Please sign in to post.
Posted by
902 posts

This is not a serious proposal, this is just a a tax. If a city was getting serious about tourism killing their locations, they would be charging 100E per person unless you show proof of an overnight stay in the city or near by. Some SE Asian countries have decided they don't need the riff raff mass tourist set so have implemented $250/day visa policies, which I personally think is genius. "High Value, Low Impact Tourism" is their theory. But I guess that ship has sailed for destinations like Venice, Cinque Terre, Dubrovnik and the center of Prague, which are about as real as Las Vegas at this point.

Posted by
29264 posts

It will be interesting to see how they implement this fee. I suspect it's mostly aimed at the cruise ship hordes, but day trippers arriving by train may also have to pay it.

Posted by
3574 posts

@Kaeleku - What SE Asian countries are you referring to that have implemented $250/day fees to enter?

Posted by
902 posts

Bhutan is one for sure, I thought Nepal was the same but its not. Jordan also has done various schemes as well with its visas and park entry fees to encourage longer terms stays instead of people doing day or 1 night trips to Petra (shorter = higher $$).

Posted by
1641 posts

This is to make money and not to cut down on tourists. If they wanted to control the daily mass influx they would restrict the cruise ships.

Posted by
3256 posts

Yes, presumably the cruise lines will pay the tax and add the cost to their fares, a negligible increase for the passenger. Seems like a revenue producer rather than a day-trip deterrer. But it would help the city with the cost of hosting all those folks who don't pay the hotel tax.

Posted by
1014 posts

Cruise ships will not add the tax to the fare. Cruise ships have a separate charge for taxes and port fees in addition to the base fare. This often is an unpleasant surprise for first time cruisers. On my transatlantic cruise last spring, these fees were about $200 each.

Posted by
3256 posts

Yes, that's right, they show up on top of the advertised fare. Usually called "government taxes" just in case we didn't know where they came from. Don't blame the cruise line if the nasty government wants something back for the infrastructure and service it provides!

Posted by
8326 posts

Kaeleku, another rare occasion when we agree. I would be okay with a $300 a person entry fee to places like Dubrovnik. Would make so much, so much more enjoyable.

Posted by
902 posts

I don't know if I would pay necessarily. But I do think that's what makes it an interesting thought experiment. So many people go to places because they have heard that's where they should go. If people were forced by hard economics to prioritize instead of just blindly following the herds around I wonder what would happen. Like maybe you can only afford to see three "top tier" sites on a trip, and then you have to go to some lesser known sites.

Also they've done research, generally (obviously within a spectrum) wine is wine. Doesn't matter if your bottle is $12 or $1200 in terms of blind taste tests. But put a $175 price tag on it and people enjoy it more. So I don't know, far fewer people, more enjoyment, more money for the municipality, could be a win win.

Posted by
1641 posts

Hey, if you really want to be elitist.....why not genetic testing?

Posted by
8326 posts

Excellence isn't something you are born with, it's something you achieve ...

Posted by
344 posts

when you cruise to Alaska you will see a $50 charge that the state puts on all cruisers to offset the cost that cruise ships bring to those ports/towns. It's not that crazy of an idea. Want to drive in downtown Oslo - pay the "entrance fee"