They conjure up feelings of adventure, drama and the mystique of exploration and travel to unknown parts. I like the look and feel of them, enjoy them being in Waitemata Harbour, enjoy the sound of their horns as they come and go, and sometime would like to go on one (interesting options in the Eastern end of the Mediterranean, the Baltic and a specialist one with on-board zodiacs touring Patagonia).
But that doesn't mean that I support them being able to park in Auckland's CBD waterfront. On our front lawn. Because I don't think it's economically justified (see below), and because I think the priority should be providing for public space and public activity.
Other cities around the world have been lulled by them into providing extensively for them to dock in the heart of the city - at the expense of providing public space and amenity for the local, population. And in most cases they've rethought those plans, and relocated cruise ship facilities away from the CBD, but near enough for passengers to enjoy and to visit.
Baltimore is one such city. It was one of the first city harbours to de-industrialise and to transform. The transformation process began almost 50 years ago. Then, a key goal was to attract private investment into brownfield waterfront lands. Local government institution invested millions in waterfront infrastructure, and attractions like museums, aquaria, warships and the like, and then terminals for cruise-ships. This was public investment. An economic stimulus. And cruise ships came. Cruise ship operators are always on the lookout for a destination to include in their routes.
After a few years of this, local leaders noticed that the people who were attracted to the Baltimore waterfront were either tourists, or the wealthy locals - who could afford the expensive fees charged by the facilities that had been developed. But it was not a popular waterfront. It was not a people's waterfront. It had become a destination for tourists (who often didn't have much to spend anyway) and wealthy locals who liked the harbour views and could afford the restaurants.
So decisions were made to change the emphasis and purpose of the waterfront. To make it attractive for all Baltimore citizens - including low income families. This led to policy changes including the development of low cost public transport links to the waterfront, and the development of large well designed park spaces on the waterfront.
You can see here, by the way, a comparison of the amount of public space there is in Baltimore's CBD waterfront, with Auckland's at present.
There's been a few cruise ships visiting Auckland lately. Hundreds of visitors stand confusedly on Queens Wharf, wondering what to do. Groups huddle around piles of suitcases - looking a little like migrants or asylum seekers. Hundreds take the ferry to Devonport. And of course many spill up Queen Street and environs.
I was at a meeting recently where a consultant - known for his enthusiasm for cruise ships and for them being able to dock on Auckland's door step - said, "every cruise ship visit brings a million dollars into the Auckland economy...."
How true is this?
When I was at the Auckland Regional Council a cruise ship passenger survey was conducted to provide answers to a variety of questions. The survey - which is dated April 2009 - I know, it's a bit out of date - contains useful information.
"Face to face surveys were deemed preferable.... TNS, a market research company, carried out 241 face to face interviews... at least 425 total people were surveyed... passengers from 5 different cruise liners were included.... Aurora, Millenium, Volendam, Seven Seas, Silver Shadow..."
27% of the passengers were from Australia, 29% from the USA, and 27% from the UK. For half the passengers, this was their first visit to New Zealand.
There is a lot of info in the report, which quotes substantially from the qualitative data collected.
This is what is says about the "spend in Auckland"....
"...a conservative estimate of the value of the spend of each passenger would be at least $200..."
This was over an average stay length of two full days.
The report describes what people did while they were in Auckland, mentions coffee, souvenirs, and dining out and suchlike.
The wikipedia entry about cruise ship visits to Auckland, under its listing for Ports of Auckland Ltd, says this:
In the 2005/2006 season, POAL catered for 48 cruise ship visits (at the Overseas Passenger Terminal, Princes Wharf), with more than 100,000 passengers passing through the port, mostly disembarking for short stopover trips into Auckland or the surrounding region.[13] Each of the ships is estimated to add about NZ$1 million to the regional economy.[9] For 2007/2008, the total was forecast at 73 ship visits, another strong increase.[3]
So far, the largest ship to visit was the Queen Mary 2, which had to be diverted to Jellicoe Wharf in the freight part of the port due to its size. However, the largest one-day turnover came in February 2007, when the Statendam and the Sapphire Princess were due in Auckland to exchange around 8,000 people at the terminal, the equivalent of 19 Boeing 747 jumbo jets.[14]
Interesting that comparison with jumbo jets (see below), and:
In 2013, Auckland won a major cruise ship industry award, being named Best Turnaround Destination (best location to start or end a cruise at) by Britain’s Cruise Insight magazine based on a survey of industry leaders.[15]
which gives a clue as to the source of that entry in Wikipedia.
If we assume 100 cruise ship visits/year to Auckland, with 2,000 passengers each, spending $200 each (according to the survey), then the total spend for the year is $40,000,000, from 200,000 passengers. (This needs to be seen alongside the cost of the cruise - the survey reports that the average spend of each passenger to buy their cruise was "just a few thousand dollars per person - for well over half" the survey sample. These are not wealthy people on the whole.) Worth having, but hardly a fortune.
But the cost to Auckland Inc for that benefit is huge. It is at the expense of waterfront public space and amenity provision for Auckland citizens, and it denies Auckland CBD businesses revenues that would acrue from higher CBD visits from locals. And it includes the provision and maintenance of Queens and Princes wharves - though this may be partly covered by berthage fees.
These figures need to be put in perspective alongside Auckland International Airport which handles about 8,000,000 (8 million) international passenger movements annually - 40 x more - and with an additional runway this is projected to increase substantially.
As a friend of mine in business in retail says, "if you want to know how well your shops are doing, don't count the people, count the shopping bags...."
Casual observation at Devonport, on the ferry, on Queens Wharf, around the ferry terminal, and along Quay Street tends to support the survey's findings. Cruise ship visitors do not come to Auckland to spend big money. Most of them are of limited means - just like Auckland's 1.5 million population - and they spend a few dollars on coffee, ferry tickets, meals, and the odd souvenir. It's just that they are floated into Auckland, moored at the bottom of Queen Street for a couple of days, set free (but fed and wined and dined on board if that's what they want), and then taken off to the next port of call.
It is the cruise ship companies that make serious money. They get the "few thousand dollars per person" x 2000 passengers. And they need destinations like Auckland to provide berthage facilities.
It is time the rose-tinted spectacles were taken off by Auckland decision-makers, and it is time to shift cruise ships off Queens Wharf, and re-prioritise that space for Aucklanders. Make it attractive and delightful for locals.
No comments:
Post a Comment