Amsterdam going away as a port?

[njguy_south]

2 hours ago, ECCruise said:

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.

Well, Cape May County’s 800,000 swell is at any given day June through August, over 10 million over the summer. Yet we embrace the 6.6 billion they bring to oit county each year. If Amsterdam can do with the cash tourism brings … 

[Host Jazzbeau]

Update from Seatrade Cruise News:

Despite reports, business as usual at Cruise Port Amsterdam

[JaneStarr]

21 hours ago, Host Jazzbeau said:

Update from Seatrade Cruise News:

Despite reports, business as usual at Cruise Port Amsterdam

Sounds like the reports out of Venice from years before they finally banned cruise ships.

[njguy_south]

27 minutes ago, JaneStarr said:

Sounds like the reports out of Venice from years before they finally banned cruise ships.

True. But these reports weren't in the rumor mill. I read it on the BBC, which is supposed to be a vetted news outlet!

[Host Jazzbeau]

52 minutes ago, njguy_south said:

True. But these reports weren't in the rumor mill. I read it on the BBC, which is supposed to be a vetted news outlet!

The Venice reports were actually similar – the local authorities passing resolutions without teeth, until they suddenly pulled the plug.  But one big difference here is that the same local authorities are spending big bucks to add shore power to the same cruise port they want to close.  "Your tax dollars at work!"

[cruiseaholic78]

How many different threads are there going to be about this, I have already posted this a few times but will repeat once again.
 

it seems the article has caused some total (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.’

[Host Jazzbeau]

1 hour ago, cruiseaholic78 said:

How many different threads are there going to be about this

I think there should be one in every cruise line forum that calls on Amsterdam, because many Cruise Critic members don't read the port forum but do follow their favorite cruise line forum.