Here's an editorial piece suggesting a ÂŁ100 entrance fee for Venice and ÂŁ50 for Santorini as a more effective price to battle overtourism.
One of the writer's arguments is that it costs more than that to visit Disney for a day and game tickets for sporting events are at these prices or higher so it's not like it's a groundbreaking concept. What are your thoughts, how much would it take to price you out of the market for blockbuster locations?
My first thought is: "It's great to be a relatively wealthy American where 100 dollars/pounds/euros has absolutely no impact on my travel plans".
And then the other thought: "Boy, that REALLY is awful for much of the world where that $100 is VERY significant.".
Sadly, limiting supply in any way means increasing the costs, so the "winners" will almost always be the wealthier travelers.
The sporting event or theme park comparison was a new thought for me and makes a degree of sense. Of course most Americans flying in to Italy are paying a significant amount just to get in country. If you fly, train or drive from other places in Europe arrival cost would be much less I would think. So what would it be worth to get into a place as magical as Venice? And how much does it cost to go to a football/soccer match in Europe? Is it analogous?
I don't believe that these relatively low fees will make much of an impact on overtourism. I would rather pay 100 name your currency to visit Venice over Disney for sure. I don't agree with making it a bidding war, either, as that will prevent lower wage earners from acquiring life experiences. This obviously is getting to be a huge problem.
I don't know how feasible it would be, but I would suggest a visitor's city visa that would require advanced purchase. The fee could be lower and the visas could be limited in number. The city could determine the number of visitor's visas, business visas etc to hand out. Hotel rooms would automatically come with a 2 day visa. Locals would have a residency card. It already sounds like an administrative nightmare.
Perhaps the hassle would keep some people from even applying.
In a lot of ways, cities like Venice are their own kind of Disney anyways. Beautiful, historic places to visit, but no longer viable as working cities.
I can't open the article, but I'm thinking the devil is in the details. Is it about reducing the number of tourists, or recouping the costs they are imposing on the people and infrastructure there? If the latter, I think it's a good idea.
I would like to see if there is actual science-based research that supports the idea that these fees would achieve the goals. Some people love Venice, and some people hate it. If you've already been, fees would weed out the people who hate it. But there's always a crop of first-timers. However, you slice it, any restrictions (including entry visas) will bias things towards the wealthy who have time money and knowledge to deal with them.
I remember hearing that "theme-park" description of Venice, when we were there 10 years ago, mostly from people on our tour, but also friends who visited independently. Hallstatt as well.
Impossible to say. Why do I want to visit? Have I been there before? How high is the tax? Do I consider it draconian?
Seriously, if it is a place I have never visited and have always wanted to see, I might simply pay the additional cost but cut the length of my stay if the issue is a punitive hotel tax. If it is a place I have visited (with the exceptions of London and Paris) or a place that I consider a second- or third-tier destination, I may well pass. For me, an example is Amsterdam. Lovely city, seems like a delightful place to live, but I need not go back. If I return to the Netherlands, it will be to visit smaller cities. In Spain, one of my two favorites was Barcelona, but I don't have to go back.
But the market system does work. Destinations can keep raising the cost of visiting until they reach the level of visitors they want. Of course, raising the cost of visiting could anger visitors from their own country or from other countries in Europe.
It would not deter us from visiting Venice, but it would prevent low wage earners from being able to afford such luxuries of popular cities. The world should be available to everyone to enjoy.
I think charging an admission fee would make it feel like going to an amusement/theme park. We travel to see the history, architecture and beauty of the area, not turn these great places into Disneylands.
The Louvre is around $25. The Met is $30. La Sagrada Familia is $70. I've paid to go to all three. So for me, at least $70 for a blockbuster is OK.
It's too crowded, no one goes there anymore. Yogi Berra.
On that note I will never visit Venice as to me it has become Disneyland. Even for free I will skip it. S I am priced out not by money but by nothing local at all.
I'm thankful I've been to Venice and Rome a couple of times. I won't plan on returning - their problem solved, right?
PBS News Hour ran a story last night as well. Tourism is a huge story during the summer season. On one hand, stories about "over tourism" and on the other, stories on "exotic" places to go or events to see.
I found it interesting because I've visited the places that they feature in the story - from Bourton-on-the-Water (a RS recommendation on my wife & my first trip abroad together) to Amsterdam to Santorini to Barcelona to Venice. For the most part, always off-season, and generally not over-crowded.
The Louvre is around $25. The Met is $30. La Sagrada Familia is $70.
I've paid to go to all three. So for me, at least $70 for a
blockbuster is OK.
I paid about âŹ120 for two of us for a day at Pompeii plus a tour last year, previously in Rome for a tour of the Vatican it was about âŹ160 for two and about the same as a tour of the Colosseum/Forum, and $500/day for a family of 4 at Disney in the past was typical (Ă 4 or 5 days). So I'm leaning the same way that it wouldn't be a deal breaker. I'm always suspicious though of what politicians end up doing with the money. It's not my fight, but hopefully it would go for the betterment of the locals.
I would pay the 100 on my first visit to Venice, but never return again. These are money grab schemes and will not reduce the number of tourists. I wish the world would boycott Venice for a month. Let's see if the people of Venice like it.
Maybe if they just stopped allowing those giant cruise ships to stop there, the whole problem would go away? Or charge those on the cruise ships a high fee to enter and the rest of the visitors a lower fee.
Maybe if they just stopped allowing those giant cruise ships to stop
there, the whole problem would go away?
They have
Or charge those on the cruise ships a high fee to enter and the rest
of the visitors a lower fee.
They do (docking fee is paid with higher cruise rates)
These are money grab schemes and will not reduce the number of
tourists.
Venice is a commodity. A commodity is worth what people are willing to pay for it. If charging 100 euro to enter does not deter tourism then they would be wise to charge that 100 euro so that the commodity is properly priced. Would you sell your home for less than someone was willing to pay for it?
Maybe charge 250 euro to enter but give the tourist a 200 euro prepaid credit card that only works in Venice. That would help guarantee that the visitors spent money in town and didnt just come, look and leave. Also answers the question of what happens with all the money charged .... goes to the merchants in the city.
It's hard to say, but it would make me consider alternatives. I have been to Venice--11 years ago--and I have to say that I found the crowds took a ton of the joy for me. I still loved it, but my memories of Venice are largely about the crowds, and it has only gotten worse. We have since made a point to find lesser known options or times to visit. We like going places that are unusual, still in their touristic infancy, or maybe just lesser known alternatives, places people say they would like to go but rarely do, etc.
An example of what I mean is Sidi Bou Said in Tunisia--you get the white buildings with blue accents, the Mediterranean backdrop, the rooftop hotel pool or restaurant, and far fewer crowds. Tunisia's El Jem amphitheater is probably better than the Colosseum, you can walk around more freely, and way less crowded. So these are great alternatives. I don't need to go to Santorini now that I have been to Sidi Bou Said (and I have already been to the Colosseum). I haven't been to the ten Boom House in Haarlem, but if I can't get tickets to the Anne Frank House, this is an amazing option.
And while I am all for access, let's not kid ourselves--travel has always been for the wealthy, and within that, there are different types of travel. We have held off on certain trips in favour of others for financial reasons. But we also have the philosophy that, when we are there, let's go ahead and do the thing. After all, when are we going to get another chance? Naturally it would be nice if one could get an income exemption or something, but who's going to qualify after paying for a trip to Europe to begin?
If this makes people choose another place (spreads the tourism dollars, helps the economy in other places while easing overcrowding), great. If the money goes to improving infrastructure or quality of life for the locals, also great. I am for it, even if it sucks.
What would it cost for you to stay away?
Nothing? Personally cities like Venice or Barcelona hold no interest for me, and they seem to be among the ones that are attracting the attention.
My questions would tend to center around why is there overtourism? What has lead to it? Would seem to me for example that the 1992 Olympic games may have had a part. The build up and investment then the annual growth, the pay off and then profitability? What part does continued annual growth/expansion that investors look for play? What about when residents or local governance becomes addicted to the revenue?
A very cursory look at Venice tells me that there are more accommodations/rooms/beds (like I said cursory) available than residents in a city of about 55,000 residents. There is something wrong with that. In my own community often marketed at the "Historic Triangle" there are three localities with a combined population of 168,000 and approximately 7,500 available rooms/beds. Or London with a population of 9 million has 159,000 rooms available.
I may be wrong but it seems to me that getting a handle on the issue would in part involve getting a handle on the over abundance of accommodations and shrinking the supply. Another to me seems to be to create a tourism environment where the visitors melt into the local fabric, not overwhelm it.
But what do I know?
Iâm probably not in the majority here, but honestly, Iâm willing to pay more not to have a horrible experience. I come back to the Vatican Museum over and over again. what shouldâve been an absolutely wonderful experience lives in my travel memories as a never again under any circumstances. It was horrible. It was incredibly crowded. You couldnât enjoy the art
For some of these places, I prefer they raise the price to such that itâs a once in a lifetime experience, but itâs once in a lifetime experience that you enjoy. As it is for some of them, itâs on once in life experience that I absolutely hated and feel ripped off for the price I paid.
As for Venice, I think the solution is pretty easy if a cruise ship shows up the price paid should be several hundred dollars a cruiser and it would not be that hard to collect that money. they could hire a couple of people to stand at the gangway of each cruise ship with one of those little clickers, and then they hand the bill to the cruise line. Cruise lines are either start paying or go someplace else and my bets on going someplace else. They arenât going to want to have all their cruises to Venice be $500 more expensive than their cruises else. Someone earlier said the cruise lines are no longer going to Venice, but I looked at a possibly a cruise this fall in Europe and some of them still offer Venice
I may be wrong but it seems to me that getting a handle on the issue
would in part involve getting a handle on the over abundance of
accommodations and shrinking the supply. Another to me seems to be to
create a tourism environment where the visitors melt into the local
fabric, not overwhelm it.
VAP, I think you nailed it. 5 tourist couples living among 100 or 200 locals is much less of an impact than 250 tourist couples in the new 4 star hotel that just displaced 400 locals by converting their apartment blocks into a hotel. The solution, if there is even a problem and thats up to the locals to define, is broad sweeping regulation of tourist accommodations that touch on every form of tourist accommodations. But we tend conflate our desire for some sort of idillic romantic perception of how things should be for our tourism with the facts of a dynamic ever changing urban environment that is developing to meet the needs and desires of the local inhabitants. If the Amafi Coast were what some of the tourists that do all the complaining say it should be then most of the locals would have to revert to sheep hearding .... i dont think they want that.
If any community anywhere feels its quality of life or identity is threatened by too many tourists and wants to take economic measures to limit the number of people who visit, go for it. Do what you think is best for you. And then those thinking about visiting can make an informed decision on where they want to go.
But I am bothered by the dramatic uptick in whining about over-tourism and the attempt to turn traveling to, say, Venice as a serious ethical decision. If the cities and regions where tourism will be reduced, there will be winners and losers. There are lots of people everywhere who benefit from the tourism industry. And the over-tourism debate smacks of the debate over gentrification of American cities. Yes, those who can't afford the higher housing costs are displaced. But gentrification also brings positives. In this world, change inevitably takes place. Sometimes it is overall good and sometimes it is overall bad. And serious people can seriously debate which is true and how it should be managed.
RJ, brilliant.
I know the gentrification in the city I live brought a lot of the housing from 1900 standards to 2000 standards of living. You cant compare that with the definition of gentrification in the US. And "displaced" doesnât mean homeless, it means moving to an area that is still as it once was in 1900. Again, only where I live, those places are sometimes 5 minutes away from where they once lived. But more and more of them dont need to move, because the tourism industry increased their wages and now they can afford to live the gentrified life with indoor plumbing and safe heat and washer and driers and air-conditioing and internet service.
What would it cost for me to stay away? As long as the citizens of my destination present a welcoming attitude, keep prices where personal benefits of the visit are greater than the cost ... I go. If I had not been to Venice before now, and the cost was 200 euro to see it, I think I would still go. I would make up the 200 euro by making my next stop Albania.
Overtourism is nasty, but it cannot easily be stopped. Long-term,
social planning is needed, not just easy, headline-grabbing "fixes"
like banning cruise ships, increasing tourist taxes or closing
AirBnBs.
And there is the problem that will never be solved. Politicians are in the business of being reelected and so long term planning isn't as effective of a platform as short-term headline grabbing proclamations.
But I am bothered by the dramatic uptick in whining about over-tourism
I would be, if it weren't coincident with a dramatic uptick in whining about pretty much everything. There's an apparent need for some privileged people to guilt-monger other privileged people into doing what the guilt-mongerers think is best.
HowlinMad, against my better judgement, I came here to say just this
And while I am all for access, let's not kid ourselves--travel has always been for the wealthy, and within that, there are different types of travel.
Issues are complicated and beyond me or my knowledge to solve. But it has always been those with more money who travel. I (fortunately or unfortunately- different sides of the same coin for me) have more money for travel than I did 20 years ago. So now I travel. 20 years ago, I didnât.
We have to be honest that we are not standing up for the poor by worrying about a fee to visit VeniceâŚ.. Itâs great if it helps people in Venice! But that is a different issue.
La Sagrada Familia is $70
La Sagrada Familia is only âŹ26 ($28) if you buy from the official ticket vendor. It's a few euros more for a guided tour or to get access to the towers -- up to about âŹ34, I believe.
Some third-party sites rip people off by charging a lot more.
Anyway, ÂŁ100 entrance fee for Venice? I'd probably pay it if I hadn't been there before. Don't plan on going back and the fact that it's so overcrowded that they're considering this is more of an incentive to stay away than is the ÂŁ100.
Chinese citizens' overseas tourism is down 40% from 2019. If they fully rebound back to normal, look out. And get this: 87 million Chinese outbound travelers in 2023.
An egalitarian approach would be limits to the number of people that can visit a certain location in a given day. I don't know how that would work for cities, but it's worth a discussion. Certain sites could certainly implement a quota, and many of them do. Something like the Churchill War Rooms. This would be most fair regardless of economic status.
On another note I understand that $1000 for me might be pocket change to some other people, or a rounding error.
BigMike, you are assuming the loudest represent the majority. Maybe things are pretty okay the way they are?
I know this is controversial, but I don't think there is such a thing as over tourism. It is just all bad timing because people want to see the same location at the same time. Do people visit Chicago in February? Well, some people do, but not as many as in July. The same with the entire state of Florida. Do some people vacation in the summer? Yes, but not as many as in February.
Back in 2014 as I walked the streets of Bruges with a friend who grew up there and I saw all the people carrying, wheeling suitcases and milling around the town, I asked. "How in the world do the people who live here stand all these people converging on your town?" His answer was simple. "It is a revenue stream we can't live without. It raises money to support many public institutions." So, one town's excitement for a great tourist season is another town's woes? I think over tourism is just plain malarky.
It has been repeated many times here on this subject. If the people really, really hated "over tourism" there are many things they can do to change it. However, the truth of the matter is the majority of the residents are not fed up yet as much as a few loud, yelling residents who get the ear of a journalist or a travel writer who tries to make it a crisis through their writings.
There might truly be a housing issue in some cities because of short term rentals, but that can be legislated very easily. Just do what they have done in Scotland. Make all short term rentals have a license. However, to get a license, you have to pass a lot of red tape inspections. If you pass, great. It is good for the customer and safer. If you don't, well, you are out of business slumlord.
I just think these fees are just a disguised public relations way of taxing non-residents. Kudos to Venice for their PR campaign to blame the tax on tourists because of "over tourism". Nice shakedown with some liberal travel writers in your corner.
An 'admission fee' to deter "over tourism" needs to be steep in order to reduce the numbers to just the very rich.
Very effective but is there a moral/ethical issue to consider? Are the (filthy) rich the only ones 'worthy' to be able to travel?
The global population in 1500 was ~half a billion. Today it is around 7 billion.
The Colosseum is not 14 times larger
St Peter' is still the same size. As is Venice etc.
Perhaps the situation would be better if medical science had not come up with a vaccine and masking and travel restrictions had not been imposed during the covid outbreak. The supply of tourists would be less.
If you go someplace and there are too many people there, look in the mirror to better understand the 'problem'
Happy travels.
Disagreeing with threadwear, I do think there is overtourism. People have been complaining here for years that places like Cinque Terre and Hallstatt are too crowded. Then there is Rick Steves Tours which had to drop the Sistine Chapel and Vatican Museums, and Coliseum (I think), due to inability to provide a good experience.
But the discussion of whether it's money grabbing by those despicable elected officials, seems to miss an important part of the equation. Those tourists place a demand on the local infrastructure - water, sewer, electricity (must have AC, now!) streets, garbage, police, fire, hospitals, airports, garages - etc. Is it fair to expect the 55,000 permanent residents of Venice to cover all those costs in the hopes that you'll buy another cheap mask from the Hong Kong owned souvenir shop? Passing costs on to the visitors is a time honored tradition, because it's easier than raising taxes and rates on the voting population. That's true here in the US as much as anywhere. It's the way my city pays for our convention facilities, rental car center, our new (and very nice) airport terminal, etc.
I just don't think there's a solution that everyone will agree to. And perhaps (as alluded to), the next pandemic, world war, the impending climate crisis, or economic crisis, will drain the excess money from peoples pockets, and make another adjustment in expectations.
People have been complaining here for years that places like Cinque
Terre and Hallstatt are too crowded.
If a tourist feels these places are too crowded for their enjoyment, that's their perogative. They can complain on the RS Forum all they want. Stay away if thats what you want. However, making a judgment on behalf of those who live in the places in question, is not the perogative of the tourist.
Mr. E, I think it's up to the locals and their elected representatives.
Stan is right, of course, that many cities and jobs depend upon tourism, but there can be too much of a good thing.
There are trails in Virginia that you have to make a reservation to hike. First-come, first-serve. I can't understand the appeal of crowded hiking paths, but to each their own.
The problem is that while $100 is "pocket change" to a rich tourist who can afford airfare and to stay in a tourist hotel, it is quite a lot of money for others. Even in the US, there are states where the minimum wage is only $7.25 per hour. Not all Americans are rich. Europe only sees those who are. Those making such a low wage don't even think of spending a few weeks in Italy
But on the other hand, if the tourist tax is too low it does nothing to prevent over touring. If the goal of the tax is to reduce the number of people then it MUST be high enough that even rich tourists think twice about going. These tourists have already spent thousands to get to the place where you would collect the added $100. It would not stop them. But if you make it so high as to keep out some od the rich, the average person is never going to be able to go.
What to charge? This is easy, make it "congestion-based". When there are many people you raise the price until there are a sustainable number. The price could be very high on summer weekends and near zero at other times.
But what about those people making $7.25 per hour? I think one simple suggestion that might please everyone is this. Charge the full "congestion-based" $100+ to every tourist who arrives by means other than public transit, foot, or bicycle. Those who would not be able to ever go to Venice could do so by just carrying a backpack and buying a train ticket or riding their bike.
Again, as bad as this sounds, to be effective at reducing crowds the tax needs to be expensive even for rich tourists. But at the same time you need to allow those of lesser means to enter the city.
chrisalbertson, could you be referring to dynamic pricing, where the cost of something reflects demand? Interesting point.
There's an argument to be had that with supply and demand, fewer tourists = fewer accommodation bookings, etc and then prices fall. If the stay roughly evens out between entry fee and lower cost to stay, vs no entry fee and higher cost to stay, then its not going to work. Mind you I don't think anything will work. Tourists will keep coming (yes, us included). I'm quite fatalistic on this.
fewer tourists = fewer accommodation bookings, etc and then prices fall = people go hungry and lose their homes
I have some brilliant ideas which, I'm sure, most of you will agree with.
1) Do what all government economic geniuses do. Raise taxes and raise them to the point where only the very rich can travel. Keep a few spots open for the plebs, maybe hold Hunger Games-type tournaments where the winners go to a destination of their choice (within reason, of course, I want that Bridge of Sighs to myself).
2) Banish all holiday rentals and force close half of the hotels. Locals are all for it. Not recommended in Sicily, though.
3) All countries in central and western Europe adopt the Swiss franc and charge exorbitant prices on everything. Keeps me out of Switzerland for the most part.
4) To allay Mr Ă's concerns over possible unemployment and homelessness, permanently dock half of the cruise ships and turn them into low income rentals. Councils pay tenants to scrub the decks and keep everything shipshape.
Not all Americans are rich. Europe only sees those who are.
I'm assuming you're using the term "rich" loosely as anyone who has some extra bucks to travel. I wish I was rich, but alas, I live in an average home, drive an average car and fly cattle class with everyone else. Travel is a priority and I'm willing to spend extra for the experiences I want. With that in mind I would pay ÂŁ100 (that's currently $175 Canadian) for Venice if my only choice was as a daytrip.
could you be referring to dynamic pricing, where the cost of something
reflects demand?
Based on how Venice does it now, it is using a form of dynamic pricing. The current day charge is certain times of day on certain days of the week during certain times of the year.
Passing costs on to the visitors is a time honored tradition, because it's easier than raising taxes and rates on the voting population. That's true here in the US as much as anywhere. It's the way my city pays for our convention facilities, rental car center, our new (and very nice) airport terminal, etc.
Stan, unfortunately this is the way most cities pay for the infrastructure of tourism here in the US. This is why in many cities the hotel taxes and rental car fees are so expensive. It seems in the case of Venice, they believe people come to Venice, walk around, spend no money, but take up space and cause a burden on the infrastructure. However, that is true in every day trip village, city or town anywhere.
When I go on a day trip to a place away from my base, I spend very little money in that location. I may spend a few euros on lunch or if a sight has an entrance fee, but other than that I spend no money because I am not a shopper. The Venice theory would and should apply to all locations that have heavy day trippers. I think the problem with these fees will always be enforcement and fairness. Will a family of 4 pay 400 euros to see Venice, Hallstatt or any "day trip" place? Maybe. Most likely only once.
I have no idea if the powers that be in Venice actually know if it is true that day trippers spend no money. I highly doubt many people come to Venice all day and spend no money. That is why I believe this is just an attempt at raising revenue without affecting hotel rates.
Regardless of the fact this makes a fun discussion, it will be interesting to see how this process works out in Venice and if other locations follow suit. As far as how this affects the personal economics of people, it will be no different than any other entertainment venue. As a kid, a very long time ago, we use to sit in the outfield bleachers for a dollar in Wrigley Field. Today a bleacher seat is $50.00. Disney World now costs a family of four, $571 for the Magic Kingdom for one day. The poor have never been able to afford what the rich can afford. It looks like Venice will become like Disney World. Unattainable for the poor, but I am sure they really don't care.
My opinions on the subject of over-tourism are shaped to some extent by where I live, which is across Lake Pontchartrain from New Orleans. The city gets a ton of tourists and many conventions from fall through spring--and certainly Mardi Gras and Jazz Fest are absurdly busy. And there has been many complaints over and action taken regarding Airbnbs. But because of importance of tourism, visitors are welcomed warmly regardless of the time of year and the event. And in the summer months, the restaurants and hotels will welcome you with open arms.
As a general statement, at a certain price point, I will decide to go elsewhere. However, though I have not traveled as extensively as some on these forums, I have visited the cities and countries that I absolutely wanted to visit. But what will make me stay away, more than any tax and costs, is a perception that I am not welcomed. You don't want me--don't worry, you won't see me.
I don't need to revisit Barcelona, which I really liked. And I realize that many in Barcelona were probably appalled by the water-gun incidents a few weeks ago. But that a substantial portion of the population feels that I am a problem is enough. It is not a matter of ethics. It is a matter of hospitality and my spending my money where I think I am welcomed and my visiting is appreciated.
And Bologna and mortadella? You can find mortadella in any major supermarket. On a muffaletta sandwich, yes. But it's nothing special.
While I believe destinations are a commodity, I think a lot of people forget that those places are already levying fees on tourists for everything from the transportation to the meals. What we are seeing is a major increase in the size of the population able to partake of such luxuries as recreational travel. This includes populations that, 20 years ago were incapable of this. This happens as the middle class grows, and that is happening, despite the crying about income inequality, throughout parts of the world where it never occurred before. China alone has added hundreds of millions of people to this status.
Back in the 1300-1500's in Europe the rise of the merchant class created a new class of people, who were neither aristocratic or in the church (who had previously been the only holders of wealth), and greatly disrupted society. This is what is happening. I'm not sure how this is going to end, but I expect that anyone who wants to visit Venice, or Santorini, or anywhere else, will accept those fees in order to fulfill their wants.
A very successful salesman I know has a saying, "If you think it costs too much, you really don't want it."
I've been to Venice in the past. I'm in no rush to go back now. And the reason isn't the smoke screen of the supposed over crowding of the cruise ship crowds. It is the over crowding from the now 45,000 tourist beds in the city. A number which has now surpassed the number of city residents.
The former city residents who work in the hotels and the other tourist industries, but who now have to travel in for work, having been displaced.
The city has changed. It may not be Disneyland, but the balance has moved too far for me.
Nor to be frankly blunt do I want to go to somewhere where a certain group of tourists (the majority of this forum, at least) want to look down their noses at day visitors.
And the day visitors include many who arrive by road from other parts of Italy, or by rail, just as much as on the despised cruise ships.
Yes I never fell in love with the city probably because it has always, even 30 or 40 years ago, been so busy, uncomfortably so, at least in the core area. That was long before the multiple very large cruise ships. Another little known traffic source in Venice is the long distance ferries.
If I arrived by ferry now I would just transfer straight to a train out of there.
If it discourages the daytrippers, especially the cruisers, I'm for it. Will it be like Disneyland, where the entrance fee covers all the transportation and "rides" (entrance fees to sights)?
I've never daytripped to either, but I sure have spent a whole lot more than that on hotels alone in Venice and more per night in Santorini in off-season, still swamped by cruisers.
Venice was my husband & my favorite city. I would certainly like to stay there again some year. My preference would be that if a person is staying within the city 3+ nights, they are not charged. So people who are visiting arenât just clogging the lanes but are also spending money in the city and walking well beyond the central main routes.
Eatsrootsandleaves
If you stayed 2 nights, then compared to a tourist that spent 3 nights
But what concerns me most is what did you do with the Coke bottle? You did return it for the deposit so that it would be properly recycled? Please say yes!!
Just wanted to add that I've enjoyed reading everyone's posts, which are all thoughtful and thought-provoking.
At the risk of repeating myself, I suspect the most egalitarian way to limit tourism is a reservation system, which may be impractical in some situations but work in others. It seems unfair to price-out a student backpacker, for example.
On a side note, it costs a family of four about $635 to attend an NFL football game, including tickets, food and drink, and parking. If they're spending the night and driving a bit, it could easily be closer to $1,000 for one game.
What to charge? This is easy, make it "congestion-based". When there
are many people you raise the price until there are a sustainable
number. The price could be very high on summer weekends and near zero
at other times.
Chris' comment above was earlier in the thread. On the related subject, this year dynamic pricing was introduced for 1-3 day passes with access to the Sentiero Azzurro trails and regionale train services within the Cinque Terre region (2nd class for points including and between La Spezia and Levanto. Dynamic pricing was also applied to individual train tickets. I'm not sure this will have any impact on the issues with overcrowding on the trains but, well, there it is. Oh, and visitor access to the newly re-opened Via dell'Amore requires a timed-entry reservation and extra dynamic-priced fee not covered by trekking/treno cards.
https://www.parconazionale5terre.it/page.php?id=158
https://www.parconazionale5terre.it/pdf/TabellaB-TariffaCinqueTerre.pdf
https://www.parconazionale5terre.it/page.php?id=481#:~:text=Entrance%20to%20the%20Via%20dell,Cinque%20Terre%20Card%20already%20purchased.
All the ideas are worth considering as a second step. The first step needs to be a plan and funding for retraining the local workers for another line of work; and alternate sources of income for the city to continue the upkeep, flood control, stabilization, etc.. Of course this still assumes that the majority of voters in Venice or any of the other locations mentioned really want drastic change.
Many cities have a hotel tax or port fee that serves the same purpose, so yeah, nothing new aside from maybe making it more explicit: "Tourism is literally sinking the city, so you, fair tourist, must pay for repairs."
As others have said though, the effect would likely just be that wealthier travelers would pay the fee and perhaps even consider it the cost of having such a nice place to themselves. Behavioral economics books often cite the adverse effect of day care facilities charging parents for being late to pick their kids up:
Rondo, that's fascinating. Makes a lot of sense.
I could see a parent trying to squeeze in an hour at the gym, and the $25 is probably well worth it for their physical and mental well-being.
âSo people who are visiting (at least 3 nights) arenât just clogging the lanes but are also spending money in the city and walking well beyond the central main routes.â
My point was if one specific hotel room is occupied by one couple for three nights or more, it is more beneficial to Venice than if the same hotel room is occupied by three different couples for one night each. The first couple will be branching out beyond the busiest main clogged route of Venice, so compared to the second situation, there are less people on the overcrowded walking route.
They will probably be spending more money because they have time to look at more quality items beyond the central tourist shops. They will be having more meals in Venice because they are there for full days not partial arrival days, and itâs less laundry for the hotel.
Of course this still assumes that the majority of voters in Venice or
any of the other locations mentioned really want drastic change.
Was reading earlier today that once the cruise ships left Venice 4000 people in the region lost their jobs. The article didn't break it down, but I was lead to assume that a good chunk were Port of Venice employees as well as employees of companies directly involved in the supply chain of cruise ships.
Ironically, one of the largest employers in the region is Fincantieri which is a ship builder. In the past two years it's churned out 2 cruiseships in its Marghera shipyard which is right across from Venice. Those two ships directly kept 3500 people employed. So I assume there is a significant pushback among the voting population regarding tourism in Venice.
I would've thought cruise ships would be paying already to dock and offload their passengers. If not then it seems a no brainer that they should.
Of course they do. Any port charges berthing fees. Every port is different regarding their charging structure- some charge by the hour and the passenger count, some charge a flat fee by length and some a combination of the two.
But the fee is always substantial. In the case of Amsterdam the reason why many ships moved to Rotterdam was more complex than the city visitor charge (separate from the port fee). Part of it was that visitor charge, part of it was the lockage and pilotage fees (Rotterdam of course has no locks to navigate) and part was the degradation of Passenger Terminal Amsterdam- Rotterdam being a far superior passenger terminal.
It would not surprise me if Venice Port lost 4,000 jobs- partly through port employees and partly through the supply chain for food and beverage, bunkers etc. However the port of Venice still employs almost 22,000 employees for the ferry traffic and the large freight ship traffic as well as the fishing industry (the latter mainly at Chioggia).
Cruise ships were never banned from Venice- what was stopped was ships over 2,000 pax capacity using the Grand Canal (which they apparently had to, for the old cruise terminal).
It is hard to find out the size and draught limits for Venice, but Venice still has two working cruise terminals on the mainland- at the ferry port of Fusina and the freight port of Marghera. I suspect that most cruise lines voluntarily moved to Ravenna and Trieste (rather than use the other Venice Terminals) due to lower berthing fees and the opportunity to add to their profits by charging for the 2 or 3 hour bus ride from those ports to Venice.
In the same way as they boost their profits by charging at Zeebrugge for the bus to Blankenberge, pretending that Zeebrugge Rail Station doesn't exist.
This forum does very little to explain to cruise ship passengers what there is to do at Ravenna and Trieste (in the way it does for Le Havre or Warnemunde/Rostock- where it rightly tries to dissuade people from the similar length bus rides to Paris and Berlin respectively). Personally if I landed at either of Ravenna or Trieste there is no way I would travel to Venice- by excursion or independently.
Likewise if I arrived at Chioggia on a cruise I would concentrate my day on Chioggia and the Lido, not central Venice- supporting their economies using the integrated boat and bus service, and exploring the town of Chioggia.
Seems like the bottom line is it's up to the residents and their elected representatives, perhaps as it should be.
Reason and balance should determine the decisions.
I'm going to push back just a little on the idea that travel is already for the relatively well off, so opposing fees to visit places like Venice sdoesn't actually support people with less income.
I'm also going to assume that most of us on this website, not all of us or course, did not travel extensively in Europe as relatively broke young people. I spent a total of a year and a half in Europe on 3 low budget trips between 19 and 23 years old.
There are plenty of young people without much money curious to see the world. Entry fees of $100 per person to see given cities certainly could impede them. Personally I don't like this, but also maybe not so much can be done about it ....
So yeah, not all travellers in Europe are wealthy, particularly among the youth. And in particular European youth - they are the ones who will most likely not come.
Mild push back though! Just because some group might be disproportionately affected, doesn't necessarily mean a broad policy is not in the net a good idea. But maybe they could scale in free days and discounts for people younger than 25? And/or EU citizens (I'm sure many retured European on fixed incomes would appreciate it)? Both would be nice gestures.
Personally, I might not go. I already favor more secondary tourist towns, so added $400 for the family would give me more motive to look elsewhere. And my family is fortunate enough to freely spend embarrassing amount of money all the time without a second thought. It's not the amount as much as the added signal: this place is overrun, your skepticism about visiting at all is confirmed.
An interesting twist - especially for most of the folks posting here - would be, "Would you pay a $100/person entrance fee to Venice or Santorini if it meant a quarter or half as many tourists would be there?" (the seeming goal of entrance fees is to reduce crowds). Sort of like, if the Louvre offered a $100 supplemental/additional super ticket for the 8am-10am timeframe where only 1/4 of the normal folks would be in the room viewing the Mona Lisa with you? Would that incentivize you to travel to a crowded place - pay more but have fewer folks to deal with ... OR ...would it disincentivize you because while the product would be "better" the cost would also be greater?
We know you can visit Venice, Santorini, and the Louvre at a time with very few tourists (all have low seasons and/or quiet times), but for $100/person, you could buy your way to that during high season. Which would you choose - changing your travel dates or paying a bit extra or just skip altogether?
$100 won't change a thing. Maybe $250 would.
The post topic reads: What Would It Cost For You To Stay Away?
When Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart was asked to describe his test for obscenity in 1964, he responded: "I know it when I see it."
I guess that would be my similar answer now to the topic. I guess I would know how much when it happens. It might be just a small amount that would make me stay away if I thought it was a money grab like Venice.
If you don't want so many people visiting your city, you don't have to charge them money, just make people feel unwelcomed. It works for restaurants who provide poor service and crappy food. Or just put up a sign that reads:
CLOSED, CALL FOR AN APPOINTMENT.
