disproportionate. Just ask anyone who's been in Dubrovnik or Santorini when five large cruise ships are there simultaneously, versus days where only one ship is in port. It makes an ENORMOUS difference.

 

 

darn ban them all then I say, problem fixed viola 😁

 

Seriously to limit the ships drives up prices, that is an easy solution, but high impact to cruisers and tourism overall, dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.  I'm sure all us on the cruising forum would love that, take 5 ships to two at the popular ports and access drops by 60-70%

 

Curious what all the other arm chair quarterbacks propose;  the easy as already mentioned quotas and fees used to improve infrastructure but the reality demand far exceeds ability to provide access so the default is either very high prices pricing the common folk out, or lottery but like high demand sports tickets in the end scalpers will drive access.

 

 

Edited August 18, 2019 by chipmaster

[luv2cruise51]

I just wish the mass market cruise lines (RCI, Princess, Carnival, etc.) would quit building the huge monstrosities of 4,000 to 6,000 passengers that end up in these smallish ports.  DH and I quit those a few years ago and now try to look for 1,200 pax. or less which usually means more money, but we enjoy the cruise more.  

 

We just don't go as often as we want as we usually stick to Seabourn, Oceania & Crystal. Got to save up for those cruises, so we go less often.

 

[mnocket]

4 hours ago, chipmaster said:

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/overtourism-cruise-industry/index.html

 

Everybody is jumping on cruising as the rooted of all problems, LOL

 

In 2019, 30 million passengers are expected to cruise, up from 17.8 million a decade earlier. So what impact are they having on destinations, and what can be done about it?

 

Let's not forget 

 

Griffiths is keen to place the cruise ship boom in context, saying that in increasingly crowded cities like Venice, Dubrovnik or Barcelona, ships only account for 5% of visitors. "So even if we were to take cruising away from those destinations, it really wouldn't address a lot of the overtourism problems that we see,"

 

 

That's a very misleading argument. The problem is that cruise ships drop their passengers in concentrated doses.  Plus cruise ship passengers tend to spend much less money in port than land visitors - thus they bring very little benefit.  If you have ever been in a popular port city on a land tour, you have surely seen the difference between those days when a ship(s) is in port those when there are no ships.  It's a very significant difference that. That 5% statistic is deliberately meant to mislead.  Sure if you eliminated 5% of the tourists and they were all land tourists, there would be very little noticeable difference.  However, if you reduced tourism by 5% by eliminating all cruise tourists, there would be a significant difference compared to those days when cruise ships used to be in port.  I'm not saying cruise ships are the most significant contributor to over-tourism, but they are most certainly a part of the problem - and the part that benefits many locations the least.

[mnocket]

39 minutes ago, luv2cruise51 said:

I

 

1 hour ago, chipmaster said:

 

darn ban them all then I say, problem fixed viola 😁

 

Seriously to limit the ships drives up prices, that is an easy solution, but high impact to cruisers and tourism overall, dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.  I'm sure all us on the cruising forum would love that, take 5 ships to two at the popular ports and access drops by 60-70%

 

Curious what all the other arm chair quarterbacks propose;  the easy as already mentioned quotas and fees used to improve infrastructure but the reality demand far exceeds ability to provide access so the default is either very high prices pricing the common folk out, or lottery but like high demand sports tickets in the end scalpers will drive access.

 

 

 

Well, as an arm chair quarterback drafted in the first round, I say you were on target with the supply and demand argument. However, your focus was only on reducing demand.  I've proposed that a preferred solution is to increase supply.  As I've argued previously (and won't repeat again in detail), there are many coastline locations that are beautiful and offer interesting historical and/or other appealing attractions. Some would require more infrastructure improvements than others to support cruise passengers.  I think developing additional ports of call to allow the demand to be spread across a greater supply is ultimately the only solution unless demand is to be artificially managed through measures that will undoubtedly favor the wealthy.

[chipmaster]

2 hours ago, mnocket said:

 

That's a very misleading argument. The problem is that cruise ships drop their passengers in concentrated doses.  Plus cruise ship passengers tend to spend much less money in port than land visitors - thus they bring very little benefit.  If you have ever been in a popular port city on a land tour, you have surely seen the difference between those days when a ship(s) is in port those when there are no ships.  It's a very significant difference that. That 5% statistic is deliberately meant to mislead.  Sure if you eliminated 5% of the tourists and they were all land tourists, there would be very little noticeable difference.  However, if you reduced tourism by 5% by eliminating all cruise tourists, there would be a significant difference compared to those days when cruise ships used to be in port.  I'm not saying cruise ships are the most significant contributor to over-tourism, but they are most certainly a part of the problem - and the part that benefits many locations the least.

 

Not sure about you but whether I am a landwelling tourist or a day only by cruise my spend behavior for the day is similar.  This last cruise bought a few trinkets ( broke down ), had two meals, darn even splurged for some libations.  I'd do similar if I was staying the evening, the only thing materially different would be the hotel.       I can see those that come only for a couple hours don't spend much but again spend/hour might actually exceed the standard land tourist, with less burden on the local place.

 

I could counter that the ship brings in a few thousand, but whisks them away with all their pollution, yet brings them in to buy trinkets and they probably eat one to two meals in port but flush the waste into the ship holds, LOL.

 

But agree tourist are the problem, just cap them by land/sea/air put quotas, problem solved, let every local place decide how much revenue, how much exclusiveness and let the free for all for access begin.  The rich win of course with that approach.

 

As to the above post on increasing supply, any attempt to create the hot new place to go ( next Santorini ) or next great happening cool beach will just see the flies flock to the new $h1t , moving the problem to a new place, maybe for the lovers of the old nothing happier than to see the trend go somewhere else, not in my backyard thinking, LOL 

Edited August 18, 2019 by chipmaster

[iancal]

We spent several days in Dubrovnic. It was hell when the ship tour busses arrived.  Complete zoo, especially at the city gate.  It was a completely different environment before 9AM and after 4PM.  Would we go back on a cruise?  NO.   Same for places like Cinque Terre, Santorini, Mykonos, etc.  We rented a car on two seperate days in Dubrovnic to escape the crowds and see the distant sites.  Best use of our time.   If we go back, it will be shoulder or off season.  The only place we tend to go in season now in SE Asia or Central America.  We do the 2 month snowbird routine to get away from the cold, snow, and ice.

 

[K32682]

 

17 minutes ago, iancal said:

We spent several days in Dubrovnic. It was hell when the ship tour busses arrived.  Complete zoo, especially at the city gate.  It was a completely different environment before 9AM and after 4PM.  Would we go back on a cruise?  NO.   

 

I've seen the same impact in Key West when the tsunami of cruisers swept on to Duval street from the docks.  Everything returned to normal when the wave receded back on to the boats later in the day. Equally obnoxious was when the buses from the ships pulled up at the Guggenheim in Bilbao.  

 

Edited August 19, 2019 by K32682