Brooklyn Welcomes Cruise Ships!

Ray Goldenberg wrote:

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 05:21:16 GMT, Benjamin Smith
wrote:


Thanks for saying that, Ernie. I'm glad there are some in the industry
that will speak out for the impact of a company's decisions on the
customer outside of the bottom line.


Hi Ben,

I could be wrong but I don't think Ernie is part of the cruise
industry unless he now flys on a sea-plane. vbg



Isn't Ernie in the travel industry?

Ben

Best regards,
Ray
LIGHTHOUSE TRAVEL
800-719-9917 or 805-566-3905
http://www.lighthousetravel.com

Ray Goldenberg wrote:

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 05:21:16 GMT, Benjamin Smith
wrote:


Thanks for saying that, Ernie. I'm glad there are some in the industry
that will speak out for the impact of a company's decisions on the
customer outside of the bottom line.


Hi Ben,

I could be wrong but I don't think Ernie is part of the cruise
industry unless he now flys on a sea-plane. vbg



Isn't Ernie in the travel industry?

Ben

Best regards,
Ray
LIGHTHOUSE TRAVEL
800-719-9917 or 805-566-3905
http://www.lighthousetravel.com

"Tom K" wrote in message
...

"number6" wrote in message
ups.com...

FeAudrey wrote:
You're not going to miss the Statue of Liberty; it's right opposite
Red
Hook.


Not exactly ... the Statue is somewhat north west from Red Hook...
You'll sail south and already be past it ...


Bayonne's terminal is also past Lady Liberty on the way out of NY Harbor.


From what I've seen, the new terminal will be a little farther up in the
harbor as the Statue of Liberty on the other side of Fort Jay, or between
the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel and the Brooklyn Bridge.

I'm honestly very disappointed in both Carnival/Princes/Cunard and
RCI/Celebrity not sailing from Manhattan any longer from a "sailing past
the
sights" perspective. Though I've tried getting away from the Manhattan
terminals on a crowded day... and it's not pretty. I'm not sure there is
any good solution. Maybe the only good solution (too late now) might have
been sailing out of NJ from up in Hoboken (up by Ken G.). That way you'd
still sail past all the great sights. Though the roads there couldn't
support any additional traffic.

--Tom



The tradeoff is that they can be in open water about an hour sooner both
ways. This lets them get an extra two hours per cruise where they can open
the ship stores and casino for that all important on-board revenue.

--
I'm Tom Smith, and I approved this message.

"Karen Segboer" wrote in message
...


Tom, I think the HAL piers in Hoboken are long gone, otherwise they
"cudda been contendas"

Karen,
doing a poor Marlon Brando "On The Waterfront"


But da wadda's still dare...

All you need is the water... you can add piers.

--Tom

"Benjamin Smith" wrote in message
ink.net...
George Leppla wrote:

"shoreguy" wrote


That's a shame. Part of the wonder of cruising to or from NYC is that
trip
past the Statue of Liberty and up the Hudson to midtown. I still remember
the first time. Many of the crew gathered on the bow and were as
overwhelmed
as we were.


The "shame" lies in the fact that for years and years, New York City
refused to spend any money to provide cruise passengers with proper
facilities. I have been in many ports and in my opinion, the cruise ship
terminals in New York were the worst managed permanent facilities I have
ever seen.


NYC is interested in getting the Olympics in 2012 and finding something to
do with the train yards on the West side. The shame I see is not
recognizing the whole allure by various parties to those visiting the city
via ship, at a time when cruise ship travel is expanding.

Did you see the NYC subways in the 1970s? or Times Square? or Bryant Park?
There are a number of public facilities that were in disrepair or obsolete
the city turned around, after years of neglect. The facilities would be
easy. The problem I see is 12th Avenue.

Royal Caribbean had the right idea by moving to New Jersey. Carnival
Corp is heading to Brooklyn and that may be an improvement depending on
how they develop the terminal, parking and access. I have visions of Red
Hook becoming just another traffic jam.


I don't know about right idea, it is an idea that makes business sense.
But, they also could have recognized the allure of cruising into the
center of Manhattan and campaigned with proposals on how to improve it.
Passengers and crew are in the heart of the city when cruising into and
from NYC piers, only a few avenues away from it. That's a good thing for
both.

NCL based a ship year round in NYC. It's working out well.

With much fewer sailings out of Manhattan, maybe the Port Authority will
finally be able to handle what little they have left.



There are always issues of coordination in NYC. I think most pax feel that
keeping the ships in Manhattan would be worth it. But it just isn't that
big a priority for the players involved to do so.

Ben S.


I don't think the issue is the areas or NYC, or the money. It's the road
infrastructure. It just can't support that level of people when you have
3-5 big ships in port.

--Tom

"George Leppla" wrote in message
...

"shoreguy" wrote

That's a shame. Part of the wonder of cruising to or from NYC is that
trip
past the Statue of Liberty and up the Hudson to midtown. I still remember
the first time. Many of the crew gathered on the bow and were as
overwhelmed
as we were.

The "shame" lies in the fact that for years and years, New York City
refused to spend any money to provide cruise passengers with proper
facilities. I have been in many ports and in my opinion, the cruise ship
terminals in New York were the worst managed permanent facilities I have
ever seen.


You could have spent all the money you had on beautiful, well operating
terminals... but you'd still be stuck with the NYC roads, bridges and
tunnels. The roads there simply can't support the added volume of traffic
when 3 or more huge ships are in port. To think money spent on terminals
would have solved the problem is being in denial.

I've been there on crowded days. It's ugly. They do things like closing
the entrance when it's jam packed, and sending you up-town the West Side
Highway, using it as a "staging" area. And all that does it tie up all the
roads in the area.

Something totally radical might have been the only solution. Perhaps
something like putting the check in terminals on the NJ side, and ferrying
you (like a tender ride) to the ships on the NYC side.

--Tom

"George Leppla" wrote in message
...

"shoreguy" wrote

That's a shame. Part of the wonder of cruising to or from NYC is that
trip
past the Statue of Liberty and up the Hudson to midtown. I still remember
the first time. Many of the crew gathered on the bow and were as
overwhelmed
as we were.

The "shame" lies in the fact that for years and years, New York City
refused to spend any money to provide cruise passengers with proper
facilities. I have been in many ports and in my opinion, the cruise ship
terminals in New York were the worst managed permanent facilities I have
ever seen.


You could have spent all the money you had on beautiful, well operating
terminals... but you'd still be stuck with the NYC roads, bridges and
tunnels. The roads there simply can't support the added volume of traffic
when 3 or more huge ships are in port. To think money spent on terminals
would have solved the problem is being in denial.

I've been there on crowded days. It's ugly. They do things like closing
the entrance when it's jam packed, and sending you up-town the West Side
Highway, using it as a "staging" area. And all that does it tie up all the
roads in the area.

Something totally radical might have been the only solution. Perhaps
something like putting the check in terminals on the NJ side, and ferrying
you (like a tender ride) to the ships on the NYC side.

--Tom

"Thomas Smith" -NO-SPAM wrote in message
...

"Sue and Kevin Mullen" wrote in message
...


Ray Goldenberg wrote:


This move
will relieve the congestion at the Manhattan cruise piers.

Yeah, it will relieve the congestion in Manhattan, but for those of us
coming from New Jersey, it is going to be a pain getting there. The
route we will have to take is usually congested no matter what time of
the day you are there.

sue



Granted my New York geography is a bit lacking, but I pulled up maps of
the
area where the Brooklyn cruise ship terminal will be. If I am reading
this
right, it will be at Atlantic Ave. and Columbia St., right off exit 27 of
the BQE (I-278). Folks from New Jersey can take I-278 across Staten
Island
and the Verazano Narrows bridge, and end up going directly to the
terminal,
unless traffic gets real fun at the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel (I-478) right
there. Now, if you are coming from the north, you could take I-95 across
the George Washington Bridge, pick up the Deegan Expressway (I-87) south
to
the Grand Central Parkway (I-278) towards LaGuardia (is that the
Tri-Borough
Bridge?), and follow I-278 as it becomes the BQE.

Now, you New Yorkers, please tell me what is wrong with these directions.



Nothing is wrong with your directions. The problem is that they aren't
roads, bridges and tunnels. They're long parking lots.

Like when it take you 3 hours in bumper-to-bumper traffic just to cross
Staten Island and the Verrazano...

You can be stuck in traffic up on the bridge and watch your ship sail out of
the harbor. At least you'll get good pictures, even if you miss the cruise.

--Tom

"Thomas Smith" -NO-SPAM wrote in message
...

"Sue and Kevin Mullen" wrote in message
...


Ray Goldenberg wrote:


This move
will relieve the congestion at the Manhattan cruise piers.

Yeah, it will relieve the congestion in Manhattan, but for those of us
coming from New Jersey, it is going to be a pain getting there. The
route we will have to take is usually congested no matter what time of
the day you are there.

sue



Granted my New York geography is a bit lacking, but I pulled up maps of
the
area where the Brooklyn cruise ship terminal will be. If I am reading
this
right, it will be at Atlantic Ave. and Columbia St., right off exit 27 of
the BQE (I-278). Folks from New Jersey can take I-278 across Staten
Island
and the Verazano Narrows bridge, and end up going directly to the
terminal,
unless traffic gets real fun at the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel (I-478) right
there. Now, if you are coming from the north, you could take I-95 across
the George Washington Bridge, pick up the Deegan Expressway (I-87) south
to
the Grand Central Parkway (I-278) towards LaGuardia (is that the
Tri-Borough
Bridge?), and follow I-278 as it becomes the BQE.

Now, you New Yorkers, please tell me what is wrong with these directions.



Nothing is wrong with your directions. The problem is that they aren't
roads, bridges and tunnels. They're long parking lots.

Like when it take you 3 hours in bumper-to-bumper traffic just to cross
Staten Island and the Verrazano...

You can be stuck in traffic up on the bridge and watch your ship sail out of
the harbor. At least you'll get good pictures, even if you miss the cruise.

--Tom

"Surfer E2468" wrote


Going out of red hook is like sailing from philadelphia,would have to
think several times about sailing from either one,do not want to take a
risk that big

The Philadelphia passenger terminal is part of the Philadelphia Naval Base.
It is a military installation and as those things go, probably more secure
than most ports in terms of passenger safety and parking. I'm pretty sure
from your post that you have never been there.

The terminal itself is a beautiful brick structure. You take a shuttle bus
from teh parking lot (free) and when you arive, you are usually freeted by
either a Colonial Drum and FIfe Corps or a group of Mummers. Ben Franklin
is usually in attendance welcoming you to Philadelphia.

There are plenty of check-in stations and once you go through that, there is
a new, modern walkway that takes you to the ship. Elevators and escalators
are available.

It is a shame that there aren't more ships sailing out ofPhiladelphia
because it is a fine facilty that is run very well.


--
George in PA http://www.countryside-travel.com

Miracle in May - http://www.cruisemaster.com/miracle.htm
The Mother of All Group Cruises 2 - http://www.moagc2.com/