SkyscraperCity Forum banner
Cancel
New Forums

Cruise Liner Facility

Jump to Latest
2,361 - 2,380 of 2,392 Posts
#2,361 ·
The sad thing is Liverpool and Newcastle are unlikely to compete for the same business. Newcastle's cruises are normally North Sea/Baltic based, something that Liverpool would not be considered for. Liverpool and Newcastle would be better placed supporting each other, to drag cruising north.
 
#2,363 ·
EuxTex said:
Especially when you consider that ABP (Associated British Ports) is not even British owned. the 21 ports owned by ABP are owned by Goldman Sachs, an American company.
Click to expand...
Growing Liverpool as a Cruise Liner port would be more advantageous to the financial interests of the UK government than listening to Southampton's whingeing. The tax status of APB and their USA owners mean that very little tax benefit is generated for the UK by the company. Any income generated in Liverpool by the CLF would be liable to normal taxation as it would not be an off shore company.

Any growth in Liverpool would benefit the UK tax payer nationwide - including Southampton.
 
#2,365 ·
Liverpool gets closer to having cruise liners based in port
Peter ElsonJan 13 2011
0Share
Comments (3)
Recommend

LIVERPOOL is today a step closer to regaining its former glory of being a home port for top cruise liners.

Transport and shipping minister Mike Penning MP has pledged to bring back liners to the Mersey.

Mr Penning visited Liverpool Cruise Terminal yesterday to discuss the controversial ban on starting and ending cruises at the Pier Head.

Mr Penning met Liverpool City Council leader Cllr Joe Anderson, Riverside MP and Parliamentary Transport Select Committee chair Louise Ellman, city council chief executive designate Ged Fitzgerald, and Nick Kavanagh, city council director of regeneration.

A delighted Cllr Anderson said the “highly constructive” meant that “all the basics are now in place” to allow turnaround cruises.

The ECHO’s sister paper the Daily Post is campaigning for this with its Get On Board cruise campaign.

The ban on turnaround cruises was imposed by restrictions on the EU £15m grant used to build Liverpool Cruise Terminal.

The facility was for cruise liner visits to stimulate regional tourism, not for the city’s commercial benefit.

Mr Penning and Cllr Anderson agreed the city council would submit a proposal to start repaying a percentage of the grant.

This will give Mr Penning the necessary opening to comprehensively review the situation.
Mr Penning said: “We have had a really, really positive meeting and will shortly issue a joint statement.

“Under the review the council will submit a proposal in which a percentage of the subsidy will be repaid.

“This allows me to go to a whole consultation that makes everyone happy and brings cruise liners back to where they came from on the Mersey.”

Cllr Anderson said: “I was delighted to welcome the transport minister to Liverpool and we have now got the basics in place.

“I am extremely pleased to reach the basis of an agreement on the way forward with him in what was a very constructive meeting.

“We now have to work out the details, which is great news for the city and our Cruise Liner Terminal.

“It’s very encouraging that Mr Penning agreed to review the restrictions on cruise turnarounds, which prevent the terminal reaching full potential.

“We have laid strong foundations to move forward on this issue and I am very optimistic of a positive outcome.

“I remain extremely positive the Government will overturn the restriction on cruise ships starting and finishing at the terminal.

“It would also be a catalyst for new businesses to serve the terminal. As such, it would boost the region’s economy by millions of pounds.

“I want to thank the people of Liverpool for getting behind the crusade for the Cruise Terminal and the ECHO’s sister paper the Daily Post for its marvellous campaign.

Ms Ellman said: “I’m very, very pleased that the minister came here today to see the situation for himself.

“The cruise turnaround proposal has the support of all Merseyside MPs and is vital for our regeneration.”



Read More http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/live...s-closer-to-having-cruise-liners-based-in-port-100252-27983580/2/#ixzz1AxTo9uJa


Now that does sound positive. Seems like Joe may have brokered some sort of deal, whereby we get the turnaround facility and the government save face by getting a proportion of the grant returned. Pat on the back for Joe if he nails this one.
 
#2,367 ·
Where will all the turnaround facilities be built? Do Peel own all the remaining plots at Princes Dock? Awkward conflict of interests there if they are still ken on building their own cruise liner facility.

Could it actually be built over the remains of the old landing stage actually on the River? It would b cool to see something novel like this and maybe even a small tram service from Lime Street to the Pier Head. Maybe this could even generate the whole Tram sytem to develop. I've never understood why any proposed tram system couldn't just grow organically driven my market and demand rather than having to build the whole thing in a oner.

The above is excellent nws though. Bring it on....and quickly please!! Getting this sorted before Southamptons fifth terminal is operational is crucial.
 
#2,368 ·
Sounds good but I would want to hear an official announcement that it's a done deal rather than a 'step closer'. TMNW isn't a reliable source.

The Princes landing stage would need to be rebuilt which would probably be more expensive than utilising the vacant lot where the IOM ferries used to have its waiting rooms etc. The downside is that any such arrangement is likely to be temporary (this is the site of the proposed New World Square development) so maybe it makes sense long term to rebuild the Princes landing stage? Once again the pitch is queered by Peel who have stated that they want to build a cruise terminal a bit further up the Northshore to service 'Liverpool Waters'. Maybe a compromise might be to rename Princes Dock 'Liverpool Waters' and focus on filling the empty lots? :lol:

The other alternative that has been suggested is using the Cunard building which already has the required facilities albeit several decades out of date.
 
#2,370 ·
Very encouraging, it looks like yet again Fat Joe is showing that people like me were wrong about him - he is a very smart operator and seems to be able to bring home the bacon. And the irony of Liverpool Labour MP's finding Conservative Ministers more accommodating and fair than Labour Ministers who had no time for Liverpool and had two marginal seats in Southampton they were more concerned about. I like the idea of the city starting to pay off some of the money, it sounds pragmatic and as though there is very serious thought taking place about finding a solution.
 
#2,371 ·
This is all promising news.

Navy source tells me that over the first weekend of this coming September a rather large HMS will be in port, at the same time as QM2 and Queen Victoria!!!:banana:
Well, he says that that is the plan. I asked him about who will miss out on a berth, and apparently one ship will be moored mid-river. Which one it will be is still to be decided.
 
#2,373 ·
Pay it back,Joe's doing a fantastic job so far,I'm well impressed with this latest move.Southampton deserve to lose business they way they've acted over this and they wont be needing another terminal if we get ours,unlucky,waa waa waaaah.:D

Still anything can happen yet but a change of pants is most definitely needed today.
 
#2,375 ·
I suspect that Southampton have brought this plan forward so as to bind in various operators to their new facility - being conscious of the 'threat' that a Liverpool facility would pose. I am not sure how this would work, in their eyes, but I'm sure that I've read about some sort of 'binding' .

It seems such a shame that there has to be this level of vicious competition - based on fear obviously, but also of the monopolistic capitalist tendency.

I wouldn't like to see Newcastle suffer if Liverpool got the go-ahead - but I'm pretty sure that it serves, as someone has previously said, a different market. I know that a lot of Norwegians visit Newcastle!
 
#2,376 · (Edited)
This is a cargo map, but the principle is the same. Very roughly, the light green area is closer to the Liverpool, 30 million people, the grey area is closer to the southern ports. Liverpool is closer to a good portion of Southampton's cruise customer base. Building an extra terminal in Southampton isn't going to change that.

Image
 
#2,378 ·
yoshef said:
Why?
Click to expand...
Only because Southamptom at the moment have a near strangle hold on the market and a very good understanding of the industry probably supported by some very strong key relationships.

Its true that a larger population live closer to Liverpool but we shouldn't dismiss the wealth differential of the South East and their preferred port of disembarkation nor the fact that sailing from Liverpool effectively adds 2 days to any cruise cf southampton, ie outward and inward.

In short Liverpool has to convince and industry and a cruise going puplic to go from Liverpool. Souhamptom does not. This will be harder if Southamptom has taken any slack out of th market by making a 5th berth operation with a complete schedule. I know Livrpool is nearer to lots of people and nicer too but it is still gonna require some effort to make this as successful as it ought to be.
 
#2,379 ·
A fifth terminal doesn't affect the attributes that make Liverpool attractive to cruise operators & customers; it is a growing tourist destination, already on the itenerary of many cruises, and its geographically closer to a large proportion of customers. Even if you discount the Med, for the growing number of people on short cruises around the British Isles it's a no-brainer.

It would be interesting to see what proportion of cruise customers come from the South East and what proportion come from elsewhere. I know two retired couples locally who go on at least three cruises per year, and it seems to be quite the fashion amongst their friends.
 
#2,380 ·
Artie Fufkin said:
Why would the landing stage need to be rebuilt? I don't think this would be the case at all.
Click to expand...
I was responding to selecta's suggestion that a terminal could be built on the remains of the old (Princes) landing stage which looked like this a couple of years ago (thanks to ken_davis @ Flickr):

Image


Longer term I think this would be a good idea, especially now that road access is so easy but it would be expensive.
 
2,361 - 2,380 of 2,392 Posts
About this Discussion
2.4K Replies
155 Participants
Last post:
Portobello Red
SkyscraperCity Forum
posts
146M
members
1.1M
Since
2002
A truly global community dedicated to skyscrapers, cities, urban development, and the metropolitan environment. Join us to share news, views and fun about architecture, construction, transport, skylines, and much more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Infrastruktura drogowa General Photography Obras públicas e Lançamentos imobiliários DN Archives Transport miejski i regionalny