Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community

Port Botany cruise terminal

Chiliburn

By Chiliburn,
in Australia & New Zealand Cruisers

 Share

Recommended Posts

GUT2407

GUT2407

Posted
Posted

What if we add some ballast to a big ship. So it just fits under the bridge, remove the ballast while it is under the bridge, thus lifting the bridge and slip a few bricks under the old girl to raise her a few feet.

 

cant see anything wrong with that idea can you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MicCanberra Holiday Sharing Rare

MicCanberra

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Docker123 said:

 

Build a tunnel under the bridge for the cruise ships.

 

simples.

 

 

6 hours ago, SinbadThePorter said:

 

The obvious thing is to just move Sydney Harbour to somewhere more convenient.

All great ideas but we all know that if the government will not sanction the simple cheaper options, they will never sanction either of those ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisbane41

Brisbane41

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, Toryhere said:

Thousands of people and supply trucks trying to get through on one road from the Harbour Bridge through a residential area? I can see why the government baulked at it. 

Also, it might sound nice and easy to compulsorily acquire people’s property, but having represented several victims of such resumption by government I can tell you that they don’t always see the benefit of it. 

Its all hypothetical of course, but in reality of the government wanted a solution for another cruise terminal it would have been a good option with an existing wharf that needed extending and nearby property acquired. 

 

Unfortunately the problem with Sydney and Australia is due to the over development of areas like Sydney Harbour for example when a desperately needed facility or service is needed there is no room as no planning was ever done.

 

Obviously my scenario cannot go ahead and will not go ahead, but it was still a possible option if the government was serious about it. There were better chances of getting the properties surrounding that than bailing up the likes of Turnbull and asking hin to surrender his mansion for a desperately needed cruise port.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Toryhere

Toryhere

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Brisbane41 said:

Its all hypothetical of course, but in reality of the government wanted a solution for another cruise terminal it would have been a good option with an existing wharf that needed extending and nearby property acquired. 

 

Unfortunately the problem with Sydney and Australia is due to the over development of areas like Sydney Harbour for example when a desperately needed facility or service is needed there is no room as no planning was ever done.

 

Obviously my scenario cannot go ahead and will not go ahead, but it was still a possible option if the government was serious about it. There were better chances of getting the properties surrounding that than bailing up the likes of Turnbull and asking hin to surrender his mansion for a desperately needed cruise port.

Yes, the point is that Sydney developed before cruising became thing. And truth be told, it really only makes sense to put a cruise terminal on the southern side of the Harbour before the Bridge. That has the best transport and infrastructure to deal with such a facility.

Farm Cove is a public space as ins Lad Macquarie’s Chair. Elizabeth Bay, Rushcutters Bay, Darling Point, Double Bay, Point Piper, Rose Bay and Watson’s Bay are all too heavily populated with the most expensive real estate in the Country. Garden Island or Woolloomooloo Bay is a possibility, but I doubt whether the Feds would give it up, and if they did I am sure that another Barangaroo style suburb would be the use favoured by the State government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MicCanberra Holiday Sharing Rare

MicCanberra

Posted
Posted
On 9/18/2019 at 7:02 PM, MicCanberra said:

Why don't they use Circular quay extend one of the middle wharves out by 400m and then they could use both sides and dock 3 large ships at once. The ferries can move to darling harbour or pier one.

 

6 hours ago, SinbadThePorter said:

How about extending Circular Quay Wharf No. 4 out about 400 metres into the middle of Circular Quay.

 

Then you would have two cruise ship berths on either side. Ferries can still access the other wharves.

 

Pay for it by selling the OPT site off to a casino operator. 😉

Great idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GUT2407

GUT2407

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, SinbadThePorter said:

 

Well, my contribution was the idea of selling off harbour side land to a casino operator.

 

The NSW state government loves to do that.

I wouldn’t think they’d have much trouble getting a buyer.

 

Maybe another “Toaster”!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Chiliburn

Chiliburn

Posted
  • Author
Posted
8 hours ago, banzaii said:

From the 21-22 RCCL Deployment thread:

 

https://www.yoursaycruisecapacity.com.au

 

Nothing happening for 4 years!  Sydney could lise a lot of cruise business in that time!

3-4 years before construction begins, How many years to build a sea wall and a terminal?

 What if they use part of the container terminal as a temporary solution.Theres talk of getting container trucks of Sydney roads and containers on rail from port Kembla.

It would be only for 6 months a year, The only problem would be a check it area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gbenjo

gbenjo

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, Chiliburn said:

3-4 years before construction begins, How many years to build a sea wall and a terminal?

 What if they use part of the container terminal as a temporary solution.Theres talk of getting container trucks of Sydney roads and containers on rail from port Kembla.

It would be only for 6 months a year, The only problem would be a check it area.

Three years sounds realistic if you consider they  will probably need twelve months to complete their "feasability " study  and get the OK ( read pay off)  from all the anti terminal parties. You would assume they would not seriously start the actual design and planning stage until approval so add another twelve months and then 12 to 18 months ( it is a govt .dept) for construction.

 

It will be interesting to see how the " third terminal" will be utilized if you consider that the OPT ( Sydney Harbour)would continue to be the prefered option for the cruise lines and White Bay would still service smaller ships capable of fitting under the bridge. The " peak" season is really only say three  months of the year  and the two existing terminals can comfortably handle the off season demand. Yes,there will be an increase in the number of cruise lines and ships coming  to Sydney  but building a terminal and the associated infrastructure is not a cheap exercise and I wonder if the  volume ofthe increased number of vessels would justify the investment ie. two terminals are not enough but three are too many.  From what I have heard ( from sources that should  know) it will happen but it will be interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chiliburn

Chiliburn

Posted
  • Author
Posted
11 minutes ago, gbenjo said:

Three years sounds realistic if you consider they  will probably need twelve months to complete their "feasability " study  and get the OK ( read pay off)  from all the anti terminal parties. You would assume they would not seriously start the actual design and planning stage until approval so add another twelve months and then 12 to 18 months ( it is a govt .dept) for construction.

 

It will be interesting to see how the " third terminal" will be utilized if you consider that the OPT ( Sydney Harbour)would continue to be the prefered option for the cruise lines and White Bay would still service smaller ships capable of fitting under the bridge. The " peak" season is really only say three  months of the year  and the two existing terminals can comfortably handle the off season demand. Yes,there will be an increase in the number of cruise lines and ships coming  to Sydney  but building a terminal and the associated infrastructure is not a cheap exercise and I wonder if the  volume ofthe increased number of vessels would justify the investment ie. two terminals are not enough but three are too many.  From what I have heard ( from sources that should  know) it will happen but it will be interesting.

Graham who owns and operates Botany container terminal ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NSWP

NSWP

Posted
Posted (edited)

I lived in the Matraville area (2 km from Port Botany) in the mid-late 1960's when the Port Botany Container Terminal was thought of and being planned. There was huge opposition from adjoining councils and residents, but industry won, when you see what is there now.  Just chuck in a cruise ship terminal and all will be complete.

Edited by NSWP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • ANNOUNCEMENT: Set Sail Beyond the Ordinary with Oceania Cruises
      • ANNOUNCEMENT: The Widest View in the Whole Wide World
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Cruise Critic News & Features
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...