Cruise ships to be banned from Venice Lagoon
 

There will be consultations to determine where to build terminals.

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/v...ban/index.html

The people who had been campaigning for the ban said that large vessels were increasing erosion in the lagoon, exacerbating the alta acqua.

Supposedly the cruise ship passengers spent a couple of hours on shore but otherwise didn't spent much money locally.

However, on the flip side, over 4000 Venetians worked in the port before the pandemic. They may not get their jobs back or have to travel further to work -- wherever the new terminals may be built.


It sounds like for all the talk of sustainability, the city isn't going to turn away cruise ship passengers from visiting on day trips. It's just that they may have to travel further. Maybe a long distance to get to San Marco, for instance.

Either that or the cruise industry, which has been hit hard, may have to skip Venice as a port of call. Wouldn't that make European cruises less attractive?

I can imagine the cruise ships will just no longer be able to cruise the Grand Canal, etc. but they'll be able to dock farther away. I don't see the problem.

2 dolphins were tracked in the canal last week. Maybe the future will be better than the past.

I think the ban is a very good idea. A big cruise ship on even that little part of the Grand Canal is a terrible thing. It never made sense except for CL owners. I bet most of the workers come from surrounding areas so it would be just as easy for them to travel to another place. Realizing that the port might not work, but Trieste might be a viable alternative. At any rate, where ever a terminal or port might be located, it will be a source of employment.
I do not think skipping Venice will make any difference to European cruisers. It is really out of the way for most itineraries. Unless they were willing to add days to their trip, passengers have only a few hours in Venice. I am someone who did it once. I did it only because the rest of the cruise to Greece, Turkey and some Greek Islands was what I wanted, and I already had a week booked into nearby Vicenza. Most of the passengers were in Venice less than a day. A waste for most, they saw little and experienced mostly pushing and crowds.

It's my understanding that decisions are being made on how to implement fees for day trippers to the city, including cruise passengers. And jobs lost are a small price to pay, in my opinion, for damage done to the city & lagoon by the big ships. These & measures like managing the flow of tourists in the city by tracking cell phones, already being done, could make it a better place for everyone.

Have to agree with you although, to be honest, I have stopped in Venice a few times for only a few hours. If I am in Italy and going to any place near Venice, I add an afternoon or evening in Venice just to pop in for a walk, a visit to a favorite church and/or lunch someplace. As a guest (day-tripper), I would be willing to pay for that privilege.

Venice has talked about this for years. Many of the cruise lines have sent bigger ships to Venice, causing a lot of problems in the canal and with the number of PAX that crowd the city. About 10 years ago I took a cruise in the Med round trip from Venice. Sailing through the canal at sunset was a fantastic experience. But, I see no problem with ships porting outside the canal. Day tripper fees from cruisers could be added to the port taxes that are paid to each port.

The first time I visited Venice it was just for a couple of hours plus lunch, changing trains between Ferrara and Ljubljana. I wanted to see whether I needed to go back for longer, and of course, it only took a vaporetto ride down the Grand Canal for me to fall in love with Venice. Have been back twice for six/seven days each time, would love to go again with smaller crowds. I thought the cruise ships looked absolutely ridiculous, towering over the buildings

<<However, on the flip side, over 4000 Venetians worked in the port before the pandemic. They may not get their jobs back or have to travel further to work -- wherever the new terminals may be built.>>

According to the CNN article the plan is to locate the new port at Marghera which is the other side of the railway/road bridge which links Venice to terra firma, so it will be easier for the port workers, who mainly come from the mainland anyway, to get to work.

As for the time cruise passengers spend in Venice it is certainly believed by Venetians that they typically spend little money or time there, not least because their meals on the boat are usually included. I don't see how that will change if the cruise ships moor at Marghera instead of in Venice proper.

I thought I read the they're not going to use Marghera. They considered it for awhile but it would still require ships to traverse the lagoon?

So that is why they're going to have consultations on where to build a new terminal.

I don't think the big cruise ships go into the Grand Canal or else it would create huge wakes. Plus too much traffic there.

There is no way a big cruise ship is going to “go up” or down the Grand Canal

Someone else was talking about them going up the Canal.

Oh, You are absolutely correct. I think I inadvertently mentioned the Grand Canal. Of course they couldn’t navigate that! LOL. I think when we arrive at the train station and the GC, it does not seem that long of a walk to the port, but it really was, so I just wasn’t thinking. I still do not think cruise ships belong in Venice.

The fee for daytrippers was made law 2019 and was supposed to start I think last May. Well something happened in the world.

You can easily tell when the cruise ships and other tour groups hit Venice. Before I guess 10am Venice can feel almost deserted. Likewise after 5pm. All they have time for is some trinket shopping and maybe lunch. Not all will go for lunch instead counting on the shipboard breakfast and dinner.

I think many cities would prefer not to have an overabundance of cruise ships coming to their ports. Corona has brought more peace and tranquility to many cities although at a cost to the economy.

Remember the ships basically free-load in the city then destroy life in the local sea by dumping waste when they leave. Hard to imagine a more unpleasant business model.

I'd like to see cruise ships go away but a lot of tourism businesses are heavily reliant on them. You can see towns where restaurants and other businesses set up their hours around when cruise ships are expected to arrive.

<<Someone else was talking about them going up the Canal.>>

The Canal they go along presently [ie pre covid] is the Giudecca Canal which is much wider than the Grand Canal and runs east to west between the southern part of the main island of Venice, known as Dorsoduro, and the Giudecca which is a long thin island on the southern side of the Giudecca canal. Experiments were made to investigate the effect of them passing south of Giudecca and avoiding the Giudecca canal altogether but it turned out that that agitated more silt than using the canal so they abandoned it. Now that the Mose -the flood barrier system - is in operation when there is a risk of acqua alta it makes more sense to try to locate the cruise ship port to the outside the lagoon possibly at Chioggia.

The whole ”cruise taking in Venice” thing is moot. People go on cruises and take in cities like Florence, Rome and the Cinque Terre. Last time I looked is saw no cruise liners in the Arno or Tiber, nor in any of the CT towns.
Liners dock in Livorno, 90km from Florence, Civitavecchia which is 70km from Rome, and La Spezia, not exactly downtown to the CT towns.

So the cruise liners servicing Venice can berth elsewhere. Marghera port can handle big vessels, entering the lagoon via the Pellestrina/Chioggia entry, and using the Petroleum Canal which leads all the way to Marghera.

Then use ferries from Marghera to Tronchetto in Venice.

May be true but cities with ports probably see greater traffic from cruise passengers.

Not a desirable thing except to probably restaurants and tour operators.