9 ms·

Amsterdam bans cruise ships

150 points by elorant 3y ago

hnboredhn 3y ago
>But Mayor Femke Halsema complained last year that cruise tourists were let loose for a couple of hours, ate at international chains and had no time to visit a museum, consuming the city but doing little for it. My guess is most of HN is relatively pro-market pro-business so this probably won't be controversial, but this seems like the type of thing that a government will regret in ten years. So many municipalities would kill for a large number of people to come in, pay locals and local taxes, and then leave without using any social services. I realize Amsterdam is very wealthy, but feel like we've seen countless times cities discouraging visitors and then surprised when tax revenues drop.
- chewz 3y ago
  Venice did the same, some time ago. No one wants these "tourists"...
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    I recall a big reason for that was because bigger ships like cruise liners damage and destroy the seabed which worsens Venice's flooding problems.
- cammikebrown 3y ago
  Ever been to Amsterdam? It is extremely busy. Getting rid of cruise ships will do little to affect that.
- DoubleFree 3y ago
  A government's primary purpose is to act on behalf of its constituents, and if these daytrippers are substantially detrimental to Amsterdam's livability, they should be discouraged from going there. Or, to put it in more financial terms, the cost of compensating for the negative effects of these tourists might be much higher than the tax revenue they bring in.
  - fasthands9 3y ago
    I think the counter is that in almost every town locals hate tourists, but an average citizen hasn't thought through the consequences of not having the tax base support them. As someone who currently lives in NYC it would be great for me if tourists stopped coming to the city and magically the level of restaurants, sanitation, and public transit didnt change at all.
    - elif 3y ago
      You can't compare Amsterdam tourists with "every town" tourists. Sorry that you have never visited but it is quite apparent if you have.
    - cguess 3y ago
      I live in NYC too, but imagine if all of Manhattan was midtown. That's basically Amsterdam these days. The suburbs are fine, but it's a nightmare in the city center. Imagine Times Square but like 6x the size.
    - Retric 3y ago
      Sure, but cruse ship tourists bring in vastly less money so it’s not a constant benefit from a given level of harm.
    - varjag 3y ago
      The Dutch are quite pragmatic and they had years to think about this.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - qwytw 3y ago
      Amsterdam's old town is tiny if you compare it to NYC, if you have limited capacity it's also rational to prioritize tourists who are likely to spend more per capita (I'm not sure if this will necessarily be the long-term outcome of the band though).
- Timon3 3y ago
  > So many municipalities would kill for a large number of people to come in, pay locals and local taxes, and then leave without using any social services. This is in opposition to your quote. Mayor Halsema said the tourists are at international chains, you're talking about paying locals. Money spent at these chains isn't contributing to the local economy as much as actually spending money at local shops is.
  - kasey_junk 3y ago
    Locals still work at international chains and they pay taxes though. It’s not as much as local businesses but it’s more than nothing, unless the mayors claim is that those international businesses are negative impacts on the economy, in which case why not ban them rather than the cruise ships? I’d guess the cruise ships are just an easy scapegoat because they are considered unfashionable.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      Or because they’re the only vector by which tourists interact with Amsterdam in a <24hr span? Thousand and thousands of people arriving, confused and not necessarily having been excited about Amsterdam in particular, and then leaving within 8 hours? Seems believable that cruise tourists are unlike any other type.
      - LouisSayers 3y ago
        I live in a town that has cruise ships come in (in New Zealand) and it seems they often have activities planned as they hop on tour buses, minivans etc and go off to do things for the day. I imagine the same would apply to ppl arriving in Amsterdam - being aware of activities to do in the city. They are unlike other tourists, but I wouldn't jump to assuming that's a bad thing.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      This kind of thinking gutted small towns across America. Main Street businesses folded and were boarded up, replaced by mcdonalds and shartmart. Economic death for the town.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  > I realize Amsterdam is very wealthy, but feel like we've seen countless times cities discouraging visitors and then surprised when tax revenues drop. Care to cite some examples? Because I certainly can't think of any. Sure, tourism can be a double edged sword, but all the cities I can think of that want to limit tourism (e.g. Venice, Barcelona, etc.) don't appear to have had any negative effects from their campaigns to limit tourism. If anything, these cities are trying to keep the "soul" of their cities intact, to keep their appeal that attracted so many tourists in the first place.
  - TillE 3y ago
    Yeah I can't think of a single case where any city deliberately and successfully discouraged tourism to a significant extent. It's possible to do by like, jacking up hotel taxes 100x, but nobody actually does that. Maybe some little town, I dunno.
    - AlotOfReading 3y ago
      Bhutan (the country) has done it by requiring tourists spend at least $250/day in the country and book through a tour operator. Post-covid they changed things to a flat $200/day tourism tax and eliminating all the other restrictions. They've mitigated a lot of the overtourism issues that have affected their neighbor countries.
      - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
        Wow, thanks for posting that. Your comment led me to read that Bhutan banned mountaineering in 2003 out of respect for local beliefs. I think that's pretty cool given how rare I think it is for local and national governments to take an approach that aligns with the will of most of their people as opposed to "do what makes the most money, consequences be damned".
- ribosometronome 3y ago
  >a large number of people to come in, pay locals and local taxes, and then leave without using any social services Sounds like you're describing Downtown SF. I imagine right now many in the city wish the area had been less reliant on people coming in from elsewhere.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Tourists - fortunately - don't get to vote in the municipality elections. Not that Halsema would care because we don't vote for mayors in NL. But she got this one right. I'd be even happier if they jacked up the landing taxes for Schiphol to 10x of what they are today.
  - intothemild 3y ago
    I still think the solution lies in either curbing Airbnb, or banning it. They tried before and failed, I hope they try again. Having visited Amsterdam over the last 14 years semi-regularly for work, one of the things that struck me is after AirBnB took off, things quickly got worse there.. Even in off-peak seasons it's just a nightmare downtown.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      Yes, it stopped being funny long ago. Lots of former rental properties have been converted to short stay hotels. And plenty of the owners are living abroad so Amsterdam is hollowed out from two directions at once like this (space wise and finance wise). There is no affordable space in the inner city anymore. Nothing. When I grew up tourism wasn't a thing, now it looks as though the whole city has essentially been given over to it with everything else secondary. Really happy to see Halsema make some sensible moves to curb this. But it's lots too late and probably way too little.
      - intothemild 3y ago
        I agree it's bad. However. Two of her initiatives I disagree with. Moving the red light district into a building isn't going to end well. Right now it's out in the open, it's easy to see and monitor... Putting it somewhere kind of out of sight isn't the way.. I do understand that the cops are stretched thin between lots of places. But there has to be a better way. Closing the weed shops is also not going to end well. Both these things, the sex tourism and the weed tourism have one thing in common. Tourism. Limit that. Also once your neighbouring countries legalize weed you'll find the tourism for that spreads out.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  Cruise ship tourism isn't necessarily type of tourism you want to encourage. Specially if you are already popular and well enough connected location for all strata. The tourist arriving with ships already have paid for their board and food. So they are less likely to spend money in the city. And then it is possibly they go on tours run by the ship thus most money not going to locals. In the end many cities in Europe especially don't need this type of tourism. They have enough organic self-grown much more profitable tourism already. Does not mean there isn't some places where local economy depends on it. And even then cruise companies are trying to capture also the gains there.
  - EA-3167 3y ago
    In addition cruises are often marketed to people looking to save money, so you have even less of a chance of them spending in a meaningful way, even beyond the rationale you've already laid out.
    - throw__away7391 3y ago
      ...while simultaneously driving out the type of visitor they do want to attract.
  - yreg 3y ago
    Why not just crank up the port fees for cruise ships enough to cover for this gap? Although perhaps it would be effectively the same as outright banning the ships.
    - cguess 3y ago
      Because the knock on effects aren't just in the tourists not spending money, but clogging the streets (go to central Amsterdam on a Saturday evening sometime, it's insane) causing trouble, and even if there's money that's not going to the cooks, servers, museum docents etc.
      - vidarh 3y ago
- woodruffw 3y ago
  Amsterdam doesn't seem to be discouraging ordinary tourists; this appears to be targeted exclusively at cruise ships. Over 5 million tourists visit Amsterdam a year[1]; only a small fraction of that probably come from cruise ships. If banning those ships improves local quality of life and the tourist experience for non-cruise tourists, then it's probably a net win in terms of tax revenues (besides everything else). [1]: https://amsterdam.org/en/facts-and-figures.php https://amsterdam.org/en/facts-and-figures.php
  - johnyzee 3y ago
    Kind of... https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/29/world/europe/amsterdam-uk-tourists-stay-away.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/29/world/europe/amsterdam-uk...
  - mcv 3y ago
    Not just cruise ships, though. British stag nights were also notorious for the excessive nuisance they created. Amsterdam is getting pickier about its tourists, and also about its tourism industry. A lot of shops that were aimed just at tourists have also been closed, or are at least harder to open. They want shops that (also) serve the locals. People were complaining that the city had turned into a theme park, and that's not fun for the people living there, but ultimately also less attractive to many tourists, who prefer a vibrant, living city, and want to taste the local atmosphere.
- narag 3y ago
  So many municipalities would kill for a large number of people to come in, pay locals and local taxes, and then leave without using any social services. A cruise ship can be a giant loophole that leaves all externalities to others. Even AirBNB model leaves more money to locals.
- MattGaiser 3y ago
  Amsterdam is already crowded with visitors. You want to discourage lower value visitors after a certain point. Cruise passengers would spend far less than land visitors in Amsterdam.
- humanistbot 3y ago
  > This seems like the type of thing that a government will regret in ten years Then in ten years, they can reassess and easily re-open the dock. I don't think you're right, but there isn't really a big risk here even if you are right. Even if the dock gets repurposed to something else, if this somehow devastates the city's economy, it is easy to reverse. People will still want to come to Amsterdam, even more so if they weren't able to stop there on a cruise. The only thing that can really stop tourists from coming to Amsterdam is if its reputation somehow falls below its historical postcard allure and libertine reputation. The main threat to that is the city becoming so packed with rowdy tourists, although even still the hotels and hostels will all be full, just not able to charge $100/night for a hostel bed or $300/night for a tiny bedroom like they can now. But if you're right and the city reverses course, I am sure that the cruise ships will be fighting each other for a spot.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- renewiltord 3y ago
  Ultimately, it's hard to tell. SF spent many years decrying tech, tourists, and folks coming in to work across the bridges. Now that's mostly all gone and the city is shite but few in the city associate the two, expecting similar services with vastly less revenue.
- elif 3y ago
  The tourists in Amsterdam are so bad it suppresses residents and businesses in a similar though obviously not identical way to the street residents of San Francisco.
- melenaboija 3y ago
  Nobody wants this type of tourism, pollution and massive groups of people wandering around with little economic impact. Barcelona is trying to limit them also [1] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/09/a-plague-of-locusts-barcelona-battles-port-authorities-to-curb-cruise-tourists https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/09/a-plague-of-lo...
- ZhadruOmjar 3y ago
  There will still be plenty of Contikis dropping off tourists to go do the same thing without the environmental impact of cruise ships
- mcv 3y ago
  There is an active effort to spread the tourism to other municipalities. Amsterdam is a world famous brand that attracts lots of tourists, so the Dutch tourist industry has been branding other parts of the country with it too. For example, Zandvoort (which is not Amsterdam, and separated from it by another city, Haarlem) gets branded Amsterdam Beach. The most egregious example I've seen was the Frisian lakes, which is great for sailing and other activities on and around water, got called the Amsterdam Lake District, despite being in a completely different province and on the opposite side of the IJsselmeer. But if that helps tourists to visit some other parts of the country instead of just drinking themselves senseless in Amsterdam, I guess that's good. Though the branding really rubs me the wrong way.
bmsleight_ 3y ago
As one of these tourists, who arrived back today form a European cruise, am I struggling to understand the issue (too close to my heart?). We do need more regulation to force ship to use better fuel and more on-shore energy. More like France to ban short air trips. By the way - I visit a museum at many places. Not sure what is meant by consuming the city. If you arrive by boat, you must use public transport (or good old feet) to get around. I understand that it is a a surge in demand, but I am putting money in to the local economy. I do not use international chain (except Ikea in Sweden - meat balls). Local worker in local shops. Rotterdam is a nicer city to visit by cruise ship that Amsterdam. Apart from the Van Gogh museum.
- seszett 3y ago
  > If you arrive by boat, you must use public transport (or good old feet) to get around. I understand that it is a a surge in demand, but I am putting money in to the local economy. Public transport is usually run at a loss, and at least partly funded with local taxes. Same for public museums, although I don't know about the Netherlands. I think the amount of pollution per passenger is really disproportionately high for cruise ships, and I'm afraid nothing can be really done about it. It's just a less efficient means of transportation. Now, living in Antwerp the pollution caused by container ships is at a whole other level though.
  - everybodyknows 3y ago
    > Now, living in Antwerp the pollution caused by container ships is at a whole other level though. Meaning diesel exhaust? So, nitrous oxide? I assume they're not allowed to burn heavy fuel oil in port.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - belorn 3y ago
    > It's just a less efficient means of transportation. Boats could be a very efficient way of travel. Luxury cruise ships are inefficient because they general carries things like swimming pools, golf courses, major shopping malls and restaurants. The proportion of space and weight that is used for transportation is tiny compared to something like a train, buss or aircraft (or even a car). Ferries in contrast has very low carbon footprint of travel per kilometer, as can be read in this graph: (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-footprint-travel-mode https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-footprint-travel-m...). Since container ships has a very high ratio of transported goods vs total weight of the ship, and those tend to have one of the lowest carbon footprint per ton/mile. It is one of many reason why things like ore is generally always preferred to be shipped by water.
bedobi 3y ago
This is a good idea and an important first mover (at least when it comes to European capitals) which will legitimize doing the same in other places around the world.
pengaru 3y ago
Whenever I go sailing with friends on SF bay, if we go anywhere near a cruise ship my sea sickness goes into overdrive from how disgusting the exhaust odor is. Vile machines, I wish more places would ban them.
- randyrand 3y ago
  Same with the shipping container ships in the bay area for me. The pollution they put out irritates my lungs and all for what, consumerism and global trade?
- cguess 3y ago
  As a fellow sailor who's only dealt with ferries, what's the wake like coming off those cruise ships? I can't imagine it's just the fumes causing sea sickness when one of those monstrosities steam past your 26' or whatever.
  - pengaru 3y ago
    Actually I've only been anywhere near them when they're docked, presumably taking on passengers. They're not supposed to run on the bunker oil near shore, but the stink from them just idling there is always exceptionally bad. Incidentally, we also learned one time that if you get too close (on the order of hundreds of yards) to a docked cruise ship the USCG will appear with a large deck-mounted machine gun trained on your bow while ordering you to change course. So not only are the cruise ships making the air disgusting for everyone nearby, our tax dollars are spent guarding them from terrorist attacks while doing so too. I'm sure container ships are disgusting too.. but they don't generally sit docked idling for ages where people are doing recreation.
- soderfoo 3y ago
  How do you cope with sea sickness while sailing? I've been wanting to take sailing lessons but I'm worried my queasiness will rear it's ugly head.
  - pengaru 3y ago
isaacremuant 3y ago
Wake me up when they ban private jets from celebrities and wealthy people instead of these stunts. And I say it as someone with no interest in cruises. Also, it's fun that Amsterdam pretends it does not like certain type of tourist unless they spend money in museums but it clearly caters to the "sex and drugs go crazy in AMS" tourist. Much to the point that it's shocking to other tourists who are simply visiting it as one more city.
- dundarious 3y ago
  It's not quite so simple on the question of the "sex and drugs go crazy" tourist: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/29/world/europe/amsterdam-uk-tourists-stay-away.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/29/world/europe/amsterdam-uk... I haven't lived there in over a decade, but even then, they were at least talking about programs to deal with the "worst" tourists for a few demographics. And all the while, they were putting in lots of money to make things nicer for the kind of tourists they like. While I was there, it seemed like a popular and economically successful set of policies. I'm guessing they still are.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  “People should be able to buy drugs and participate in a sex economy” does not mean that they are catering to those tourists. They’ve been trying to figure out how to retain drug/sexual freedom while limiting tourism for that purpose for as long as I can remember at least. That’s a totally coherent position to hold, even if it’s difficult to encode into policy.
- Mordisquitos 3y ago
  > Wake me up when they ban private jets from celebrities and wealthy people instead of these stunts. I'm pretty sure that a city banning private jets would be orders of magnitude less impactful and more media-stuntworty than banning cruise ships.
- sabas123 3y ago
  >Also, it's fun that Amsterdam pretends it does not like certain type of tourist unless they spend money in museums but it clearly caters to the "sex and drugs go crazy in AMS" tourist. This posts triggers the hell out of me. Amsterdam has been trying it's hardest for _at least_ 5 years and probably a lot longer to get rid of these types of tourists. With english bachelor party goer's in particular.
MattGaiser 3y ago
I imagine cruise ship visitors are overwhelmingly relatively low spend visitors (cruises tend to be the cheap way to travel) supporting low margin activities like restaurants.
maximinus_thrax 3y ago
I would love for Seattle to ban cruise ships as well, if only for the absolute madness their passangers create at the Seatac airport. I would personally kill the cruise industry altogether, everywhere.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  The smell they emit when running their generators in port is also horrible. I don’t see much good cruise ships bring Seattle, it was better back in the 90s before this was much of a thing. I’m not even sure what they do beyond hitting pike place and a bit of the water front.
  - everybodyknows 3y ago
    The market-based solution for that of course would be to engineer municipal power to the docks along with estimated costs for the project. Set a required minimum risk-weighted profit to the city of 2x or so. Then solicit bids for binding long-term contracts from cruise companies, with the stipulation that their generators stay off while in port. If no bids meet the minimum, shelve the whole thing. Otherwise, proceed and enjoy the boost to the city treasury. Of course in the real world this would be a political process and highly vulnerable to corruption by private interests.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      Ya, they talk about doing that because of the smell, but no one wants to pay for it.
somewhereoutth 3y ago
Tourism is the modern day resource curse. It provides mostly only low skilled jobs (just like mining) and the financial benefits largely accrue to wealth holders (just like mining). Proper management is crucial to make sure it does not destabilize local economies. Banning cruise ships is a good start.
- seydor 3y ago
  I m certain that in 10 years we ll be looking at tourism as a bad habit like smoking. It's given a free pass for now because many developed countries have large tourism sectors but it remains an unsustainable source of pollution
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    It is at that point I'll take those people seriously on climate change.
  - 28304283409234 3y ago
    I do not understand why you are voted down. Well known dutch author has a novel with this as one of the main themes: https://www.amazon.com/Grand-Hotel-Europa-Leonard-Pfeijffer/dp/0374165904 https://www.amazon.com/Grand-Hotel-Europa-Leonard-Pfeijffer/... I know a number of people that had their view on tourism change after reading this. Myself included.
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  The places that manage to organize tourism flows benefit quite a lot. But yeah, cruise ships aren't a great public.
- defrost 3y ago
  > It provides mostly only low skilled jobs (just like mining) Someone's severely out of touch. No jobs in semi autonomous robotics for you then. https://www.riotinto.com/en/about/innovation/automation https://www.riotinto.com/en/about/innovation/automation and that's barely scratching the surface of the range of high tech job oppoprtunities in the mineral exploration and extraction sector. Quick, just whip me up a low tech magnetotelluric imaging station, integrate that data with EM, seismic, radiometrics, bore hole samples and knock out an optimal pit design with workable angles, power sources and estimates for plant and machine construction and deployment costs. It's no wonder the US barely operates at scale with attitudes such as that.
seydor 3y ago
that's an economic no brainer for big tourist destinations. cruise ship visitors are cheap, they dont spend and just litter and clog the city for a few hours. may be useful for small or up-and-coming destinations
cguess 3y ago
The late David Foster Wallace wrote an amazing ode to going on a single cruise and vowing never to do so again https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Shipping+out%3a+on+the+(nearly+lethal)+comforts+of+a+luxury+cruise.-a017943610 https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Shipping+out%3a+on+the+(nearl...
- phreack 3y ago
  I did not know this author before, and read about a quarter of the piece before realizing both that it was way longer than I expected, and that I was hooked on every word. > Captain Nico explains that the Nadir subscribes to something called GPS: "This Global Positioning System is using the satellites above to know the position at all times, which gives this data to the computer." It emerges that when we're not negotiating ports and piers, a kind of computerized Autocaptain pilots the ship. This line in particular made me chuckle.
xyst 3y ago
In my opinion, western countries (namely the USA) should model itself after Amsterdam and the Dutch in general. They figured out (or at least improved on) transportation of people. City design is amazing and they have a multitude of options to move around (bike, train, walkable, or micro transportation). Their cities are much more cleaner, enjoyable, not as noisy, and everyone in general seems much more happier. Contrast this to hellholes like most of the USA where it is an absolute necessity to own a car. Minimal alternatives. High dependency on highway / street infrastructure that requires significant resources to build AND maintain.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- 0xDEF 3y ago
  There is definitely a lot of things the US can learn from countries like the Netherlands and Denmark (my country). However please don't emulate our habit of flying to exotic destinations during our summer vacation. That would probably be the final nail in the coffin for the global climate.
  - the_only_law 3y ago
    > There is definitely a lot of things the US can learn from countries like the Netherlands and Denmark But they won’t. It’s culturally incompatible.
  - mdhen 3y ago
    They won't. Flying to Thailand requires too much vacation time to make it worthwhile. And most Americans don't have much vacation.
- 1letterunixname 3y ago
  Where to Invade Next? (2015)
- rkagerer 3y ago
  and everyone in general seems much more happier Apropos of nothing, they also have weed in coffee shops and a regulated industry of 'negotiable affection'.
AlbertCory 3y ago
I have a much different take than most of this thread: cruise ships let people pretend to "travel" without actually traveling. You don't have to find a hotel (not that that's ever been hard, and now with the Internet it's trivial), and you don't have to research what there is to do and arrange it (ditto). They're for people too lazy to travel. The absolute last thing I want is to be regimented into groups with 2,000 other people. And, by the way, catch their diseases, which is something that happened to cruise passengers even before the pandemic. I found, when I went to Alaska, absolutely everyone asked, "Oh, did you go on a cruise?" No, I flew and rented a car. You should try it.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  Have you been on one? I haven't but I've been to liberty ports while in the USMC and it was fantastic. I kept thinking how much more fun things would be if I were a civilian!
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    I did a Windjammer Cruise in the 80's. Only 150 or so on board.
- brightball 3y ago
  Funny you mention that. My family has never been on a cruise before but we have an upcoming Alaska cruise next month. Interested to see what the hype is about. Some friends of our love cruises and don’t particularly care about “travel” they just enjoy the cruise experience.
  - saulpw 3y ago
    It's good for intergenerational vacations. 7 y/o and 70 y/o can both enjoy various aspects of the giant boat and wandering around some tourist town and everyone has their own space to return to.
- fasthands9 3y ago
  I've only taken one cruise in my life but this seems like a weird requirement. Someone from 100 years ago may call you booking a hotel not real travel because it doesnt require you befriend a local or get a local guide. Cruise people would say you still have to book the cruise, which is only marginally easier than booking a hotel + flight.
j-a-a-p 3y ago
I think you should have done one cruise (at least) in your live to earn the right to have an opinion. I did, and would like to vote to ban all cruise ships. It is a totally unnecessary form of travel. It is not travel. I don't know what to call it, for what I have seen for most people it is a time of continuous eating. It is surreal.
- xiphias2 3y ago
  I haven't done it, but as a returning tourist to Santorini, I have seen how it destroyed the romantic feeling it always gave me. Every 2 hours a dirty cruise ship comes there, hundreds of people rushing through the stairs to take their photos then going back on the same (narrow) passage where everybody usually travels. They don't have time for trying out the amazing restaurants, walks and hotels it provides.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  I consider it as travel like going to holiday resort is... But as well it could be that you go to harbour pick up tourist. And then go x miles out to sea drop anchor and spend week there and come back.

150 points by elorant 3y ago

>But Mayor Femke Halsema complained last year that cruise tourists were let loose for a couple of hours, ate at international chains and had no time to visit a museum, consuming the city but doing little for it. My guess is most of HN is relatively pro-market pro-business so this probably won't be controversial, but this seems like the type of thing that a government will regret in ten years. So many municipalities would kill for a large number of people to come in, pay locals and local taxes, and then leave without using any social services. I realize Amsterdam is very wealthy, but feel like we've seen countless times cities discouraging visitors and then surprised when tax revenues drop.

chewz 3y ago
Venice did the same, some time ago. No one wants these "tourists"...
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  I recall a big reason for that was because bigger ships like cruise liners damage and destroy the seabed which worsens Venice's flooding problems.
cammikebrown 3y ago
Ever been to Amsterdam? It is extremely busy. Getting rid of cruise ships will do little to affect that.
DoubleFree 3y ago
A government's primary purpose is to act on behalf of its constituents, and if these daytrippers are substantially detrimental to Amsterdam's livability, they should be discouraged from going there. Or, to put it in more financial terms, the cost of compensating for the negative effects of these tourists might be much higher than the tax revenue they bring in.
- fasthands9 3y ago
  I think the counter is that in almost every town locals hate tourists, but an average citizen hasn't thought through the consequences of not having the tax base support them. As someone who currently lives in NYC it would be great for me if tourists stopped coming to the city and magically the level of restaurants, sanitation, and public transit didnt change at all.
  - elif 3y ago
    You can't compare Amsterdam tourists with "every town" tourists. Sorry that you have never visited but it is quite apparent if you have.
  - cguess 3y ago
    I live in NYC too, but imagine if all of Manhattan was midtown. That's basically Amsterdam these days. The suburbs are fine, but it's a nightmare in the city center. Imagine Times Square but like 6x the size.
  - Retric 3y ago
    Sure, but cruse ship tourists bring in vastly less money so it’s not a constant benefit from a given level of harm.
  - varjag 3y ago
    The Dutch are quite pragmatic and they had years to think about this.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - qwytw 3y ago
    Amsterdam's old town is tiny if you compare it to NYC, if you have limited capacity it's also rational to prioritize tourists who are likely to spend more per capita (I'm not sure if this will necessarily be the long-term outcome of the band though).
Timon3 3y ago
> So many municipalities would kill for a large number of people to come in, pay locals and local taxes, and then leave without using any social services. This is in opposition to your quote. Mayor Halsema said the tourists are at international chains, you're talking about paying locals. Money spent at these chains isn't contributing to the local economy as much as actually spending money at local shops is.
- kasey_junk 3y ago
  Locals still work at international chains and they pay taxes though. It’s not as much as local businesses but it’s more than nothing, unless the mayors claim is that those international businesses are negative impacts on the economy, in which case why not ban them rather than the cruise ships? I’d guess the cruise ships are just an easy scapegoat because they are considered unfashionable.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    Or because they’re the only vector by which tourists interact with Amsterdam in a <24hr span? Thousand and thousands of people arriving, confused and not necessarily having been excited about Amsterdam in particular, and then leaving within 8 hours? Seems believable that cruise tourists are unlike any other type.
    - LouisSayers 3y ago
      I live in a town that has cruise ships come in (in New Zealand) and it seems they often have activities planned as they hop on tour buses, minivans etc and go off to do things for the day. I imagine the same would apply to ppl arriving in Amsterdam - being aware of activities to do in the city. They are unlike other tourists, but I wouldn't jump to assuming that's a bad thing.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    This kind of thinking gutted small towns across America. Main Street businesses folded and were boarded up, replaced by mcdonalds and shartmart. Economic death for the town.
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
> I realize Amsterdam is very wealthy, but feel like we've seen countless times cities discouraging visitors and then surprised when tax revenues drop. Care to cite some examples? Because I certainly can't think of any. Sure, tourism can be a double edged sword, but all the cities I can think of that want to limit tourism (e.g. Venice, Barcelona, etc.) don't appear to have had any negative effects from their campaigns to limit tourism. If anything, these cities are trying to keep the "soul" of their cities intact, to keep their appeal that attracted so many tourists in the first place.
- TillE 3y ago
  Yeah I can't think of a single case where any city deliberately and successfully discouraged tourism to a significant extent. It's possible to do by like, jacking up hotel taxes 100x, but nobody actually does that. Maybe some little town, I dunno.
  - AlotOfReading 3y ago
    Bhutan (the country) has done it by requiring tourists spend at least $250/day in the country and book through a tour operator. Post-covid they changed things to a flat $200/day tourism tax and eliminating all the other restrictions. They've mitigated a lot of the overtourism issues that have affected their neighbor countries.
    - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
      Wow, thanks for posting that. Your comment led me to read that Bhutan banned mountaineering in 2003 out of respect for local beliefs. I think that's pretty cool given how rare I think it is for local and national governments to take an approach that aligns with the will of most of their people as opposed to "do what makes the most money, consequences be damned".
ribosometronome 3y ago
>a large number of people to come in, pay locals and local taxes, and then leave without using any social services Sounds like you're describing Downtown SF. I imagine right now many in the city wish the area had been less reliant on people coming in from elsewhere.
jacquesm 3y ago
Tourists - fortunately - don't get to vote in the municipality elections. Not that Halsema would care because we don't vote for mayors in NL. But she got this one right. I'd be even happier if they jacked up the landing taxes for Schiphol to 10x of what they are today.
- intothemild 3y ago
  I still think the solution lies in either curbing Airbnb, or banning it. They tried before and failed, I hope they try again. Having visited Amsterdam over the last 14 years semi-regularly for work, one of the things that struck me is after AirBnB took off, things quickly got worse there.. Even in off-peak seasons it's just a nightmare downtown.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Yes, it stopped being funny long ago. Lots of former rental properties have been converted to short stay hotels. And plenty of the owners are living abroad so Amsterdam is hollowed out from two directions at once like this (space wise and finance wise). There is no affordable space in the inner city anymore. Nothing. When I grew up tourism wasn't a thing, now it looks as though the whole city has essentially been given over to it with everything else secondary. Really happy to see Halsema make some sensible moves to curb this. But it's lots too late and probably way too little.
    - intothemild 3y ago
      I agree it's bad. However. Two of her initiatives I disagree with. Moving the red light district into a building isn't going to end well. Right now it's out in the open, it's easy to see and monitor... Putting it somewhere kind of out of sight isn't the way.. I do understand that the cops are stretched thin between lots of places. But there has to be a better way. Closing the weed shops is also not going to end well. Both these things, the sex tourism and the weed tourism have one thing in common. Tourism. Limit that. Also once your neighbouring countries legalize weed you'll find the tourism for that spreads out.
Ekaros 3y ago
Cruise ship tourism isn't necessarily type of tourism you want to encourage. Specially if you are already popular and well enough connected location for all strata. The tourist arriving with ships already have paid for their board and food. So they are less likely to spend money in the city. And then it is possibly they go on tours run by the ship thus most money not going to locals. In the end many cities in Europe especially don't need this type of tourism. They have enough organic self-grown much more profitable tourism already. Does not mean there isn't some places where local economy depends on it. And even then cruise companies are trying to capture also the gains there.
- EA-3167 3y ago
  In addition cruises are often marketed to people looking to save money, so you have even less of a chance of them spending in a meaningful way, even beyond the rationale you've already laid out.
  - throw__away7391 3y ago
    ...while simultaneously driving out the type of visitor they do want to attract.
- yreg 3y ago
  Why not just crank up the port fees for cruise ships enough to cover for this gap? Although perhaps it would be effectively the same as outright banning the ships.
  - cguess 3y ago
    Because the knock on effects aren't just in the tourists not spending money, but clogging the streets (go to central Amsterdam on a Saturday evening sometime, it's insane) causing trouble, and even if there's money that's not going to the cooks, servers, museum docents etc.
    - vidarh 3y ago
woodruffw 3y ago
Amsterdam doesn't seem to be discouraging ordinary tourists; this appears to be targeted exclusively at cruise ships. Over 5 million tourists visit Amsterdam a year[1]; only a small fraction of that probably come from cruise ships. If banning those ships improves local quality of life and the tourist experience for non-cruise tourists, then it's probably a net win in terms of tax revenues (besides everything else). [1]: https://amsterdam.org/en/facts-and-figures.php https://amsterdam.org/en/facts-and-figures.php
- johnyzee 3y ago
  Kind of... https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/29/world/europe/amsterdam-uk-tourists-stay-away.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/29/world/europe/amsterdam-uk...
- mcv 3y ago
  Not just cruise ships, though. British stag nights were also notorious for the excessive nuisance they created. Amsterdam is getting pickier about its tourists, and also about its tourism industry. A lot of shops that were aimed just at tourists have also been closed, or are at least harder to open. They want shops that (also) serve the locals. People were complaining that the city had turned into a theme park, and that's not fun for the people living there, but ultimately also less attractive to many tourists, who prefer a vibrant, living city, and want to taste the local atmosphere.
narag 3y ago
So many municipalities would kill for a large number of people to come in, pay locals and local taxes, and then leave without using any social services. A cruise ship can be a giant loophole that leaves all externalities to others. Even AirBNB model leaves more money to locals.
MattGaiser 3y ago
Amsterdam is already crowded with visitors. You want to discourage lower value visitors after a certain point. Cruise passengers would spend far less than land visitors in Amsterdam.
humanistbot 3y ago
> This seems like the type of thing that a government will regret in ten years Then in ten years, they can reassess and easily re-open the dock. I don't think you're right, but there isn't really a big risk here even if you are right. Even if the dock gets repurposed to something else, if this somehow devastates the city's economy, it is easy to reverse. People will still want to come to Amsterdam, even more so if they weren't able to stop there on a cruise. The only thing that can really stop tourists from coming to Amsterdam is if its reputation somehow falls below its historical postcard allure and libertine reputation. The main threat to that is the city becoming so packed with rowdy tourists, although even still the hotels and hostels will all be full, just not able to charge $100/night for a hostel bed or $300/night for a tiny bedroom like they can now. But if you're right and the city reverses course, I am sure that the cruise ships will be fighting each other for a spot.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
renewiltord 3y ago
Ultimately, it's hard to tell. SF spent many years decrying tech, tourists, and folks coming in to work across the bridges. Now that's mostly all gone and the city is shite but few in the city associate the two, expecting similar services with vastly less revenue.
elif 3y ago
The tourists in Amsterdam are so bad it suppresses residents and businesses in a similar though obviously not identical way to the street residents of San Francisco.
melenaboija 3y ago
Nobody wants this type of tourism, pollution and massive groups of people wandering around with little economic impact. Barcelona is trying to limit them also [1] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/09/a-plague-of-locusts-barcelona-battles-port-authorities-to-curb-cruise-tourists https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/09/a-plague-of-lo...
ZhadruOmjar 3y ago
There will still be plenty of Contikis dropping off tourists to go do the same thing without the environmental impact of cruise ships
mcv 3y ago
There is an active effort to spread the tourism to other municipalities. Amsterdam is a world famous brand that attracts lots of tourists, so the Dutch tourist industry has been branding other parts of the country with it too. For example, Zandvoort (which is not Amsterdam, and separated from it by another city, Haarlem) gets branded Amsterdam Beach. The most egregious example I've seen was the Frisian lakes, which is great for sailing and other activities on and around water, got called the Amsterdam Lake District, despite being in a completely different province and on the opposite side of the IJsselmeer. But if that helps tourists to visit some other parts of the country instead of just drinking themselves senseless in Amsterdam, I guess that's good. Though the branding really rubs me the wrong way.

bmsleight_ 3y ago

As one of these tourists, who arrived back today form a European cruise, am I struggling to understand the issue (too close to my heart?). We do need more regulation to force ship to use better fuel and more on-shore energy. More like France to ban short air trips. By the way - I visit a museum at many places. Not sure what is meant by consuming the city. If you arrive by boat, you must use public transport (or good old feet) to get around. I understand that it is a a surge in demand, but I am putting money in to the local economy. I do not use international chain (except Ikea in Sweden - meat balls). Local worker in local shops. Rotterdam is a nicer city to visit by cruise ship that Amsterdam. Apart from the Van Gogh museum.

seszett 3y ago
> If you arrive by boat, you must use public transport (or good old feet) to get around. I understand that it is a a surge in demand, but I am putting money in to the local economy. Public transport is usually run at a loss, and at least partly funded with local taxes. Same for public museums, although I don't know about the Netherlands. I think the amount of pollution per passenger is really disproportionately high for cruise ships, and I'm afraid nothing can be really done about it. It's just a less efficient means of transportation. Now, living in Antwerp the pollution caused by container ships is at a whole other level though.
- everybodyknows 3y ago
  > Now, living in Antwerp the pollution caused by container ships is at a whole other level though. Meaning diesel exhaust? So, nitrous oxide? I assume they're not allowed to burn heavy fuel oil in port.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- belorn 3y ago
  > It's just a less efficient means of transportation. Boats could be a very efficient way of travel. Luxury cruise ships are inefficient because they general carries things like swimming pools, golf courses, major shopping malls and restaurants. The proportion of space and weight that is used for transportation is tiny compared to something like a train, buss or aircraft (or even a car). Ferries in contrast has very low carbon footprint of travel per kilometer, as can be read in this graph: (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-footprint-travel-mode https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-footprint-travel-m...). Since container ships has a very high ratio of transported goods vs total weight of the ship, and those tend to have one of the lowest carbon footprint per ton/mile. It is one of many reason why things like ore is generally always preferred to be shipped by water.

bedobi 3y ago

This is a good idea and an important first mover (at least when it comes to European capitals) which will legitimize doing the same in other places around the world.

pengaru 3y ago

Whenever I go sailing with friends on SF bay, if we go anywhere near a cruise ship my sea sickness goes into overdrive from how disgusting the exhaust odor is. Vile machines, I wish more places would ban them.

randyrand 3y ago
Same with the shipping container ships in the bay area for me. The pollution they put out irritates my lungs and all for what, consumerism and global trade?
cguess 3y ago
As a fellow sailor who's only dealt with ferries, what's the wake like coming off those cruise ships? I can't imagine it's just the fumes causing sea sickness when one of those monstrosities steam past your 26' or whatever.
- pengaru 3y ago
  Actually I've only been anywhere near them when they're docked, presumably taking on passengers. They're not supposed to run on the bunker oil near shore, but the stink from them just idling there is always exceptionally bad. Incidentally, we also learned one time that if you get too close (on the order of hundreds of yards) to a docked cruise ship the USCG will appear with a large deck-mounted machine gun trained on your bow while ordering you to change course. So not only are the cruise ships making the air disgusting for everyone nearby, our tax dollars are spent guarding them from terrorist attacks while doing so too. I'm sure container ships are disgusting too.. but they don't generally sit docked idling for ages where people are doing recreation.
soderfoo 3y ago
How do you cope with sea sickness while sailing? I've been wanting to take sailing lessons but I'm worried my queasiness will rear it's ugly head.
- pengaru 3y ago

isaacremuant 3y ago

Wake me up when they ban private jets from celebrities and wealthy people instead of these stunts. And I say it as someone with no interest in cruises. Also, it's fun that Amsterdam pretends it does not like certain type of tourist unless they spend money in museums but it clearly caters to the "sex and drugs go crazy in AMS" tourist. Much to the point that it's shocking to other tourists who are simply visiting it as one more city.

dundarious 3y ago
It's not quite so simple on the question of the "sex and drugs go crazy" tourist: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/29/world/europe/amsterdam-uk-tourists-stay-away.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/29/world/europe/amsterdam-uk... I haven't lived there in over a decade, but even then, they were at least talking about programs to deal with the "worst" tourists for a few demographics. And all the while, they were putting in lots of money to make things nicer for the kind of tourists they like. While I was there, it seemed like a popular and economically successful set of policies. I'm guessing they still are.
ethanbond 3y ago
“People should be able to buy drugs and participate in a sex economy” does not mean that they are catering to those tourists. They’ve been trying to figure out how to retain drug/sexual freedom while limiting tourism for that purpose for as long as I can remember at least. That’s a totally coherent position to hold, even if it’s difficult to encode into policy.
Mordisquitos 3y ago
> Wake me up when they ban private jets from celebrities and wealthy people instead of these stunts. I'm pretty sure that a city banning private jets would be orders of magnitude less impactful and more media-stuntworty than banning cruise ships.
sabas123 3y ago
>Also, it's fun that Amsterdam pretends it does not like certain type of tourist unless they spend money in museums but it clearly caters to the "sex and drugs go crazy in AMS" tourist. This posts triggers the hell out of me. Amsterdam has been trying it's hardest for _at least_ 5 years and probably a lot longer to get rid of these types of tourists. With english bachelor party goer's in particular.

MattGaiser 3y ago

I imagine cruise ship visitors are overwhelmingly relatively low spend visitors (cruises tend to be the cheap way to travel) supporting low margin activities like restaurants.

maximinus_thrax 3y ago

I would love for Seattle to ban cruise ships as well, if only for the absolute madness their passangers create at the Seatac airport. I would personally kill the cruise industry altogether, everywhere.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
The smell they emit when running their generators in port is also horrible. I don’t see much good cruise ships bring Seattle, it was better back in the 90s before this was much of a thing. I’m not even sure what they do beyond hitting pike place and a bit of the water front.
- everybodyknows 3y ago
  The market-based solution for that of course would be to engineer municipal power to the docks along with estimated costs for the project. Set a required minimum risk-weighted profit to the city of 2x or so. Then solicit bids for binding long-term contracts from cruise companies, with the stipulation that their generators stay off while in port. If no bids meet the minimum, shelve the whole thing. Otherwise, proceed and enjoy the boost to the city treasury. Of course in the real world this would be a political process and highly vulnerable to corruption by private interests.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    Ya, they talk about doing that because of the smell, but no one wants to pay for it.

somewhereoutth 3y ago

Tourism is the modern day resource curse. It provides mostly only low skilled jobs (just like mining) and the financial benefits largely accrue to wealth holders (just like mining). Proper management is crucial to make sure it does not destabilize local economies. Banning cruise ships is a good start.

seydor 3y ago
I m certain that in 10 years we ll be looking at tourism as a bad habit like smoking. It's given a free pass for now because many developed countries have large tourism sectors but it remains an unsustainable source of pollution
- willcipriano 3y ago
  It is at that point I'll take those people seriously on climate change.
- 28304283409234 3y ago
  I do not understand why you are voted down. Well known dutch author has a novel with this as one of the main themes: https://www.amazon.com/Grand-Hotel-Europa-Leonard-Pfeijffer/dp/0374165904 https://www.amazon.com/Grand-Hotel-Europa-Leonard-Pfeijffer/... I know a number of people that had their view on tourism change after reading this. Myself included.
marcosdumay 3y ago
The places that manage to organize tourism flows benefit quite a lot. But yeah, cruise ships aren't a great public.
defrost 3y ago
> It provides mostly only low skilled jobs (just like mining) Someone's severely out of touch. No jobs in semi autonomous robotics for you then. https://www.riotinto.com/en/about/innovation/automation https://www.riotinto.com/en/about/innovation/automation and that's barely scratching the surface of the range of high tech job oppoprtunities in the mineral exploration and extraction sector. Quick, just whip me up a low tech magnetotelluric imaging station, integrate that data with EM, seismic, radiometrics, bore hole samples and knock out an optimal pit design with workable angles, power sources and estimates for plant and machine construction and deployment costs. It's no wonder the US barely operates at scale with attitudes such as that.

seydor 3y ago

that's an economic no brainer for big tourist destinations. cruise ship visitors are cheap, they dont spend and just litter and clog the city for a few hours. may be useful for small or up-and-coming destinations

cguess 3y ago

The late David Foster Wallace wrote an amazing ode to going on a single cruise and vowing never to do so again https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Shipping+out%3a+on+the+(nearly+lethal)+comforts+of+a+luxury+cruise.-a017943610 https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Shipping+out%3a+on+the+(nearl...

phreack 3y ago
I did not know this author before, and read about a quarter of the piece before realizing both that it was way longer than I expected, and that I was hooked on every word. > Captain Nico explains that the Nadir subscribes to something called GPS: "This Global Positioning System is using the satellites above to know the position at all times, which gives this data to the computer." It emerges that when we're not negotiating ports and piers, a kind of computerized Autocaptain pilots the ship. This line in particular made me chuckle.

xyst 3y ago

In my opinion, western countries (namely the USA) should model itself after Amsterdam and the Dutch in general. They figured out (or at least improved on) transportation of people. City design is amazing and they have a multitude of options to move around (bike, train, walkable, or micro transportation). Their cities are much more cleaner, enjoyable, not as noisy, and everyone in general seems much more happier. Contrast this to hellholes like most of the USA where it is an absolute necessity to own a car. Minimal alternatives. High dependency on highway / street infrastructure that requires significant resources to build AND maintain.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
0xDEF 3y ago
There is definitely a lot of things the US can learn from countries like the Netherlands and Denmark (my country). However please don't emulate our habit of flying to exotic destinations during our summer vacation. That would probably be the final nail in the coffin for the global climate.
- the_only_law 3y ago
  > There is definitely a lot of things the US can learn from countries like the Netherlands and Denmark But they won’t. It’s culturally incompatible.
- mdhen 3y ago
  They won't. Flying to Thailand requires too much vacation time to make it worthwhile. And most Americans don't have much vacation.
1letterunixname 3y ago
Where to Invade Next? (2015)
rkagerer 3y ago
and everyone in general seems much more happier Apropos of nothing, they also have weed in coffee shops and a regulated industry of 'negotiable affection'.

AlbertCory 3y ago

I have a much different take than most of this thread: cruise ships let people pretend to "travel" without actually traveling. You don't have to find a hotel (not that that's ever been hard, and now with the Internet it's trivial), and you don't have to research what there is to do and arrange it (ditto). They're for people too lazy to travel. The absolute last thing I want is to be regimented into groups with 2,000 other people. And, by the way, catch their diseases, which is something that happened to cruise passengers even before the pandemic. I found, when I went to Alaska, absolutely everyone asked, "Oh, did you go on a cruise?" No, I flew and rented a car. You should try it.

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
Have you been on one? I haven't but I've been to liberty ports while in the USMC and it was fantastic. I kept thinking how much more fun things would be if I were a civilian!
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  I did a Windjammer Cruise in the 80's. Only 150 or so on board.
brightball 3y ago
Funny you mention that. My family has never been on a cruise before but we have an upcoming Alaska cruise next month. Interested to see what the hype is about. Some friends of our love cruises and don’t particularly care about “travel” they just enjoy the cruise experience.
- saulpw 3y ago
  It's good for intergenerational vacations. 7 y/o and 70 y/o can both enjoy various aspects of the giant boat and wandering around some tourist town and everyone has their own space to return to.
fasthands9 3y ago
I've only taken one cruise in my life but this seems like a weird requirement. Someone from 100 years ago may call you booking a hotel not real travel because it doesnt require you befriend a local or get a local guide. Cruise people would say you still have to book the cruise, which is only marginally easier than booking a hotel + flight.

j-a-a-p 3y ago

I think you should have done one cruise (at least) in your live to earn the right to have an opinion. I did, and would like to vote to ban all cruise ships. It is a totally unnecessary form of travel. It is not travel. I don't know what to call it, for what I have seen for most people it is a time of continuous eating. It is surreal.

xiphias2 3y ago
I haven't done it, but as a returning tourist to Santorini, I have seen how it destroyed the romantic feeling it always gave me. Every 2 hours a dirty cruise ship comes there, hundreds of people rushing through the stairs to take their photos then going back on the same (narrow) passage where everybody usually travels. They don't have time for trying out the amazing restaurants, walks and hotels it provides.
Ekaros 3y ago
I consider it as travel like going to holiday resort is... But as well it could be that you go to harbour pick up tourist. And then go x miles out to sea drop anchor and spend week there and come back.