Venice tourist tax pilot program results

Thank you Carlos. You laid out and wrote your post much better than AP wrote their’s.
Has Barcelona suggested they will develop a similar plan?

Thanks Carlos. Is that an end to the charge for this year or is this just an interim report?

Horsewoofie - in Barcelona we already have a tourist tax of sorts, that's just an extra charge I think of around €3-6 added to hotels, cruise ships, airbnbs fees. I'm not sure if we will be implementing something like what Venice has, I don't think we have many day trippers visiting Barcelona. Even if we did I'm not sure how to keep track of them and if they pay their fee in such a big city. It seems easier to manage who comes and goes in Venice.

Nigel - unclear for now, but they are definitely renewing the scheme for next year.

Did the city limit the number of passes it issued? The only way a 5 euro fee would deter the numbers of visitors is by a limited number of passes.
If the number of passes is not limited, then the fee is simply a mitigation fee ( tourist tax)

If the point is to limit the numbers of day trippers, the the city better consult with the folks at Disney to install efficient and effective admission gate(s)

If revenue is the point then all they need do is imitate the tactics of the bus police in Rome

joe32F - The objective appears to be both revenue for city maintenance and to potentially reduce the number of tourists (in this case daytrippers) coming in.

Venice seems to have achieved the revenue goal, but it seems like they still need to work on how the tourist tax is going to dissuade some visitors. It seems like lack of enforcement was potentially a major issue.

Missing from that analysis is the cost to the city of administering and collecting the fees, which would effectively reduce the amount of revenue.

I think everyone acknowledged that the 5 euro fee would not deter anyone from visiting, that the "experiment" was more to get a system in place with low risk of failure or impact, hence the lack of a cap on visitors. For that, enforcement was not really a concern.

As has been mentioned many times, you want to make an effect? Hike the fee to 50 euros, put a real cap on numbers, have hotels add the fee to the rate, strictly enforce the rules (they seem to have no issues apparently enforcing a strict speed limit on the causeway).

What will happen? Numbers will go down a little, businesses will gripe, hotel rates will go up, third party sites will snatch up daily passes and create tours for you to experience Venice, tourists will be of the higher income brackets that can afford it, everyone will be happy.

Thanks for the information. Good insight.

This was never a fee to decrease the number of day trippers. It was always a money grab from the start. The officials are probably excited that the fee did not decrease the numbers. Next it will go to 10 Euros so they can double their money grab and they will keep raising it until attendance numbers start to fall.

It is always about money, always.

Well to be fair, it wasn't necessarily a money grab. It was an attempt to get daytrippers to pay their fair share of maintenance, security, support services etc., and at only 5 euros a head it did raise quite a bit of money.

Now, being Italy, hopefully someone will mind the till to make sure that the money actually goes to the aforementioned areas and not into politician's pockets. And no, I'm not cynical.

Per Wikipedia:

In 2014, 35 people, including Giorgio Orsoni, the Mayor of Venice,
were arrested in Italy on corruption charges in connection with the
MOSE Project. Orsoni was accused of receiving illicit funds from the
Consorzio Venezia Nuova, the consortium behind the construction of the
project, which he then used in his campaign to be elected mayor.
There were allegations that 20 million euros in public funds had been
sent to foreign bank accounts and used to finance political
parties.

Interesting question whether it is about reducing the number of tourists or raising revenue.

If the objective is the former, there is an easy remedy--raise the fee to 100 euro. If that doesn't work, raise it to 200 euro--that will work.

I would see a program like this as an initial effort for a longer term goal(s).

The first goal, just get something like this passed. (No, nothing that could have appreciable effects on numbers of people coming in had a chance of passing).

Of the two goals mentioned in comments, revenue and numbers reduction, it should be obvious that something like this is only going to affect the first. And should be evaluated on that basis. Does it do enough "good" to be worth the effort? (I would think it needs to be increased in steps, with evaluations and course corrections along the way, but that's me.)

It's going to continue, great! Hopefully improved. If the fee keeps increasing it'll eventually start cutting into the numbers, if anyone wants to wait that long, but then we're at that situation one commenter already mentioned. Perhaps the steep rise in the fee should only apply to non-EU citizens? Make it high enough to make a difference in the numbers and use the money in visible ways to improve services/infrastructure.

But, as I was saying, this is going to be a multi-year (decade?) effort(s). Not a "program/miracle that solves the problem".

€2,000,000 seems like an insignificant amount if the goal is to improve infrastructure; I can't help but think that the cost to run this initiative is far more expensive than that. And €5 or even €10 would be an insignificant amount to pay if I'm travelling all the way to Venice. This all seems like an experiment in window dressing to make it look to the voters that something is being done.

For it to work they need to find a balance between cost to enter and loss revenue by those no longer entering.

If you are going to cut the number of tourists by 20% and the average tourist spends 100 euro a day, then you had better raise 20% of all tourists x 100 euro. (that would be a number close to 400 million euro a year and that might be a 10 to 20 euro entrance fee).

The place is already Disneyland-Like so they could cap the entrance fee (ticket) sales as well. Sorry folks, the park is full, come back tomorrow.

What do do with the money? Cut tourism by 20% and I suspect that 20% of the people working in the tourism of Venice will find themselves unemployeed. So the money could go to retrain them and subsize their housing and food costs until they find work.

If find it indeed odd that the revenue was so low.

In Lauterbrunnen they decided to just significantly increase parking fees. The result last year was a windfall of over 3 million (CHF). People just come. I think we should increase parking fees even further, and also make train tickets more expensive. And then reduce our taxes :-)

This is what Venice could do:
- Charge 100,- a day minimum for parking your car.
- Also increase the ticket prices for trains and ferries. You could for example just charge 50,- for a day pass on the vaporettos and make that the only option you sell to tourists.

Both are easy to implement as the infrastructure for collecting and enforcing is already there.

For the locals you offer cheap annual passes.

I think Allan has hit the nail on the head.

€2,000,000 seems like an insignificant amount if the goal is to improve infrastructure; I can't help but think that the cost to run this initiative is far more expensive than that.

Actually, I recall in reading some of the articles before hand, the plan was never to generate funds at the 5 euro level, in fact they predicted that the revenue would basically cover the cost of setting up and managing the program.

As someone who lives in a tourist destination and loves fall, winter, and spring, I think that cities that never get such a break from tourists should implement one week each month when they do not allow any day trippers except Italians. The tax money from the other weeks should be used to buy places that house lots of tourists and use them to house locals. I do realize that many tourist destinations do not have the many non-tourist jobs that we have in Charleston. Of course, Boeing does depend on tourists flying to other places.

Yes, what Allan says.

100 euros a day for parking is a great idea, or even 200 euros. Only rich people in swanky cars should be allowed to visit Venice anyway. And don't let the crafty cyclists get away with it - 50 euros a pop?

Actually, I recall in reading some of the articles before hand, the
plan was never to generate funds at the 5 euro level, in fact they
predicted that the revenue would basically cover the cost of setting
up and managing the program.

I recall something like that as well, but then what's the point? However, in the article the OP provided a link to it does say the money is to be used for essential services and maintenance. I can't find the link now, but I also read an article last night that said visitors from cruises is also up despite the cruiseship ban.

The 2.000.000 I believe was 1 month trial. So the annual should be a lot better, or I'm wrong.

More interesting is thought about what the voters want. The municipality of Venice, I believe, includes a lot of land on the mainland. The population is something like 260.000. Not many live on the islands any longer. So if 75% live on the mainland and 25% live on the tourist islands; but 75% of all voters rely on tourism for their living .... maybe the will of the voters is best served by doing nothing. ?

Sure, except for the total population, I made up the percentages. But that's the point, no way a casual observer can make an informed opinion. It's a democracy, I will watch with interest, but let them figure it out and follow whatever rules they come up with. But interesting just the same.

Only rich people in swanky cars should be allowed to visit Venice
anyway

Rich people are generally smart people, and don't come to Venice by car.

Plan B then. Filch from the plebs in their boneshakers.

Has anyone come up with another way to curb overtourism other than monetarily?

The 2.000.000 I believe was 1 month trial. So the annual should be a lot better, or I'm wrong.

That is correct, the 2 mil is not too shabby considering its a 1 month trial where enforcement was relatively low. Remember Venice is only a city of 200K and relatively compact, not one of those American megalopolises that need 100s of millions just to keep the light going.

I can't find the link now, but I also read an article last night that said visitors from cruises is also up despite the cruiseship ban.

Well, they really did not do anything to discourage cruise visitors. Venice won a little by not having the big ships cruising nearby, the cruise lines won big, probably saw lower berthing fees, plus were able to charge much more for a Venice shore excursion, and the near, or not so near ports, Trieste and Ravenna, saw a nice increase in volume.

To be honest, if Venice jacked the fee's to 50 or 100 euro, and capped visitors, you could bet that the cruises would snatch up spots to offer shore excursions, it is the small independent tourist that will lose out.

First of all, many cruise lines are disingenuous when it comes to describing their itineraries. They will say that the ship visits/departs , etc from Venice and then have Ravenna and Trieste in small print or parentheses. I will periodically see posts on other travel forums from people who have just found that they really aren't headed to Venice proper........ They do similar types of postings for Rome and Florence. I personally, would never take a cruise to Italy, and I am usually open to the idea of a cruise.

I would be interested in knowing just how many of the daily visitors are truly from cruise ships docked in another port. I am thinking it is more likely that they are pre-cruise or post-cruise visitors, rather than day trippers, but I could be wrong.

Has anyone come up with another way to curb overtourism other than monetarily?

You could do a background check to determine who is worthy. Naaaa, money is all that will work. Or maybe a lottery. But then who is going to take care of the unemployeed? But you are still assuming that the majority of those that live and vote in any particualr location, actually want to curb tourism. If they did in Venice it would have been a 50 euro fee, and might not work either, it might just change the demographics of the tourists, but not the numbers. Lots of rich folk who would love to hang out with other rich folk once the riff raff are gone.

Venice may try other things, but they are captive in their entire lives by tourism. There is no way back. They should face that and embrace it until such time as it sinks enough to have permanent water incursion and the city is no longer liveable.
The Venice problem is the same as the world problem, too many people. You can look anywhere and see it is so.

Venice may try other things, but they are captive in their entire lives by tourism. There is no way back.

I think there is a big misconception here and similar RS forum topics that a lot of these overtouristed cities in Europe are totally dependent on a tourism economy to survive, the truth is often not the case. Take Venice for example, I bet you will be surprised to hear tourism only contributes about 13% to the city's total GDP in 2019. A significant amount for sure, but not an existential amount.

The same is for Barcelona, about 14% in 2019 and 9% of employment. Barcelona is a huge tech hub in Europe, the port is the largest logistics hub in the Mediterranean region, and we also have strong automotive and pharmaceutical industries etc. Tourism is a significant boon for our economies but we are not dependent on it for survival, when it becomes overtourism it's quite the opposite, it does more harm than good.

Sources:
https://fortune.com/europe/2024/01/03/venice-tourist-group-limit/
https://coneixement-eu.bcn.cat/widget/atles-resiliencia/en_index_pressio_turistica.html

This will climb the same way places like Disney kept raising the.
Prices to the point that you average family was priced out. Some thing
will happen with this.

Is that evil. Not like you risked a fortune on a concept. You don't own it. If they want to create a park for billionaires, it's their right.

If they want to create a park for billionaires, it's their right.

True, but that "right" is starting to bite them in the tail end, and by extension the local economy. We live a few miles from "The Happiest Place on Earth", and walked over this afternoon for some ice cream followed by drinks and a snack on a restaurant terrace in their Downtown Disney area. There were 3 of us sitting on that terrace at 3 p.m.--in July. Walked straight into the ice cream place, too. They're also running special ticket deals for locals all summer long--something that normally happens only in the slow season--and there are entry reservations available every day this month.

So while they're soaking fewer people who can afford to visit the parks, the hotels around them have fewer occupants, the restaurants have fewer diners, etc. Plus since Disney provides about a third of the money in the general fund for Anaheim, they get tax breaks based on their influence on the economy. So if they pull in fewer tourists, then that's less money in the city coffers. 800 pound gorillas can do damage.

I thought I remembered the reason for the fee in Venice was to charge day trippers in particular (thus the 8-4:30 time period) since they DIDN'T spend 100 euro per person per day--just kind of tromped around crowding the streets, buying cheap foreign-made souvenirs, and taking selfies before heading back to the ship to eat and sleep. Cutting the number of tourists would more effectively be done by cutting the number of cruise ships in the area in general rather than charging everyone in the city an entrance fee including those who have booked a hotel room and are eating in the local restaurants and so helping support the people who DO depend on tourist dollars. Heaven knows it will still be crowded. We were in Venice in October 2017 on the RS Best of Italy tour, and on our full day were no ships in port and there were still plenty of people in the city. And I'm certain I'm oversimplifying things because if it were really that simple someone would probably already be moving in that direction.

So while they're soaking fewer people …..

I assume the tax payers of Anaheim and the executives at Disney have made what they believe to the best decisions for each of them. I would have to know a lot more than what is on the internet to begin to comment.

… if it were really that simple someone would probably already be
moving in that direction.

What they have chosen to do or not to do probably comes down to what the majority of the voters have decided is best for the city as a whole. It may not be what one would suspect when you consider that in 2020, around 258,685 people resided in greater Venice or the Comune di Venezia, of whom around 51,000 live in the historical island city of Venice (centro storico) and the rest on the mainland (terraferma). So the total voting population is substantially greater outside the historic zone and I would suspect that a very large number of those not living in historic Venice make their livelihood directly or indirectly off the historic zone. So why would they change anything that did not increase their income? Taxing tourists to enter is not going to feed the citizens who loose their jobs, no matter how much nicer it makes visiting Venice for me.

Cutting the number of tourists would more effectively be done by
cutting the number of cruise ships in the area in general rather than
charging everyone in the city an entrance fee

20 million visitors come to Venice each year, according to a few articles, half of those are day trippers, but Venice only had 508,000 off of cruise ships in 2023. So it doesn't appear the cruisers are to blame as that' only 5% of the day trippers and 2.5% of the overall tourist numbers. And even though large cruise ships have been banned from the lagoon, overall tourism numbers are still going up to pre-pandemic levels.

I assume the tax payers of Anaheim and the executives at Disney have made what they believe to the best decisions for each of them.

Actually the tax payers just elect the city council and the council members are the wheeler-dealers. However your mention that the population of "Greater Venice" gets to vote on these decisions is an interesting twist. If that's so then people who benefit from tourist dollars but don't have to deal with the crowds could possibly vote for their personal financial benefit. Perhaps that happens in Anaheim also since there are many people living far from the Disneyland area who nonetheless benefit from the sales and bed taxes. However my comment about oversimplification was meant to indicate that there isn't a simple solution to balancing tourist dollars and residents' inconveniences.

20 million visitors come to Venice each year, according to a few articles, half of those are day trippers, but Venice only had 508,000 off of cruise ships in 2023.

Allan, as a retired library assistant, I'd love to know where you got your numbers. Not questioning them--just decades of research curiosity. :-) A BBC article I read recently put the number of visitors to Venice at less than 13 million, rather than 20 million, but that's still a lot of visitors; and cruise ship passengers are indeed a smaller drop in the bucket than I realized, even if you figure that they are probably 10% of the 5 million international visitors. (Assuming here that most Italians would not travel to Venice by cruise ship.) However if they charged each day tripper the entrance tax, which seems to be comparable to the bed tax in Venice (and much less than the 15% bed tax you pay in Anaheim!), then that would put them on even footing with overnight visitors as far as paying taxes to the city.

I think part of the problem with the numbers in the articles Carlos linked to is that a visitor is anyone who entered Venice during the day, and who had a cell phone. So workers, students, people visiting friends and family, people coming in to eat at a particular restaurant or shop at a particular store would also be counted as visitors, even though they are not what we would call tourists. Just as my husband and I were included in the gate count at Downtown Disney yesterday, but we walked over from our home. We were visitors, but not tourists. (And sadly for the taxpayers of Anaheim the sales tax on our food was barely a tenth of the bed tax on an average hotel room in the area--much less than that for the Disney hotels.)

And none of this solves the problem of unaffordable housing or crowds making getting around miserable. As I said, a very complex problem.

Allan, as a retired library assistant, I'd love to know where you got
your numbers. Not questioning them--just decades of research
curiosity. :-)

Leslie I will admit that I didn't work too hard to verify and I don't know which particular article I read before I posted, and the number seems to be a moving target.

This one says 20 million. https://time.com/6970886/venice-day-visit-access-fee-hit-and-run-tourists-residents/

This one says 30 million. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/31/venice-to-limit-tourist-group-size-to-25-to-protect-historic-city

Where Time and The Guardian got their numbers, I have no idea.

Leslie we are not too far apart on our opinions. Democracy isnt perfect, but its the best system we got, so better to try and make it work than reject it.

Thanks for the links Allan. Interesting that the BBC and The Guardian are so far apart on their numbers when reporting on the same news (tour group size being reduced). Since it's so easy online to include a link, why not show where they got their information? Probably my academic library bias showing up--support your numbers!

Mr. E--sending you a PM since my reply goes too far away from this thread's subject.

Some maths seems to give the 30 million figure as used in the Guardian.

They state that up to 40,000 day visitors arrive on peak days, and that there are just under 50,000 tourist beds in the city. Add 40,000 and 50,000 together, and multiply by 365 and you more or less get to 30 million.

However that assumes 100% "hotel occupancy" every night of the year (very, very unlikely) and that every day (even in the middle of winter) is a peak day. Statistically I don't believe either of those suggestions.

So wearing my statistical hat 20 million is likely to be far closer to the mark.

I agree Stuart, but I'd add that if the 40,000 visitors includes everyone with a cell phone who comes into the city and so can be tracked (the way they came up with the 75,000 number in the article Carlos referenced), then you're counting workers and people visiting family and friends--the latter of which may or may not be tourists.

Just checking in to update how things developed in Venice since the tourist tax pilot program results were released:

Venice will double the number of days tourists must pay an entrance fee in 2025, from 29 days to 54 days. These will include every Friday to Sunday and public holidays between April 18 and July 27, 2025.

The fee will be €5 if booked more than four days in advance and €10 if booked less than four days ahead. It applies to all visitors aged 14 and above.

Residents of the Veneto region, people staying at hotels, students at Venice universities, and those visiting relatives are exempt from the charge.

Visitors must pay via phone and download a QR code for inspectors to check at random in arrival areas. Fines apply for non-compliance.

Reminder in the 2023 trial, Venice collected €2.4 million in fees over a 29 day period, though operational costs were high, leading to a need for further analysis to determine profitability.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c86qlz6l4qno

Visitors must pay via phone and download a QR code for inspectors to check at random in arrival areas.

Any provision for a payment method if one does not have a phone or not have a phone capable of doing that?

Any provision for a payment method if one does not have a phone or not have a phone capable of doing that?

Well it seems like its just downloading an app and getting a QR code, this is something all smartphones can do these days.

"Well it seems like its [sic] just downloading an app and getting a QR code, this is something all smartphones can do these days."

I am bumping this as that response does NOT answer the question, "Any provision for a payment method if one does not have a phone or not have a phone capable of doing that?" Believe it or not , not everyone has this ability, nor is it a requirement for either travel or life.

So again, any provision for a payment method if one does not have a phone or not have a phone capable of doing that?

On the FAQ section, here are some relevant points regarding lack of smart phone or internet access:

https://cda.ve.it/en/faq

Q: I don't have internet, how can I request exemption and/or pay the Access Fee?

A: Only for exceptional cases will payment points be available at Piazzale Roma and the Venice-Santa Lucia Station square.

Q: Can I pay the Access Fee at the ticket office or automatic ticket machines when I arrive in Venice (I do not have a computer/internet access)?

A: The option of paying the Access Fee when arriving at Venice P.le Roma and the Venezia Santa Lucia railway station is currently being implemented.

Believe it or not , not everyone has this ability, nor is it a requirement for either travel or life.

Nope, true, but travel is not a right, but a privilege, if a venue requires a phone with active service, or a phone at all, then that is their prerogative, I guess you miss out.

From my perspective, a phone wit service is essential to travel these days. But like a credit card, sure you can stumble through without, but to your own detriment.

"We have met the enemy and he is us"....Pogo 1970

My phone did not work this summer for 12 weeks in spite of the AT&T plan I had set up prior to departure

I can still travel and pay my expenses without the phone. Paying without a phone is easy. I pull out one of the 4 credit cards using the tap function or inserting it or use cash...absolutely no problem with that.

Traveling in France and Austria was easier without the phone than was the case in Germany. Admittedly, I felt there were certain singular moments when I was at a distinct disadvantage without the phone. It is still however manageable, you merely have to be more creative.

The program was a huge success because it met its goal. $$$$$ Everyone with an ounce of brains knew this program would not reduce crowds. I am glad I have seen Venice. I wouldn't pay 50 cents to visit there now. This is an insulting money grab from tourists. It seems organized crime is operating right out in the open within the Venice government. More than likely no fines have been levied because it is probably an illegal discriminatory fee and the Venice government knows it.

Venice to many people is the gut. Its the line that runs from Piazzale Roma to Piazza San Marco and back. That's all the Venice they see. Out side of this gut, there are few tourists.

The program was a huge success because it met its goal. $$$$$

Absolutely. Venice is a commodity and a commodity is worth what somone is willing to pay for it. Not to take advantage of that would be to deprive the locals in Venice the true value of their place in society.

This is an insulting money grab from tourists. It seems organized
crime is operating right out in the open within the Venice government.

The people of Venice and the people of Italy own the city. You are a guest. You can be a guest by their terms. It is them exercising their rights in a free society to determine what terms those are.

More than likely no fines have been levied because it is probably an
illegal discriminatory fee and the Venice government knows it.

Too funny. Whose law?

Carlos,
I agree with Mr. E.