Amsterdam going away as a port?

[laurieb]

Amsterdam bans cruise ships to limit visitors (msn.com)

We may have a change in plans for the end of our cruise next year 😞

[nordski]

4 minutes ago, laurieb said:

Amsterdam bans cruise ships to limit visitors (msn.com)

We may have a change in plans for the end of our cruise next year 😞

Thanks for posting this. 
 

Doesn’t mention discriminating based upon a ship’s size, as is the case in Venice, so this may apply to river cruise ships as well.

[laurieb]

20 minutes ago, nordski said:

Thanks for posting this. 
 

Doesn’t mention discriminating based upon a ship’s size, as is the case in Venice, so this may apply to river cruise ships as well.

Yes, it could end up being all sizes.  certainly won't do good things for the economy there!

[Host Jazzbeau]

Remember the old image of US politicians deciding things in a 'smoke-filled room'?  I picture the Amsterdam city council voting on this in a pot-smoke-filled room...

 

But luckily I have been to Amsterdam twice, and I won't miss it.  Goes on the list with Venice.  So many other nice places that want me to come...

[nordski]

9 minutes ago, laurieb said:

Yes, it could end up being all sizes.  certainly won't do good things for the economy there!

The news story seemed to link the “sustainability” problem of cruise ships with the arrival of British lads on a bachelor party binge.(Wasn’t there an episode of Ted Lasso that alluded to this?)

 

Given my age and energy level, however misguided the comparison I might take it as a compliment. 😀

[ChicagoGasman]

None of the stories I read mentions when this goes into place.  Is this going to impact the Aug 17th sailing of Journey for the Scottish itinerary?  It’s less than a month away.

[laurieb]

8 minutes ago, ChicagoGasman said:

None of the stories I read mentions when this goes into place.  Is this going to impact the Aug 17th sailing of Journey for the Scottish itinerary?  It’s less than a month away.

I would be very surprised if you would be impacted.  But, who knows...  I sure hope you're ok.  We are supposed to disembark ther in June 2024.  We may be going somewhere else

[Host Jazzbeau]

26 minutes ago, laurieb said:

I would be very surprised if you would be impacted.  But, who knows...  I sure hope you're ok.  We are supposed to disembark ther in June 2024.  We may be going somewhere else

Probably Rotterdam.

[laurieb]

1 minute ago, Host Jazzbeau said:

Probably Rotterdam.

yes, that would be a good alternative

[alcpa1]

Thanks for the notice. I will follow it closely as we are scheduled to overnight there next August on the Onward.

[Riocca]

There is another cruise port at IJmuiden about an hours drive from Amsterdam, a number of cruise lines including P&O, Cunard and MSC moved from downtown Amsterdam a few years ago because of the implementation of a tourist tax. 
I’m with Host Jazzbeau if places like Venice & Amsterdam don’t want us as cruise passengers then we will focus on those that do. We are lucky that we can easily fly to either from our local airport, but probably won’t as having often been to both there’s little to attract us back.

There does seem to be more and more noise about banning cruise ships on environmental grounds so interesting itineraries may become more limited, possibly the future is mega resort ships that go nowhere. At that point we won’t be cruising anymore.

[cruiseaholic78]

Copied from the British Isles/Europe forum, it seems the article has caused some (un)necessary panic among future cruisers.

‘A few corrections/nuances from a local because the Guardian article is missing some details which seems to have lead to misinterpretations of what was actually decided; the city council has not voted to shut down the cruise terminal and it doesn’t take effect immediately. 

For some time now there is a debate going on in Amsterdam about how to control the huge number of tourists that visit the city each year. On top of that there is increasing awareness about the huge air pollution caused by ocean cruise ships. As you may know, their engines still need to run, at a lower level, to generate the electricity needed to power all systems on board. For years, there has been talk in Amsterdam about moving the cruise terminal to a place outside the city. In 2016 for instance, the city already decided to move the cruise terminal to somewhere more near the harbor, but concrete action was never taken. 
The city did reduce the number of ocean cruise ships that are allowed to dock at the Amsterdam cruise terminal to a maximum of 190 ocean cruise ships per year. 
Yesterday, the city council has decided to speed up the process of moving the cruise terminal for sea cruises. In other words; it’s time we stop talking about it and start taking action. 
That’s it. So there is no immediate shut down of the cruise terminal in Amsterdam. And until the new cruise terminal is ready, which won’t be for many many years, ocean cruise ships can still come to Amsterdam and dock in the Cruise Terminal.’

Edited July 21, 2023 by cruiseaholic78

[Mackdogmolly]

As with Venice, I’m glad I got to visit when I could!

[laurieb]

4 hours ago, cruiseaholic78 said:

Copied from the British Isles/Europe forum, it seems the article has caused some (un)necessary panic among future cruisers.

‘A few corrections/nuances from a local because the Guardian article is missing some details which seems to have lead to misinterpretations of what was actually decided; the city council has not voted to shut down the cruise terminal and it doesn’t take effect immediately. 

For some time now there is a debate going on in Amsterdam about how to control the huge number of tourists that visit the city each year. On top of that there is increasing awareness about the huge air pollution caused by ocean cruise ships. As you may know, their engines still need to run, at a lower level, to generate the electricity needed to power all systems on board. For years, there has been talk in Amsterdam about moving the cruise terminal to a place outside the city. In 2016 for instance, the city already decided to move the cruise terminal to somewhere more near the harbor, but concrete action was never taken. 
The city did reduce the number of ocean cruise ships that are allowed to dock at the Amsterdam cruise terminal to a maximum of 190 ocean cruise ships per year. 
Yesterday, the city council has decided to speed up the process of moving the cruise terminal for sea cruises. In other words; it’s time we stop talking about it and start taking action. 
That’s it. So there is no immediate shut down of the cruise terminal in Amsterdam. And until the new cruise terminal is ready, which won’t be for many many years, ocean cruise ships can still come to Amsterdam and dock in the Cruise Terminal.’

Thank you for sharing this!  It makes so much more sense.

[ECCruise]

Living in the epicenter of horrible overtourism in the USA, I sympathize with Amsterdam's (and Barcelona's, and Venice's, and Dubrovnik's and.....) pain.

 

In the final analysis, excessive tourism almost always detracts far more from a city than it adds to it.  Amsterdam doesn't want to END tourism, it wants to get it's arms around it.  These changes, and others being considered, were triggered when tourism reached 18 million per year.  The final determinations and their effects may not be fully known and implemented (as @cruiseaholic78 said) until some time in the future.

[Host Jazzbeau]

9 hours ago, Riocca said:

There does seem to be more and more noise about banning cruise ships on environmental grounds so interesting itineraries may become more limited, possibly the future is mega resort ships that go nowhere. At that point we won’t be cruising anymore.

I'm surprised that the Amsterdam news didn't say anything about providing shore power.  Most new cruise ships (of every size) are including shore power in their design, and many ports have already implemented the service.  This allows the ships to turn off their engines completely while docked, thus solving the environmental issue raised by Amsterdam.

 

Another approach that Amsterdam could try (and I thought they had already started this) is to ban cruise ship port calls, which generate little local revenue, but continue to allow turnaround calls which help the local economy with provisioning and bunkering, hotel and restaurant business from pre- and post-cruise stays, etc.  That would mean few if any changes for river cruises, since Amsterdam is almost always a turnaround port on their itineraries.

[ECCruise]

6 minutes ago, Host Jazzbeau said:

Another approach that Amsterdam could try (and I thought they had already started this) is to ban cruise ship port calls, which generate little local revenue, but continue to allow turnaround calls which help the local economy with provisioning and bunkering, hotel and restaurant business from pre- and post-cruise stays, etc.  That would mean few if any changes for river cruises, since Amsterdam is almost always a turnaround port on their itineraries.

They kind of implemented that in 2019, when they began charging a per capita tax on cruise visitors on one day stays but exempting embarkation/disembarkation calls from the tax   It caused at least a couple of cruise lines to jettison Amsterdam and move their one day calls to Rotterdam, where there is no tax.

And yes, one day port calls add very little or nothing to a city's character or coffers, while turnaround calls add a good bit (save those who fly in day of and out day of).

[curmudgeon98]

18 minutes ago, Host Jazzbeau said:

I'm surprised that the Amsterdam news didn't say anything about providing shore power.  Most new cruise ships (of every size) are including shore power in their design, and many ports have already implemented the service.  This allows the ships to turn off their engines completely while docked, thus solving the environmental issue raised by Amsterdam.

 

When I did a news search on Amsterdam cruise port, I spotted a press release from about three months ago announcing the contract had been signed for adding shore power service to the cruise port...  I could certainly see the possibility that the council action is more of a statement of direction that was misinterpreted by the press 

[aliaschief]

Though environmental concerns were part of the reasoning the article I read emphasized the city government was more concerned about getting control of the staggering influx of tourist.

[ECCruise]

35 minutes ago, aliaschief said:

Though environmental concerns were part of the reasoning the article I read emphasized the city government was more concerned about getting control of the staggering influx of tourist.

That is precisely the focus.

 

Which is why they are working hard to discourage weekend bachelor and hen trips from the UK, rowdiness in the Red Light district, etc.

 

They, along with many other cities, are trying to get their arms around the rampant overtourism that is ruining their cities.  At some point, the often negligent net value of the tourism is far outweighed by the local's desire to live something even remotely resembling a normal life. 

[nordski]

On 7/21/2023 at 3:01 AM, Riocca said:

There does seem to be more and more noise about banning cruise ships on environmental grounds so interesting itineraries may become more limited, possibly the future is mega resort ships that go nowhere. At that point we won’t be cruising anymore.

An urbanologist I know has just made that point. Although he lives in Toronto, he is presently in Malta where his father lives. In the midst of +40C temperatures and the tourism season, he speculates that eventually cruise ships may be severely limited in available ports and essentially become floating resorts.

 

Like you, we won’t be “cruising” any more.

 

 

 

Edited July 23, 2023 by nordski

[njguy_south]

All of the complaints some places (not on our board but in the cities) are making about tourism is simply amazing. I live at the Jersey Shore (Cape May County). We love -- LOVE -- our peninsula and the beaches in the off season, when the entire county has about 95,000 residents. In the summer months, this swells to over 800,000, people. You cannot drive or get anywhere as a local, especially from Thurs through Monday.  However -- and it is a BIG HOWEVER -- that tourism is our economy. It affords us what we have on the off season.  These large cities (like Amsterdam, Barcelona, and Venice, to name 3 big complainers) will not be able to support their tourism industry with locals and limited tourists. 

 

I have been in Rome so many times during the week after Easter; few tourists there then; I never once saw a line for St. Peter's or the Colosseum. I once went in August and OH MY, the line at the Colosseum was 3 hours long!!  I had never seen that in the 10+ off seasons I had been there before (and often spending about a week).

 

Without the tourist, Amsterdam will NOT be able to support their museums or other tourist sites, which the locals probably hardly visit.  The locals built the Red Light District and allowed abundant use of pot smoking, and now BooHoo, they don't like it when others want to enjoy it.  Close your doors to tourists, and go the way of Venice, which is losing its local population as each year passes.

 

Without the tourist dollar, places -- even like my Cape May County -- would become a wasteland.

Edited July 23, 2023 by njguy_south

[nordski]

19 minutes ago, njguy_south said:

All of the complaints some places (not on our board but in the cities) are making about tourism is simply amazing. I live at the Jersey Shore (Cape May County). We love -- LOVE -- our peninsula and the beaches in the off season, when the entire county has about 95,000 residents. In the summer months, this swells to over 800,000, people. You cannot drive or get anywhere as a local, especially from Thurs through Monday.  However -- and it is a BIG HOWEVER -- that tourism is our economy. It affords us what we have on the off season.  These large cities (like Amsterdam, Barcelona, and Venice, to name 3 big complainers) will not be able to support their tourism industry with locals and limited tourists. 

 

I have been in Rome so many times during the week after Easter; few tourists there then; I never once saw a line for St. Peter's or the Colosseum. I once went in August and OH MY, the line at the Colosseum was 3 hours long!!  I had never seen that in the 10+ off seasons I had been there before (and often spending about a week).

 

Without the tourist, Amsterdam will NOT be able to support their museums or other tourist sites, which the locals probably hardly visit.  The locals built the Red Light District and allowed abundant use of pot smoking, and now BooHoo, they don't like it when others want to enjoy it.  Close your doors to tourists, and go the way of Venice, which is losing its local population as each year passes.

 

Without the tourist dollar, places -- even like my Cape May County -- would become a wasteland.

Tourism and its impact, both positive and negative, will certainly be a rising topic for discussion in the future.

In that debate, Venice is clearly by far the most dependent on tourism and Amsterdam, I would argue, the least.

 

I also expect the challenges for cruise lines like Azamara will be rather different than those facing the Royal Caribbean fleet.
 

The various cruise line responses will be fascinating.

 

[Mrs Miggins]

These places are not banning tourism in general but they do not want fleeting visitors from huge cruise ships who contribute very little to the local economy, possibly buying a coffee before returning to the ship for dinner.  Venice will continue to have visitors who spend money in the hotels, restaurants and high end shops.  Also of course there are the environmental concerns, particularly in Venice.  Anyone trying to book museums in Amsterdam knows that there is a whole world of tourists out there ready to enjoy them.  Apparently there are 1291 flights per day at Schiphol Airport !

[ECCruise]

None of these places want to ban tourism, which is what some imply with "without the tourist" as if it is wall to wall or nothing.  None of these cities wants NO tourism.  What they want, as do cities worldwide including my poor inundated city (90,000 population and 13 million annual tourists) is to keep the amount of tourism reasonable.  Like most things, in the middle lies the truth. The places that want to restrict tourism (save Venice, perhaps) are real, living cities with real living inhabitants.  They do not exist solely for tourism as do most beach towns, ski towns, Kissimmee and like places.