Sign In
or Create a new account
Where should it go?
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
Considering a western harbour cruise passenger terminal is vital for Sydney's economy, where do you think it should be located?
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
Comment 1 23 Jul 2009, 11:53 AM
Thats a leading question, there are people like the NIMBYs on Leichhardt Council who will choke with rage at the way that's worded!
But I accept the premise, it should be there and our working harbour needs to be preserved.
Location: No.s 4, 5 or 6 would benefit local (Darling St) business like restaurants and cafes, and make the area more vibrant. As the population ages and gets more wealthy, its starting to feel a bit stale.
No. 1 or 2 are feasible too, and would placate the NIMBYs a little (though they'll never be happy). Especially if the Metro station is built nearby.
Since road access to this site is the Inner West link and James Craig Drive, its hard to understand what Council and local activists were moaning about last time a boat docked. Basically they just like being negative. And playing politics.
Yes, I do live locally!
Comment 1.1 27 Jul 2009, 5:41 PM
The cruise ship docked on a Sunday last time, hence traffic issues are much less. Cruise ships will dock around 7 am and leave around 4 or 5pm, potentially 7 days/week. That means 2000 passengers plus 800 crew trying to get into town at morning peak hour every day, and the same number trying to get to Balmain again at afternoon peak hour. Then, there's all the catering, supplies, ground crew etc.
Also, the passengers and crew are mostly either starting or finishing their trip, not popping in for a day excursion. So, they will all have luggage, and will be heading from or going to their hotels, not strolling up to Darling Street for a coffee.
If there has to be a western harbour cruise terminal, make it Baranagroo, where the passengers, crew and cruise ship companies actually want to be.
If it has to be White Bay, then there must be a metro or other high volume public transport - Robert St and the light rail will not cope
Comment 1.1.1 3 Aug 2009, 10:37 AM
The traffic flow when the last ship docked was constant all day. If this had been a week day compounded with peak hour traffic it would have been chaos.
Transport in an out of this area is my primary concern and it seems simple to have the terminal closer to the city at Baranagroo. I watched the traffic leaving the port that Sunday and very few if any were heading towards Darling street, all were heading straight to Victoria road. The traffic included a large number of trucks, hotel mini buses limosines and coaches. I suspect these vehicles would still be present regardless of any transport infrastructure provided.
Comment 1.1.2 5 Aug 2009, 2:16 PM
I live around the corner from where the cruise ship was docked. The traffic was a mess when the ship was docked. Agree 100%. Put the cruise ships at Baranagroo, where the passengers, crew and cruise ship companies actually want to be
Comment 1.1.3 8 Aug 2009, 11:05 AM
While I can see merit in using Barangaroo, the Government for whatever reason has said no. Assuming no means no, the only other options are White Bay and Glebe Island. I think White Bay is a better fit, as it would not sterilise the huge flat apron of Glebe Island that should be used for a higher community purpose (I'd like to see the fish market relocate there).
Transport and noise are the obvious major constraints for both possible sites. I would insist that if the passenger terminal shifts west, all coach and truck/van access must be via the reactivated Glebe more…
Comment 1.2 30 Jul 2009, 10:09 AM
I am certainly no great fan of Leichhardt Council, however to call its normal business, that of representing the community, Nimbyism is a bit rich!
Barangaroo is the obvious place for international visitors to alight from and enjoy the tourist attractions of Sydney, not into a residential suburb with overloaded infrastructure.
It is a shame that policy makers are so influenced by the view expressed by commercial property consultants that A grade office tenants would pay less for a view with ships in it.
Comment 1.2.1 5 Aug 2009, 2:18 PM
Pushed the wrong button. Cruise ship people want to see the city, not the suburbs. So docking at Baranagroo makes more sense as thats where the city is.
Comment 1.2.2 24 Aug 2009, 11:42 AM
When Leichhardt council only responds to the vocal minority it can indeed fall into the trap of supporting the NIMBY view.
I for one would like to see the council do proper broad-based surveys to get a clear view of the opinions of the full cross-section of the community before choosing a side.
Why is the default position to always oppose the State Government?
Comment 1.2.2.1 8 Sep 2009, 10:57 AM
Amen to that adros! I have lived locally for years and have had it with the same slef appointed people claiming to speak on behalf of "the community". Who are these people? anyone ever had them ask YOU what YOU want before they trumpet on your behalf? Didn't think so.
There was a time when to get any cred as a 'community leader' a person would have to really do some hard yards. Knocking on doors, building networks, attending endless community events and really ASKING the AVERAGE PERSON what they thought about a diverse range of issues.
Now, thanks to the intenet more…
Comment 1.3 6 Aug 2009, 8:11 AM
Remember, 92% of Boats in NSW are under 6 Metres these people deserve access and a working harbour means access.
This guy has it right and James Craig road does connect perfectly.
Comment 1.4 19 Aug 2009, 12:28 AM
I wasn't one of these locals affected by Sunday traffic from the cruise ships (Hello - isn't there Sunday traffic just about everywhere in Sydney? Sorry I digress...)
But I do agree that Barangaroo would be a much more convenient location for a Cruise Ship terminal considering its proximity to the city (and therefore hotels, direct transport connections, etc) and it also seems to be a bit easier for the ships to dock there.
That said, I know jack about how and where ships should dock - I only just figured out what a NIMBY is (I think!)
Comment 2 23 Jul 2009, 4:08 PM
i think its a shame that it wasnt developed at barangaroo. But then again, thats just another pathetic example of the state governments incompetance.
wherever it is located, it will need very good public transport.
i would recommend light rail through the development, which could then use the glebe island bridge and then the old pyrmont bridge to link it with barangaroo and the city.
The existing metro proposal is plain stupidity and impractical. whats the sate government even thinkning??
Comment 2.1 24 Jul 2009, 5:16 PM
At White Bay, it will have a Metro station, wk.
Pyrmont Bridge has a light rail already – the monorail, operated by the same private company
The government is "thinkning" (sic) of building the first stage of a fast, green, modern public transport system that will serve us well into this century – as fossil fuel scarcity will mean sprawling, low density car based lifestyles will become impractical, or hideous expensive.
Pretty "pathetic" to be thinking like that, I guess...
Comment 2.1.1 5 Aug 2009, 1:46 PM
Tally Ho RJE! Well played, Sir.
Yes, there's nothing like someone deriding an entire Government of an entire state and all of the people who work within it as incompetent. The delightful mis-spellings and lack of grammar are just icing on the cake.
You know, I've worked with a number of urban designers and planners in my career. The nature of where their work occurs means that most of them spend at least part of their time in the public sector.
All the planners that I have worked with took the analysis of big planning decisions like, for example, where an appropriate location for major infrastructure may be, very seriously.
Most importantly, these dreaded 'public servants' are required to justify their recommendations with EVIDENCE-based arguments and analysis. They don't just read goat entrails or get smashed one night and say, “let’s move a shipping terminal!”
My point, wk., is that your argument might carry more weight if it were based on a fact based situational analysis. Of course that takes some work. Probably a great deal of work and study in fact. So it's much easier to just shout that "the Government is all stuffed".
Comment 3 23 Jul 2009, 6:51 PM
The Cruise Ship Terminal should be located at Garden Island. The Navy can go, the land developed into a foreshore walk as an extension of Botanic Gardens and the interior could be sold as residential.
This will not only rid our harbour of navy ships but will stop those monstrous cruise ships from coming over our way. A lot of them are too big to go under The Harbour Bridge anyway.
Comment 3.1 24 Jul 2009, 7:51 AM
Removed by moderator - comment failed to respect the views of another site user.
Comment 3.2 24 Jul 2009, 4:58 PM
OK moderator, I'll repeat my enquiry as politely as I can...
MattB, why do we have to be "rid" of the Navy? Please tell us what you have against sailors? Where do you think the Navy can "go" to, if anywhere? Why are cruise boats "monstrous"? Do you have a problem with cruise passengers using the inner west foreshores? Do you have a problem with anybody at all using our harbour for economic purposes?
Comment 3.2.1 27 Jul 2009, 9:14 PM
What you simply don't understand is that our harbour is a very special and environmentally sensitive place. If you actually got close to it you would know that it is trying to resist the constant pressure we put on it. It is a miracle that our marine life still exists at all but it does.
This is our last chance to really save it. I don't like big ships coming in because of the threat they pose - one accident and the harbour could be set back a hundred years. The pollution coming from those ships at dock also sits more…
Comment 3.2.1.1 4 Sep 2009, 5:17 PM
One minor correction to the above - Caulerpa taxifolia is an invasive weed, usually carried to new locations in a waterway on ropes, propellors, diving equipment or fishing gear. It can be spread when a vessel travels through or anchors in an infested area, picks up small parts of the weed, then moves to a new location.
As the weed only grows in shallow waters, its spread is unrelated to shipping.
There's an information sheet at http://www.maritime.nsw.gov.au/rec_boating/seaweed.html which gives more detail.
Comment 3.3 27 Jul 2009, 5:45 PM
Agreed- there's no particular reason to have the Navy in the middle of Sydney Harbour. Could move the Navy to Newcastle - big port, lots of space. Easily funded by redeveloping Garden Island for the cruise ships that can't fit under ther bridge, and some commercial/residential development.
Still, will also need some public transport, so Barangaroo is probably better on balance.
Comment 4 25 Jul 2009, 6:30 PM
I used to love looking at the big container and car carrying boats as I travelled across the Anzac bridge.
A pity we can't have them back! (please?)
Cruise ships are ok, so put them anywhere. The important thing is not to let the working harbour die. That big shed could go, but keep the rest and develop it
Comment 5 26 Jul 2009, 11:21 AM
I agree with Sue. That shed looks like it came from Bunnings. A new Terminal designed properly would be a worthy addition to our shoreline. When the Dawn Princes docked recently, I went round to Pyrmont just to look at it. It was magnificent!
Comment 5.1 27 Jul 2009, 8:41 PM
You think that big shed is ugly. Wait till you see whats ALREADY been approved for the area marked out in blue along James Craig Road - The biggest uggliest shed imaginable - a dry boat storage facility (where they will stack power boats) for 850 vessels.
All you lovers of "working harbour, industry, and anti residential" are going to have to shoulder the blame when the other side (White Bay) ends up going the same way.
Comment 5.1.1 12 Aug 2009, 5:13 PM
Isn't that just the same as what used to be there (the Hobbs Bros and Robertson Bros shed that was there until the 90s?) Or larger?
Comment 5.1.2 18 Aug 2009, 11:36 AM
The DA has been approved for 630 boats (they applied for ~850). It also includes a large multi storey carpark.
Comment 6 26 Jul 2009, 12:12 PM
I think it should be at Garden Island but until the Navy moves out it would be OK at White Bay as long as there was public transport to service it and take passengers to local Darling Street shops and cafes. I would also like to see light rail extended to the site and further on into Balmain itself. I live in Rozelle.VL
Comment 7 26 Jul 2009, 1:02 PM
I live in Balmain overlooking Anzac Bridge and most of the Bays Precinct area. I favour maintaining a working harbour, and miss watching the car transport vessels coming and going at Glebe Island. I have no great problem with the proposed White Bay Passenger Terminal as long as two issues can be properly addressed.
1) Transport. Most of the cruise passengers will feel cheated if all they see of Sydney is White Bay and Balmain. They will want efficient access to the city (and then beyond), the main harbour and Darling Harbour. An efficient and regular ferry service seems to provide more…
Comment 8 26 Jul 2009, 3:45 PM
There are a couple of things which I think are important.
1. White Bay SHOULD be a working harbour. To lose more deep water frontages (eg East Darling Harbour) is more than a shame, its crazy. Preserving it will help revitalise the area economically. Right now it's a sad and pathetic sight.
2. It doesn’t matter where the Cruise Terminal goes, it just SHOULD be there somewhere. One consideration is access. The loop around Victoria Rd, Roberts and Mullens is chronic now, especially in the evening peak. That’s because peninsula residents (I’m one) all have lots of cars and insist on driving more…
Comment 8.1 30 Jul 2009, 11:59 AM
I can't see passengers being too happy pulling up to a suburb instead of the City they were promised and waiting for a train or taxi which is stuck in the overloaded infrastructure of the peninsula. However I must agree regarding the Greens ... they have done nothing, are proposing nothing and a can do nothing with Callan Park, just compare Bells Foreshore with the wonderful Ballast Point!
Comment 9 4 Aug 2009, 8:03 AM
I think with the passanger cruise business being seasonal, there is a lot of merit, with overflow after Circular Quay,That White bay would be a P E R F E C T space to have this activity.
It also allows Marine and recreational use, to claim a part of this White Bay area as both activies can co exist easily
Comment 10 4 Aug 2009, 1:19 PM
A cruise terminal on the west side of the bridge is a good idea except that on Sunday the 1st March this year we had 5 cruise ships in at the same time, and although Sydney had the berths for all the ships (only 2 dedicated cruise terminals, the rest would have been able to secure at disused cargo wharves) but they couldn’t fit under the Harbour Bridge.
This will even more common in the future as the cruise ship are getting bigger and bigger each time one is built, so to build a multimillion dollar cruise terminal west of the more…
Comment 10.1 18 Aug 2009, 11:40 AM
Didn't Navy recently consider relocating part of it's Sydney assets to Jervis Bay and /or Newcastle? And would such a move, or part thereof not free up part of the Woollomooloo precinct?
Comment 11 7 Aug 2009, 4:11 PM
I think, with the few options now available, the suggestion of shifting the cruise terminal to White Bay is an excellent one.The wharf is already there and it can accommodate a number of ships.I have had the good fortune to travel on a variety of cruise ships to a large number of ports.This site is as close to a major city as one generally gets. I will not go through all the other ports where one can be miles away and somtimes that is before you even get out the dock gates.
This site has access by road and this could more…
Comment 11.1 10 Aug 2009, 5:54 PM
Local cruise ship passenger don't want to go drop in for a coffee, they want to get on the ship or go home.
International cruise ship passengers don't want to see Balmain Court House, they want to see the Opera House, Taronga Park Zoo and the Harbour Bridge.
As for the local residents (assuming it is the locals) - the dock used to be for industrial ships, which arrive infrequently and have virtually zero impact on the traffic. Modern cruise ships (as you should know) can have up to 2000 passengers and 800 crew, all of which need to get off the more…
Comment 12 7 Aug 2009, 5:24 PM
As per RJE, I can see benefits to Darling Street's economy if the terminal goes where the current (is that still true?) proposal has it, White Bay 4,5, and 6, but as a Balmain resident I would prefer to see excellent walking links built to encourage customers to walk to Darling St.
My proposals for walking and cycling in the Bays Precinct include new ramp accesses from places like Ewenton St and White Bay Park to and from the water level. It is about 800m (not including vertical alignment!) from the current shed to The London (and thus Darling St more…
Comment 13 8 Aug 2009, 7:42 AM
SENT TO ADMINISTRATOR BY JOY
I support the development of a cruise passenger terminal at White Bay (2 on the map), providing sufficient efficient transport for passengers from the terminal to places of interest/shops is available, e.g. to Darling Harbour, The Rocks or the City Centre. High speed boats could be used. Any vehicular access needs to be via James Craig Drive to avoid impinging on residential streets. I believe access for cruise ships should be restricted to those which drop off passengers in the morning after 7.00 am and embark again in the afternoon before 7.00 pm. This is to protect local residents to ship generated noise.
Comment 14 9 Aug 2009, 5:16 PM
The problem is we cannot make an informed decision in the absence of a masterplan for the area. I would like to see a working harbour retained and the cruise passenger terminal proposal presents significant traffic issues which have not been discussed and I am unaware of any viable plans to deal with increased traffic in this area. The bottom line is, we are only in this predicament because there was no proper planning when the decision to develop Bangaroo was made. Let's get all the cards on the table and make a decision that's in Sydney's best interests -both for current local residents like myself and future generations.
Comment 15 9 Aug 2009, 5:19 PM
I would like to see the passenger terminal at Glebe Island and have the amenitites such as cafes, restaurants, parks built around it.
Comment 16 11 Aug 2009, 1:08 PM
BS The cruise terminal should be located east of our Harbour Bridge - preferably where the existing one is now even if it means demolishing that structure & building a new one. Circular Quay is the linch-pin of our city & I therefore believe that cruise passengers would expect to arrive there. Traffic would not be nearly as badly disrupted as compared with locating the terminal west of the Anzac Bridge.
Comment 17 12 Aug 2009, 5:10 PM
I cannot understand why Barangaroo is not considered an option. That is where the cruise terminal should be. White Bay is too distant, there is no public transport and while the area will be developed, it is still a residential area and totally unsuitable for such a building.
Yes, we're putting buildings in Barangaroo - so what? In Singapore the local cruise terminal (not the main one which is in the middle of nowhere) is linked into a shopping centre and office block. Sydney could easily do the same. All you need is a couple of hundred square metres of space set aside for customs and immigration, and perhaps a small RORO ramp for some freight. It doesn't take up much space, it's easy to do; and it's close to the city and to public transport.
Comment 18 21 Aug 2009, 11:53 AM
For many years, the Bays Precinct has served as a major transport hub for industries and activities that require a land/water interface. Glebe Island and White Bay still play an important role for industries requiring shipping access, including cement, gypsum, sugar and vegetable oil imports and major vessel repairs. Blackwattle Bay is also home to commercial maritime industries, charter and fishing fleets and heavy construction facilities.
These wharves and the activities on them and around them make a valuable contribution to the economic and commercial life of Sydney at the moment and have the potential for growth. The Bays Precinct has more…
Comment 18.1 24 Aug 2009, 7:19 PM
Correct me if I am wrong but it seems like the future of our harbour and white bay has already been decided. There is supposed to be a masterplan but the overseas passenger terminal, Baileys refuelling (for me personally the most outrageous and selfish use of public land so far), the super yacht marina at Rozelle Bay, the Elias development at Pyrmont near the fish markets and Barangaroo have already been decided at least for my lifetime so I am not sure which lifetime the Minister is referring to when she talks about a consultation process for the future of more…
Comment 18.1.1 7 Sep 2009, 8:32 AM
A couple of minor points:
1. Not sure what a "male strip club terminal" is, but one hasn't been approved in the Bays Precinct.
2. The superyacht marina in Rozelle Bay has been there since 2000. A DA has been approved to move it about 100m east and reduce the number of vessels by around 50%.
3. The car termial moved to Port Kembla because transport links at Glebe Island were insufficient for so many semi-trailers (approx. 300,000 truck movements a year) and because from Port Kembla its easier to get to the detailing yards near Campbelltown, where most of the cars go after they're unloaded on the wharf. Glebe Island was also too small, which is why cars were often driven round to White Bay as an overflow storage area.
4. Marine refuelling wasn't done in Pyrmont. There are old refuelling tanks at Ballast Point, but they haven't been used in years and are dismantled as part of the conversion of the Point into a park. The constant conversion of waterfront industrial land into parkland and housing inevitably results in heavier concentrations of industry in the small number of sites left open to it.
Comment 18.1.2 17 Sep 2009, 3:04 PM
The future development of the harbour is an ongoing and fluid process. To think it can be decided in one attempt, taking into all of the competing uses and interests, over a relatively short period seems to me to be very difficult.
There is enough land for all points of view but unfortunately some of the minority interests dicate their view and discourage anyone who does not conform. Fuel for instance is a requirement for the harbour and deserves a fair hearing. The location is ideal for users, it enables other areas, closer to the Power Station, to be opened and enjoyed by more people. Vessels requiring fuel do not make much noise. Infact if you stand by any ferry wharf you will understand what sort of noise people can expect. If it was as noisy as some people say then we would not have any wharfs within close proximity to housing.
Comment 18.1.2.1 22 Sep 2009, 3:26 PM
We need to also keep some land for the future, after White Bay is developed, Do thingslike Fuel are essential, and need to have a long term position on the landscape, We need to enjoy Boating on Sydney Harbour
Comment 19 15 Sep 2009, 11:55 AM
Cruise Terminal
Glebe Island will be a better option for a cruise terminal for the following reasons…
• More direct access to the freeway (ANZAC Bridge to the city).
• Room for 2 ships at one time.
• Won’t disturb local residents.
Comment 19.1 13 Oct 2009, 3:34 PM
From Glebe island there is direct access to ANZAC bridge via James Craig road. This would be much better that White Bay.
The White Bay Berths only have access at the moment to ANZAC bridge via Roberts Rd and onto Victoria Road which is already queued up in the morning. Add to this 2000 people being picked up in cars, buses and taxis and it is going to be a very very painful experience getting onto ANZAC bridge let alone the crawl into the city. Then the truck movements loading the ship for departure start followed by 2000 people boarding the ship. This will undoubtedly disturb local residents and drivers moving in and out of the peninsula.
Barangaroo is in the city so surely Hotels and tourist destinations are much closer from there.
Comment 20 13 Oct 2009, 4:04 PM
Hmm, seems I'm late to this forum, mostly this has all been thrashed out by others... But I only saw this website advertised a few days ago, and didn't know about it until then.
I'm quite interested and would have put my two bobs worth in. I get intimidated by all the politics associated with any discussion about it, because I'm not that wrapped up in all that. But it seems that everyone who claims to speak for "us" in the local press has an an anti government agenda as a starting point. And it never goes any further, just bickering and point scoring. I'm encouraged by the discussion here though and don't have much to add as to location. Just that I hope the Cruise Terminal can happen – somewhere!
Comment 21 15 Oct 2009, 9:12 AM
It should go where the Dawn Princess berthed earlier this year, and get rid of that big ugly shed!
This is a great opportunity to build a world class facility we could all be proud of.
I hope it can integrated into the local economy too. I was NOT encouraged by Verity Firth's comments earlier this year when this issue came up. She seemed to be saying it would be isolated, and have "no impact". I know she was trying to placate the NIMBYs and the Greens, but that is impossible. They don't want anything to change, and they don't want anything built anywhere. They will never be happy.
Ignore Leichhardt Council too and all their "resident" groups. They are NOT agents of change. Go directly to the people and the to local businesses, who by their very nature, are more proactive. If they see advantage in the terminal to themselves – and in encouraging economic vitality there is– they will support it.
Comment 22 18 Oct 2009, 12:19 PM
I saw an item on the news last night about how the cruise industry was booming. I’ve read a lot of the comments here and probably don’t have much to add. I think Barangaroo would have been ideal, and don’t understand why it had to move. But White Bay is fine, I did like the big cargo boats there, and I think the port should be used for something similar, and not sold for apartments, etc.
If we do need lots of room for the extra boats, obviously the Glebe Island section would be best. It also seems the access issues which worry some locals could most easily be solved from there, as there is already a direct link to the City West Link. And hopefully soon, a Metro station too.
Comment 22.1 19 Nov 2009, 11:03 AM
Spot on
Comment 23 21 Oct 2009, 9:02 AM
Best location for cruise ships is East Darling Harbour (Barangaroo) linked into the commercial centre - as it's done in Singapore.
Second best is Glebe Island, as traffic can get on to Anzac Bridge to city (where everyone will want to go) via James Craig Road.
Least favourable choice is White Bay. A cruise ship terminal can only work in White Bay if a mass transit system is put in place. Relying on roads will be a disaster. Road-based access would be yet another embarrassment to NSW. If it does go in White Bay then the design must allow waterfront access for passive recreation (pedestrians, playgrounds, picnic sites, bikes etc).
Overall, large shipping usage (including cargo) is much, much better than the dreadful small motor boat facilities which are just feeding a culture of selfish ugliness on the harbour - and discouraging passive use such as rowing, kayaking and canoeing.
Comment 24 7 Nov 2009, 11:56 AM
A basic principal for development in this area is that nothing should be allowed that wouldn't be allowed on land in a similar urban setting. So, for example, noise and air pollution standards that apply generally across Sydney should also apply to development in this area, and in particular to the location of the cruise terminal. Huge ships like these are noisy, and belch acrid smoke. Given their height and the cliff on the southern side of White Bay, this smoke and noise comes out at just about house level. This was always an issue with the container ships, and will also apply with the cruise ships. Glebe Island would be better than the Balmain side of White Bay in this respect. Glebe Island would also cause fewer problems with traffic exit from Balmain, as vehicle access would be from near the Crescent.
Signed,
Balmaniac
