Port Botany cruise terminal

[in rod we trust]

21 hours ago, gbenjo said:

Thanks Rod (but I will pass on the trusting you ) for providing the link, I assume, you are basing your "dislike"  of RCCL upon.  Having read it I cannot find any reference to Royal being the only cruise line that wants the new terminal and certainly no mention of them being a financial backer for the project as you alledge. Granted the Govt. may seek financial support from the cruise lines as,  I assume, would be the case in any venture like this  but in the end it is the Port Authority / Govt building the terminal, not RCCL. You persist in ignoring the considerable financial boost such a terminal would give to the local economy while focusing only on the assumed destruction of Botany Bay. I am reasonably comfortable thinking , in this day and age, that any terminal that will be built ,will be built under strict guidelines and controls..once they decide where to build it of course.

As for me being too lazy to travel to embark on a cruise, I like many other true legitimate cruisers on this forum, have traveled to various parts of the world to join a cruise. As you have also chosen to ignore, I have said a couple of times that to build a terminal in Newcastle, Wollongong, Eden or any other location outside of Sydney makes no practical, logistic ,common  or any other sense The cruise industry is after all, a business and it would make no business sense to do so.  PS I would, if need be, travel to such ports , not a problem.

By the way, as for your suggestion that if I had the ship to myself (because of your boycotts) I could pick up chicks..how could I ...I would be the only guest on the ship?????? FYI  I am also more than happily married so have no interest in such an activity. I even let my wife make her own decisions on what and where she wants to go for a holiday...its 2020.

 

if you cannot bother to read to read it then don't keep asking for the info about what proof do you have that royal carribean are the ones lobbying the gov to build it..

 

there is no common sense in building it at yarra bay as well as it is way to dangerous there. and I don't see why they would want to destroy a whole bay just for these oasis class ships ..  with all this destruction from bushfires down south and at eden its better off there to help the locals .. or Newcastle , or Wollongong , them ports are ready to go with a little bit more investment they could support the mega cruise ships..  nobody wants it at yarra bay except for royal carribean and stupid liberal party of nsw , who I would not be surprised one bit if royal carribean gave them a generous donation to there party coffers , as why else would you risk a whole bay and surrounding beaches for a useless terminal .. anyway the lack of management by liberal party of nsw and Australia on the bush fire and wasteful spending they may not be there come the next election , if labor wins there will be no cruise terminal  at yarra bay ..

Edited January 12, 2020 by in rod we trust

[in rod we trust]

1 hour ago, SinbadThePorter said:

I don't have a horse in this race since being a Brisbanite I can look forward to a world class Cruise Terminal at the end of year and I will no longer have to fly to Sydney to get on decent ships. But I have to say that Rod has a point. If a cruise terminal at Yarra Bay goes ahead it does represent a loss of increasingly rare undeveloped foreshore in the Sydney region and that's not something anybody should be happy with.

 

Yet those that say a third cruise terminal is desperately needed are also correct. Perhaps the terminal will make up for the loss of foreshore, maybe not. Since this is a cruise website it's obvious which view holds sway.

 

However it's pretty poor form to mock someone who holds a legitimate point of view and it disappoints me.

 

Anyway it's very early days in the approval process and the fate of Yarra Bay is not decided. It may turn out to be Molineaux Point. Who knows? The best we can hope for is that the NSW government doesn't cave to various monied interests and treat Yarra Bay as the default simply because any other option is inconvenient to the big end of town.

thank you good post .. 

 mollineaux point is on the very edge of yarra bay  its was once a headland , but now is just a breakwall ,  if they build it there yarra bay will be effected as that spot is very dangerous , big swells , big tides , and terrible winds .. they cannot build a pax terminal on the break wall as its not wide enough also way to close for comfort being less than 10 mtrs from gas storage canisters , and also the gas caverns built under the port. a accident there as they have had a few would have to evacuate that terminal and any ships docked there..  a explosion there would wipe out any ships and kill many if not all passengers at dock ..

[in rod we trust]

I just like to about how much people put on saving aboriginal heritage , yarra bay and mollineaux point also bumborah  point which is really mollineaux point at the beach end ,

is used by aboriginal people today , its the last remaining beach headland in Sydney region still used by them..  its also the first beach la perouse set foot on . it has plenty historic and cultural meaning to it .. why destroy such a beautiful place just for convenience  doesn't make any sense at all..

 

the cruise industry  should not try destroy places around the world just for there convenience .. that's just down right destructive for greed

Edited January 12, 2020 by in rod we trust

[MicCanberra]

I think I will wait until the full report has been completed.

[in rod we trust]

3 minutes ago, MicCanberra said:

I think I will wait until the full report has been completed.

 

well that's where the problem is as I mentioned the report will not be published for any member of the public to see..  as per all those post from port authority I posted any info will be redacted as they have done so far . so nobody from the public can decide .  

Edited January 12, 2020 by in rod we trust

[gbenjo]

1 hour ago, in rod we trust said:

 

if you cannot bother to read to read it then don't keep asking for the info about what proof do you have that royal carribean are the ones lobbying the gov to build it..

 

there is no common sense in building it at yarra bay as well as it is way to dangerous there. and I don't see why they would want to destroy a whole bay just for these oasis class ships ..  with all this destruction from bushfires down south and at eden its better off there to help the locals .. or Newcastle , or Wollongong , them ports are ready to go with a little bit more investment they could support the mega cruise ships..  nobody wants it at yarra bay except for royal carribean and stupid liberal party of nsw , who I would not be surprised one bit if royal carribean gave them a generous donation to there party coffers , as why else would you risk a whole bay and surrounding beaches for a useless terminal .. anyway the lack of management by liberal party of nsw and Australia on the bush fire and wasteful spending they may not be there come the next election , if labor wins there will be no cruise terminal  at yarra bay ..

And why shouldn't RCCL lobby for another terminal if it is in their interest (still nothing about financing it though in the article) cruising and making money is their business    but I give up .......I just told you why they would not build a terminal out of Sydney but you cannot see anything except your own point of view so it it  a waste of time explaining anything to you. Go and stick your head in the toxic sands of Botany Bay and ignore anything that does not fit your agenda.....and don't hold your breath hoping a labor govt, state or federal,  could win an election anytime soon.

[MicCanberra]

43 minutes ago, in rod we trust said:

 

well that's where the problem is as I mentioned the report will not be published for any member of the public to see..  as per all those post from port authority I posted any info will be redacted as they have done so far . so nobody from the public can decide .  

The full report with redactions or not will still have useful information in it.

[lyndarra]

1 hour ago, in rod we trust said:

 

if you cannot bother to read to read it then don't keep asking for the info about what proof do you have that royal carribean are the ones lobbying the gov to build it..

 

there is no common sense in building it at yarra bay as well as it is way to dangerous there. and I don't see why they would want to destroy a whole bay just for these oasis class ships ..  with all this destruction from bushfires down south and at eden its better off there to help the locals .. or Newcastle , or Wollongong , them ports are ready to go with a little bit more investment they could support the mega cruise ships..  nobody wants it at yarra bay except for royal carribean and stupid liberal party of nsw , who I would not be surprised one bit if royal carribean gave them a generous donation to there party coffers , as why else would you risk a whole bay and surrounding beaches for a useless terminal .. anyway the lack of management by liberal party of nsw and Australia on the bush fire and wasteful spending they may not be there come the next election , if labor wins there will be no cruise terminal  at yarra bay ..

You can count Newcastle out. I have previously suggested Newcastle but it was pointed out to me that there is no room for more than one ship at a time where they presently tie up. The government baited the locals pre-election with a promise that a Newcastle terminal would be built but as soon as they were re-elected they pulled the funding. I thought it may be possible in the river near the old BHP site or coal loaders (opposite) but it also was pointed out that the river there is too narrow to cater for the length of most cruise ships.

On a recent tour-cruise of the Mediterranean I saw a few artificial harbours that had been built to take many ships but I don't see anywhere on our NSW coast where that would be suitable or even possible. I could be wrong. I don't think we have the cruiser numbers, local or international, to make it worthwhile. One point about some of the European ports is that they are a long way from airports or major cities.

 

[gbenjo]

18 minutes ago, MicCanberra said:

The full report with redactions or not will still have useful information in it.

But if the report comes out, redacted or not, but does not suit Rod’s agenda he will only ignore it anyway

[ilikeanswers]

2 hours ago, gbenjo said:

However Sydney for the most part is not a port of call, instead is a port to start/ finish a cruise so the “local” tourism occurs before or after a cruise. It would follow then that the more passengers, especially from overseas, who are in Sydney would increase the demand for local tours etc. The more people the better the strike rate. 

 

The problem I see is that most cruisers to Australia only plan their trip with the cruise in mind so at most they will plan a trip with a day or two extra just for Sydney. Australia seems to be getting a reputation as a country to travel around rather than through. I compare how France promotes itself and they really push people to get out of the big cities, they showcase their regional areas in their promotion and provide great resources to overseas tourists to navigate the regional areas. I don't see the same thing happening with Australian marketing. We are great domestically at showcasing our regional areas but we don't seem to put the same efforts internationally. I just worry with the marketing power of cruise lines it is going to make people see Australia as a sea destination rather than a place worthy of a land trip.

[Chiliburn]

1 hour ago, in rod we trust said:

I just like to about how much people put on saving aboriginal heritage , yarra bay and mollineaux point also bumborah  point which is really mollineaux point at the beach end ,

is used by aboriginal people today , its the last remaining beach headland in Sydney region still used by them..  its also the first beach la perouse set foot on . it has plenty historic and cultural meaning to it .. why destroy such a beautiful place just for convenience  doesn't make any sense at all..

 

the cruise industry  should not try destroy places around the world just for there convenience .. that's just down right destructive for greed

Rod I don’t know why you bring the first Australians into it ,do you represent them or it is it for your convenience.

Anyway they are used to people turning up in ships and taking their land.

[MicCanberra]

On 1/11/2020 at 10:36 AM, ilikeanswers said:

 

Their boats carried the same amount of people as Arthur Phillip's fleet along with livestock and whatever was needed to start crop production so I think they qualify as ships just as much as anything the ancient Greeks were using. 

If you want to be technical here is the definition of a ship (from a marine Institute):

"A ship is any vessel or conveyance that floats on or operates on the water and is equal to or larger than 197 feet (60 meters) length overall (LOA). A ship may be used for pleasure, commercial, or residential purposes."

[lyndarra]

36 minutes ago, MicCanberra said:

If you want to be technical here is the definition of a ship (from a marine Institute):

"A ship is any vessel or conveyance that floats on or operates on the water and is equal to or larger than 197 feet (60 meters) length overall (LOA). A ship may be used for pleasure, commercial, or residential purposes."

The one I've oft heard is that you can put a boat on a ship but you can't put a ship on a boat.

Sailing ships of the 18th century, Cooks Endeavour for example, often carried a few boats of different sizes i.e. a longboat, pinnace and a yawl. Endeavour was only 30m long.

Edited January 12, 2020 by lyndarra
Clarification of point

[ilikeanswers]

3 hours ago, MicCanberra said:

If you want to be technical here is the definition of a ship (from a marine Institute):

"A ship is any vessel or conveyance that floats on or operates on the water and is equal to or larger than 197 feet (60 meters) length overall (LOA). A ship may be used for pleasure, commercial, or residential purposes."

 

In that case the Pacific Islander vessels would fit that definition (at least the large ones as they did have small and medium size vessels in their fleets) but now I'm thinking if the Ancient Greek vessels would qualify as they were quite small in comparison😂. 

Edited January 12, 2020 by ilikeanswers

[in rod we trust]

7 hours ago, Chiliburn said:

Rod I don’t know why you bring the first Australians into it ,do you represent them or it is it for your convenience.

Anyway they are used to people turning up in ships and taking their land.

 

the indigenous people of that area and the aboriginal land council of Australia  are fighting side by side with the rest of us to stop this … 

yarra bay is the only last bay in Sydney basin area where they still use it today 

 

well its there bit of land that they have protected for so long they are entitled to it and in this day and error should not have to be kicked of it just for a stupid cruise terminal , that's just so wrong 

Edited January 12, 2020 by in rod we trust

[The_Big_M]

9 hours ago, in rod we trust said:

thank you good post .. 

 mollineaux point is on the very edge of yarra bay  its was once a headland , but now is just a breakwall ,  if they build it there yarra bay will be effected as that spot is very dangerous , big swells , big tides , and terrible winds .. they cannot build a pax terminal on the break wall as its not wide enough also way to close for comfort being less than 10 mtrs from gas storage canisters , and also the gas caverns built under the port. a accident there as they have had a few would have to evacuate that terminal and any ships docked there..  a explosion there would wipe out any ships and kill many if not all passengers at dock ..

 

That can be said about any development though. e.g. allow fishing and if you get some unscrupulous fisherman fishing stocks are wiped out. Have jetties and if there's an accident refuelling would wipe out any fishing craft and kill many if not all crew and staff.

 

Again, back to the fear arguments. They don't add anything as the whole point is to identify those issues and do it in as safe a way as needed. 

[in rod we trust]

3 minutes ago, The_Big_M said:

 

That can be said about any development though. e.g. allow fishing and if you get some unscrupulous fisherman fishing stocks are wiped out. Have jetties and if there's an accident refuelling would wipe out any fishing craft and kill many if not all crew and staff.

 

Again, back to the fear arguments. They don't add anything as the whole point is to identify those issues and do it in as safe a way as needed. 

exactly right .. well there are no trawlers there they were brought out with fishing license fee .. and right again opposite yarra bay is a oil terminal ..  we all seen what the port extension and desal did to the whole bay it almost wiped out all the fish stocks , only just these last 2yrs have they started coming back , didn't see dolphin's and seal's for a hell of a long time either and just last yr they returned not in the same numbers or as often.. 

 

to dredge yarra bay one with all that toxins would see the whole thing destroyed again ..

they need to dredge the whole turning basin 440 mtrs sq and at 11.5 mtrs deep 

there is no need to destroy that whole bay for stupid terminal just for 3 months of the yr .. 

 

[MicCanberra]

6 hours ago, in rod we trust said:

 

yarra bay is the only last bay in Sydney basin area where they still use it today 

Is that because the Kiwis have taken over eastern beaches - Bondi?

[in rod we trust]

21 hours ago, MicCanberra said:

The full report with redactions or not will still have useful information in it.

 

the report I have most of it is rubbish just goes on about the money side and the cruise industry .. the part that you really need to make your decision is all redacted .. 

 

so its useless  I can post it if you like  its 68 pages long 

Edited January 13, 2020 by in rod we trust

[MicCanberra]

2 minutes ago, in rod we trust said:

 

the report I have most of it is rubbish just goes on about the money side and the cruise industry .. the part that you really need to make your decision is all redacted .. 

 

so its useless  I can post it if you like  its 68 pages long 

But the full report is not due out until August.

[in rod we trust]

8 minutes ago, MicCanberra said:

But the full report is not due out until August.

 

so they say or that might be the full report for the gov .. but the port authority report we have paid for  is out now  but you have to buy it .. 68 pages long 

[in rod we trust]

On 1/11/2020 at 10:53 AM, ilikeanswers said:

 

I am guessing this is the study he is referring to:

 

Luxury cruise giant emits 10 times more air pollution (SOx) than all of Europe’s cars – study

 

To be fair it does only refer to one gas. 

also this 

https://www.euractiv.com/section/air-pollution/news/daily-emissions-of-cruise-ships-same-as-one-million-cars/

[in rod we trust]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/cruises/news/air-pollution-levels-200-times-higher-on-cruise-ships/

 

 

[Chiliburn]

I’ve seen some pretty ugly smoke coming from ships.

A few times at seminars people have asked about the greenie-blue smoke emitted and the response was it’s only steam.

[MicCanberra]

I conducted a quick survey today and found, enjoyment levels were 2000 times higher on cruise ships compared to fishing vessels. Thank you to all the participants in the survey.