- A design company has suggested building an island to alleviate Sydney’s cruise capacity
- The island would have hotels, retail, superyachts and cruise ships
- The project is estimated to cost around $50 billion
Sydney’s harbour is a dazzling spectacle – and no surprise it’s a massive draw card for cruise ships. And a report this week highlights just how important this industry is: the global industry is now worth $259 billion and sustains 1.6 million jobs.
Australia is keen to maintain its position as a leading cruise nation. So now another search has been launched to find more space to fulfill demand in Sydney, because there just isn’t enough space in our harbour.
But we should have known it wouldn’t be long before the hunt produced its fair share of schemes that would never get off the ground.
Welcome to Fantasy Island – a $50 billion project – yes, you read that right! – to build a cruise and super-yacht terminal in Port Botany to accommodate large cruise ships.
Championed by the Sydney Daily Telegraph and created by a design company called Global Innovation Corporation – we couldn’t find them on LinkedIn – it suggests a man-made island with hotels, retail, super-yacht berths, and cruise ships funded by private capital.
Good idea? We don’t think so. Cashing in on the publicity surrounding the search? Yes, that’s more likely.
The background
The New South Wales government has appointed a committee to take the well-trodden path of seeking a solution to Sydney’s cruise capacity problem. There is one place for cruise ships at the Overseas Passenger Terminal, and White Bay, a facility beyond the bridge, is only available to vessels small enough to go under the bridge.
The problem
Garden Island, the most obvious solution, is occupied by the Royal Australian Navy and they have made it clear they aren’t giving it up. The second best solution, Port Botany, site of the proposed island, ran into strong opposition from local people and, as a Labor political stronghold, is now ruled out.
What happens next
The Minns government has appointed a committee to look for new sites, including cruise company officials and NSW Ports. But this isn’t the first time we’ve seen this kind of initiative– the last committee under former Liberal leader Peter Collins already spelled out the options.
What really happens next
First up, the idea of a $50 billion floating island is a pie-in-the-sky idea that’s more fantasy than feasibility. The environmental impact of such a massive undertaking would be huge, potentially damaging delicate marine ecosystems and altering Sydney’s iconic harbor views.
Cruise Passenger went back to Peter Collins this week to ask what he thought. Here’s what he told us:
“Fantasy Island is just that and a non-starter. Port Kembla was considered but by definition lacks The Sydney Experience- the joy of sailing up the most beautiful harbour in the world.
“Of course local passengers may take this as a given and not mind using Port Kembla.
“But now we have Port Kembla as the most likely East Coast nuclear submarine base. It’s not necessarily a dealbreaker, but a significant factor.
“Port Kembla has certainly moved up the list. Its busiest days may be ahead…”
Port Kembla also has the backing of NSW Ports, an important player in this debate often overlooked. Whatever the decision, Capt. Phil Holiday and his team would have to make it work.
Port Kembla in Wollongong makes sense for several reasons. Firstly, Port Kembla has the existing infrastructure to handle large vessels. Secondly, it would alleviate congestion in Sydney Harbour, freeing up space for smaller boats and ferries, and reducing noise and air pollution. Thirdly, it would bring economic benefits to the Illawarra region, creating jobs and boosting tourism.
However, there’s a catch. Port Kembla is also slated to become a major submarine base. The prospect of sharing the port with nuclear-powered submarines raises legitimate concerns about safety, security, and the potential impact on tourism.
While the logistics of accommodating both cruise ships and submarines in Port Kembla need careful consideration, it’s a more pragmatic and cost-effective solution than a $50 billion island.
Ultimately, Sydney needs a sustainable solution to its cruise ship problem. A $50 billion island is not the answer and is just a distraction.
Here at Cruise Passenger, we would love it if someone found an overlooked cruise port in Sydney – but it’s sadly unlikely. We look forward to a realistic resolution to a problem that has been allowed to go on for far too long.
The State and Federal Governments has let us all down. The Liberal state government when they were in power had leased the Port of Newcastle which they had funding for a cruise ship terminal then pulled out of the deal. Labor is not much better. They promised if they one the election in NSW Labor would guarantee the funding They are now in control of NSW and blames the Port of Newcastle Authorities because they are only interested in cargo shipping and not for passenger movements. An opportunity lost been the second largest city in NSW.
Re the Island Terminal Proposal.
The Wright Brothers were told that man could never fly. Someone also said that personal computers would never be popular in the home. And of course, at one stage everyone thought the Earth was flat! Without grandiose ideas we never achieve anything. Loosen up people, don’t decry unusual ideas but imagine what could be.
Would there be enough room to fit a wharf near Hickson Road adjacent to the existing overseas terminal? Construction would need to sit out into the water to achieve sufficient length. This would add only one extra wharf but that might be enough.
The Navy at Garden Island is a relic of a long bygone age. The Feds just need to bite the bullet and move them to Jervis Bay where they belong.