CPB

Corporate Partnership
Board

Cruise Shippingand Urban Development
The Case of Dublin

This report analyses Dublin’s attractiveness as a cruise port andassesses the impacts of cruise shipping on the city. It evaluates
policies in place and provides recommendations to increase thepositive impacts of cruise shipping for the city of Dublin. Over thelast decade, Dublin has grown as an important port of call for cruises
in Northern Europe. Cruise tourism generates significant economic
benefits for the city of Dublin. The value cruise tourism brings could
be further increased by developing Dublin into a cruise home port,that is a port from which cruises start and where they end. Under
which conditions could this be achieved? Which policy measureswould be needed? Which stakeholders would need to be involved?
This report is part of the International Transport Forum’s Case-Specific
Policy Analysis series. These are topical studies on specific issues
carried out by the ITF in agreement with local institutions.

Cruise Shippingand Urban Development
The Case of Dublin

International Transport Forum
2 rue André Pascal
F-75775 Paris Cedex 16
T +33 (0)1 45 24 97 10
F +33 (0)1 45 24 13 22
Email: contact@itf-oecd.org
Web: www.itf-oecd.org

2016-12/Photo credit: Port of Dublin

Case-Specific Policy Analysis

Cruise Shippingand Urban Development
The Case of Dublin

Case-Specific Policy Analysis

The International Transport ForumThe International Transport Forum is an intergovernmental organisation with 57 member countries. It acts asa think tank for transport policy and organises the Annual Summit of transport ministers. ITF is the only global
body that covers all transport modes. The ITF is politically autonomous and administratively integrated with theOECD.
The ITF works for transport policies that improve peoples’ lives. Our mission is to foster a deeper
understanding of the role of transport in economic growth, environmental sustainability and social inclusion and toraise the public profile of transport policy.
The ITF organises global dialogue for better transport. We act as a platform for discussion and pre-negotiationof policy issues across all transport modes. We analyse trends, share knowledge and promote exchange amongtransport decision-makers and civil society. The ITF’s Annual Summit is the world’s largest gathering of transportministers and the leading global platform for dialogue on transport policy.
The Members of the ITF are: Albania, Armenia, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China (People’s Republic of), Croatia, Czech Republic,
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta,
Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal,
Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine,
the United Kingdom and the United States.

International Transport Forum2, rue André Pascal
F-75775 Paris Cedex 16
contact@itf-oecd.org
www.itf-oecd.org

Case-Specific Policy Analysis Reports
The International Transport Forum’s Case-Specific Policy Analysis series presents topical studies on specificissues carried out by the ITF in agreement with local institutions. This work is published under the responsibility of
the Secretary-General of the International Transport Forum. The opinions expressed and arguments employedherein do not necessarily reflect the official views of International Transport Forum member countries. This
document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, tothe delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area .
Cite this publication as: ITF (2016), Cruise Shipping and Urban Development: The Case of Dublin. OECD
Publishing, Paris.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS – 3

Acknowledgements
This report forms part of an ITF project on Cruise Shipping and Urban Development, directed byOlaf Merk. It was written by Olaf Merk and Bénédicte Busquet. The report was made possible through avoluntary contribution by the Dublin Port Company. Valuable comments on a draft version of the reportwere provided by Stephen Perkins and Liv Gudmundson of the ITF. Carla Jong of Amsterdam Port
Authority acted as Peer Reviewer during a study visit to Dublin.
During this study visit, interviews were conducted with the following stakeholders: Eamonn
O’Reilly (Dublin Port Company), Pat Ward (Dublin Port Company), Leo McParland (Hamilton
Shipping), Niamh McCarthy (Excursions Ireland), Margaret Cronin (Specialized Travel Services), Alan
Robinson (Docklands Business Forum), Glen O’Connor (Burke Shipping Group), Keith Wiggins (Burke
Shipping Group), Pat Brennan (Burke Shipping Group), Ciaran Flanagan (IDEA), Kehinde Oluwatsin(Dublin City Council, Planning Department), Brendan O’Brien (Dublin City Council, Environment andTransportation Department), Deirdre Scully (Dublin Docklands Development Authority), Greg Swift(Dublin City Local Enterprise Office), Jim Conway (Eastern Midlands Regional Assembly), David
Brennan (Dublin City Business Association), Richard Guiney (Dublin City Business Improvement
District Now We Are Dublin Town), Gerard Farrell (Dublin City Business Improvement District Now
We Are Dublin Town), Orla Carroll (Fáilte Ireland) and Helen McDaid (Fáilte Ireland).

CRUISE SHIPPING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF DUBLIN — © OECD/ITF 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS – 5

Table of contents
Executive summary ....................................................................................................................................... 6
Dublin as a cruise port .................................................................................................................................. 9
Traffic impacts ........................................................................................................................................... 13
What drives the competitiveness of cruise ports? ...................................................................................... 14
How competitive is Dublin as a cruise port? ............................................................................................. 16
What are Dublin’s prospects? .................................................................................................................... 19
The economic impacts of cruise shipping for Dublin ............................................................................... 21
Passenger spending .................................................................................................................................... 21
Cruise lines, local expenses and ship provisioning .................................................................................... 25
Revenues for the port authority.................................................................................................................. 25
Policies and governance for the port of Dublin ........................................................................................ 27
Towards a dedicated cruise terminal.......................................................................................................... 27
The need for an urban cruise strategy ........................................................................................................ 27
Underlining cruise shipping in the tourism policy ..................................................................................... 28
Considering a cruise terminal’s need for a terminal building .................................................................... 31
The potential for enhanced transport connections ..................................................................................... 36
The governance of cruise shipping in Dublin ............................................................................................ 37
Developing an environmental cruise policy for the port............................................................................ 38
Recommendations for strengthening Dublin as a cruise port .................................................................... 39
References .................................................................................................................................................... 41

CRUISE SHIPPING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF DUBLIN — © OECD/ITF 2016

6 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Executive summary
What we did
This study aims to assess the impacts of cruise shipping on urban development in the case of thecity of Dublin, Ireland. It was carried out as part of a programme on Cruise Shipping and Urban
Development at the International Transport Forum (ITF) at the OECD and benefits from a study visit to
Dublin and a series of interviews conducted with relevant stakeholders.

What we foundDublin has been growing as an important port of call for cruises in Northern Europe over the last
decade. From just over 30 000 passengers in 2003, Dublin hosted close to 149 000 cruise passengers in
2015, which makes it the largest cruise port in Ireland, but much smaller than its main competitor,
Southampton, who had over 11 times more cruise passengers in 2015. Cruise passengers now represent 7
to 8% of total number of tourists coming to Dublin, a share that has increased rapidly over the last
decade.
Cruise tourism generates significant economic benefits for the city of Dublin. As a port of call,
Dublin receives thousands of extra daily tourists during the cruise season. These cruise tourists tend to
spend an average EUR 100 per passenger per day, according to the Irish Tourism Agency. Land tourists
spend a similar amount, but including accommodation. Their impact in Dublin is perceived particularlyin the tourism, hospitality and retail sectors whereby some beneficiaries develop strategies to maximise
the outcome of their presence.
The value cruise tourism brings could be further increased by developing Dublin into a cruise home
port, i.e. a port from which cruises start and where they end, also called turnaround calls. Home porting
generally generates larger local economic value, because it is a way to tie passengers to the city before orafter the cruise voyage. Dublin currently has few turnaround calls but has some significant assets that
could be used to increase the current number. In particular, it benefits from a well-connectedinternational airport with fast transport connections to the port. One of the main constraints fordeveloping home porting is the limited amount of Irish residents that go on a cruise in Ireland and thecurrent lack of a dedicated cruise terminal in Dublin.
The potential for Dublin to become a home port will be boosted by the planned dedicated cruise
berths at the port. The Alexandra Basin Redevelopment (ABR) project proposes three dedicated cruise
berths closer to the city, which will make Dublin Port much more attractive and safer for passengers. The
planning permission for the ABR project, received July 2015, will allow the port to go ahead withinvestments for this upgrade.
For Dublin to fully realise the potential for home porting, a cruise terminal building would beneeded. The ABR project does not foresee a dedicated cruise terminal building, whereas this would
arguably increase the probability of Dublin to develop more home porting activity. Given the seasonalityof cruise tourism in the city, a flexible multi-purpose building structure might make most sense. Cruise
shipping impacts are characterised by split incentives: The benefits flow to economic actors within the

CRUISE SHIPPING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF DUBLIN — © OECD/ITF 2016

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – 7

city, whereas most of the costs are incurred by the port. This is all the more the case for turnaround calls;
for this reason partnerships would be needed with the city, the transport ministry and private actors thatmight reap benefits from cruise turnaround calls, in order to find creative solutions to finance a cruise
terminal building.
More generally, Dublin would benefit from an overarching cruise strategy. Such a strategy would
need to define strategic orientations with regards to cruise shipping, including the ambition with respect
to turnaround calls and could cement a partnership with respect to the financing of cruise terminalbuilding structures. As part of the strategy, improvement of the connectivity of the new cruise terminal tothe city would need to be prioritised, as well as sustaining joint communication between Dublin Port
Company and Dublin City Council to attract more cruise passengers to Dublin, not in the least Irish
residents that have thus far tended to go on cruise voyages outside Ireland.

What we recommend
Implement the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment ProjectThis project will provide new berths for cruise shipping. Developing more adapted infrastructure forcruise ships and passengers is the primary concern to improve Dublin’s success as a cruise port. Now
that the approval from the national planning authority has been granted, implementation could go ahead
at full speed.
Develop a joint cruise strategy for the whole city
Such a strategy should include all relevant stakeholders in a partnership between port, city, transportministry and local business associations. As part of such a strategy Cruise Dublin could be promoted
through joint marketing and communication of Dublin as a cruise destination. This should involve actors,
such as the port, city, Tourism Ireland, associations and the relevant ministries.
Better exploit Dublin’s asset as potential home port
In order to increase local economic impacts of cruise shipping, Dublin’s assets as a potential cruise
home port could be leveraged and the facilities needed for realising such an ambition provided. These
could include a cruise terminal building structure. Given the potential beneficiaries of the cruise home
porting, the city and local businesses should be involved in providing and financing of such facility, inpartnership with the port and possibly other actors.
Resolve constraints related to cruise passenger flows
Ways to resolve such constraints include more parking spots for coaches and planning to easepassenger traffic flows between the new cruise terminal and the city centre. Other than dedicated bus
lanes already in place, this could include adaptations to smooth pedestrian flows as well as the extensionof the Luas line into the cruise terminal. The ambition should be to have these measures implemented
when the new cruise terminal becomes operational.
Develop a green cruise port policy
This could start with a systematic monitoring of environmental impacts of cruise ships, including air
emissions, to be extended with mitigation measures, such as incentive schemes for cleaner cruise ships,
e.g. ships using low sulphur fuels or applying alternative measures.
CRUISE SHIPPING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF DUBLIN — © ITF 2016

DUBLIN AS A CRUISE PORT – 9

Dublin as a cruise port
Dublin is the most important cruise port in Ireland. According to Dublin Port Company, it had
93 calls from cruise ships in 2015, which brought in total 148 891 passengers without counting the crew
included. In 2016, 100 ships will be calling the port. These numbers make Dublin a larger cruise port
than other Irish ports, such as Cork that had 54 calls and 138 000 passengers (including crew) in 2014. In
terms of cruise ship calls, Dublin is also more important than most UK ports; only Southampton and
Dover had more cruise port calls in 2014 (Figure 1). The position of Southampton is very dominant, witharound five times more cruise calls than Dublin. From a European perspective, Dublin could beconsidered a medium-sized cruise port. Among the 426 European cruise ports that we have identified inour cruise port database, Dublin is ranked number 63 in terms of number of cruise ship calls in 2014.
Figure 1. Largest cruise ports in the United Kingdom and Ireland (2014)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

Port calls in 2014

Port time in 2014 (days)

Source: Own elaborations based on data from Lloyds Intelligence Unit.

Cruise shipping is a substantial and rapidly growing part of the tourist numbers to Dublin. In 2013,
their share of cruise passengers was approximately 4.6% of total tourists coming to Dublin. The numberof cruise tourists has risen sharply over the last decade, with passenger volumes almost tripling in size,
from around 32 000 passengers in 2004 to 97 316 in 2014, much quicker than the increase of general
tourists to Dublin over the same period. The growth rate of cruise passengers in Dublin is comparable to
the growth rate of Southampton over the same period, but substantially higher than the growth rate of
Dover, which was approximately 60% growth over the same decade, according to numbers from Cruise
Industry News (2014). Although the number of cruise calls has increased over the last decade, it is at amuch slower pace than the passenger increases, reflecting the development of increased ship size in thecruise industry. As a result, the number of passengers per cruise ship call has risen steadily over the last
decade (Figure 2).

CRUISE SHIPPING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF DUBLIN — © OECD/ITF 2016

10 – DUBLIN AS A CRUISE PORT

Figure 2. Average number of passengers per cruise ship call in Dublin (2005-2014)

Passengers per call (incl. crew)

1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Source: Own elaborations based on data provided by Dublin Port Company.

Despite these growth rates, cruise shipping still plays a fairly marginal role in the port of Dublin,which is predominantly a cargo port. This can be illustrated by the number of cruise ship calls which
represents only 1.2% of the total ship calls to the port of Dublin. Total cargo volume handled in the portof Dublin was 31 million tonnes, half of which was Roll-on/Roll-off (Ro/Ro) traffic. Passenger transport
in the port of Dublin is mostly provided via ferry services, with passenger numbers amounting to
1.5 million in 2014, more than ten times higher than the cruise passenger numbers.
The cruise tourism season in Dublin runs mostly from April to September, with around half of thecruise calls concentrated in only two months (Figure 3). As a result of the seasonal nature of cruise
shipping in Dublin, there are long periods in which the port is not used for cruise activities, whereas atpeak seasons several berths might be needed for cruise ships. In 2014, there were 18 days with two or
more cruise ships at berth, three of which with three ships at the same time and once with four ships
berthing simultaneously. The seasonal nature of cruise shipping in Dublin also has an impact on the way
the city needs to deal with the large amounts of tourists; cruise tourism high season coincides with theregular tourism high season. The seasonal nature is changing at the margins: while there was no call in
winter only a few years ago, there were four cruise ships calls in December 2014 in Dublin. There arepossibilities to market the city as an all-year destination, capitalising on events like Christmas and therelated shopping activity. Some of these are developing in Northern Europe, similar to Aida creating a
new year round seven-day cruise starting from Hamburg. The trend is also growing in Dublin, with more
and more calls around Christmas and New Years and the emergence of a few calls every month of theyear (Figure 3).
Dublin is to a very large extent a transit port for cruise shipping: representing 90% of the calls and
93% of the cruise passengers to Dublin in 2012. This means that Dublin is hardly used as a turnaroundport (i.e. ports where cruise voyages start and/or end). As a transit port, Dublin is integrated within
itineraries as one of the ports where the ship will stop in the morning and leave at night, bringing tourists
in the city for the day. Analysis shows that three-fourths of all cruise ships to Dublin in 2014 stayed in
port between 10 to 14 hours (Figure 4).1

CRUISE SHIPPING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF DUBLIN — © OECD/ITF 2016

DUBLIN AS A CRUISE PORT – 11

Figure 3. Cruise calls to Dublin per month (2012-2015)

Source: Own elaboration based on data provided by Dublin Port Company.

Figure 4. Cruise port stay time in Dublin (2014)
30
25

Frequency

20
15
10
5
0
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Port stay in hours
Source: Own elaborations based on data from Lloyds Intelligence Unit.

Dublin is included in Northern European and Baltic Sea cruise itineraries. Most of the cruise traffic
to Dublin is generated by itineraries within the British Isles which represented almost three-fifths of
cruise calls and passengers to Dublin in 2012, according to Bermello et al. (2012). Dublin’s strong
dependence on cruise itineraries within the British Isles can also be illustrated by an analysis of theirdirect cruise connections with other cruise ports, that is: the ports that are called immediately prior to andafter the cruise port call to Dublin. Analysis of the cruise ship calls in 2014 show that half of these are

CRUISE SHIPPING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF DUBLIN — © ITF 2016

12 – DUBLIN AS A CRUISE PORT

with a connecting call to only three ports: Belfast, Cork and Liverpool (Figure 5). The number of directconnections with ports other than Irish or British ones, is very occasional and limited to a few ports, suchas Honfleur, both in France.
Figure 5. Ports called immediately prior to or after a cruise port call to Dublin (2014)

Belfast21%

Southampton
2%
Milford Haven
2%
Avonmouth
2%
Portsmouth
Honfleur 2%
2%
Falmouth2%
Kirkwall
4% Dover
4%

Cork
15%

Holyhead
4% Waterford
5%

Greenock5%

Liverpool
14%

Source: Own elaborations based on data from Lloyds Intelligence Unit.

There is a large variety of cruise lines that calls the port of Dublin. In 2012, less than half of thecalls were covered by three lines: Princess (32%), P&O (10%) and MSC (7%) (Bermello, Ajamil andPartners Inc., 2012). This provides Dublin with a more diversified offer than various other cruise ports.
This could be considered both an advantage and a disadvantage. An advantage because this means that
Dublin is less dependent on one cruise line or brand; a disadvantage because there is no cruise line that
seems fully committed to bringing a lot of passengers to Dublin.
Three-quarters of the cruise passengers to Ireland come from three nations: USA (37%), UK (26%)
and Germany (12%), and the remainder consist of other Europeans (Fáilte Ireland, 2012). Asian tourists
also increasingly take part in cruises, but do not show up in the statistics in a significant manner. People
over 60 years old represent 55% of cruise passengers to Ireland, and one out of five passengers is under
44 years (Fáilte Ireland, 2012). Most of the cruise passengers to Ireland (86%) are return visitors.
Revealingly, these data are only available at a national level, not per cruise port in Ireland; so we have toassume that the cruise passenger to Dublin is in line with the profile of the cruise passenger coming to
Ireland.
Dublin currently does not have a dedicated cruise terminal; cruise ships berth at cargo terminals.
Two of those terminals are located in the middle of the working port, mainly handling containers,
CRUISE SHIPPING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF DUBLIN — © OECD/ITF 2016

DUBLIN AS A CRUISE PORT – 13

Roll-on/Roll-off (Ro/Ro) and Lift-on/lift-off traffic (Lo/Lo), but also dry bulk and products like animal
feed. There is another one called berth 18 - located close to the city centre on the west side of the port which provides better conditions for cruise passengers. There are no other passenger-related activities on
the terminals where cruise ships currently berth.
This environment is challenging for cruise lines and passengers despite the port’s efforts to clean up
the areas and contain passengers when cruise ships are present. The current berth options limit the size ofships that the port can accommodate to 330 metres. The largest cruise ships cannot berth at the port
which is a competitive disadvantage for Dublin. The current draft of the fairway (7.8 metres) is also
restrictive. Even though cruise vessels are not the deepest ships, the draft is insufficient for the largest
ones on the market as of today. The largest cruise ship that has called the port of Dublin so far was the
MSC Splendida in 2015, at 333 metres long. The operation was successful due to simulation efforts andthe reversing of the ship prior to its entry into the port channel. In comparison, the Allure of the Seas, thelargest ship in the world, has a length of 360 metres and draft of 9.1 metres. The port will have a newturning circle by 2019, however, which will allow very large ships to access the future cruise berths.

Traffic impacts
Transportation of cruise passengers is one of the large challenges related to cruise tourism in thecity of Dublin. The city centre suffers from significant congestion and especially on major axes like thequays. The daily traffic of commuters is already very dense, especially at peak hours. The morning peak
hours seem to coincide with the arrival times of most cruise ships to Dublin: more than half of the cruise
ships calling in Dublin arrive between 6:30 and 8:00. These calls are likely to generate coach traffic thatintermingles with the regular urban congestion. The other cruise ship calls were at relatively more
off-peak hours. In terms of ship departures, the overall picture is less concentrated: 40% of the cruise
ship departures in 2014 were between 17:00 and 19:00, but the majority of the departures were later, so
one can assume that the traffic impacts from departing cruise passengers are less coherently coinciding
with urban traffic flows.
Because of the lack of space, there is also a lack of available parking and drop-off areas for coaches.
On relatively large cruise ships, around 50-60% of passengers have pre-booked an excursion whichmeans that over 1 500 passengers could be moved around the city (or its surroundings) during the day.
This is multiplied when there are several ships at the same time. For each ship there are a number ofcoaches responsible of picking up and dropping off the passengers on the various sites of their tours.
There are no particular issues with picking up at the port but there is no designated space in the citywhere coaches can drop off passengers (which can take a significant amount of time since passengers are
generally elderly and buses have a capacity of around 75 passengers) and wait to take them to the next
location. Three simultaneous cruise calls in Dublin Port stretch the tolerability of related coach traffic in
the city centre. The city council is currently looking at a location on the north side of the city centre, anarea that would be dedicated to cruise coaches, but also to other types of excursion coaches and city
public buses, which should be effective in 2016.
It is currently challenging to use other means of transport than coaches. Currently there is no goodaccess to the city as the terminals are situated deep within the working ports. The walk from there to theLuas tram – the tram line that connects the Docklands to the city centre – is long and not pedestrianfriendly: the main access to the port comprises rail lines and is full of heavy-load trucks. The exit of theport is a major axis with four to five lanes and there are few traffic lights (East-Link). A larger choice oftransport options for cruise passengers could also have positive economic effects, as it might increase theshare of passengers that go out to the city on their own and spend money there. As will be explained in
the following section, the creation of a dedicated cruise terminal near the city provides opportunities to

CRUISE SHIPPING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF DUBLIN — © ITF 2016

14 – DUBLIN AS A CRUISE PORT

improve the connectivity, e.g. by extending the tram line that currently has its terminus close to where
the cruise berths are planned to be installed.
Figure 6. Arrival and departure times of the cruise ships to Dublin (2014)
22:00
20:00
18:00
16:00
14:00
12:00
10:00
08:00
06:00
04:00
02:00
00:00
22:00
20:00
18:00
16:00
14:00
12:00
10:00
08:00
06:00
04:00
02:00
00:00

0

85
Arrival time

Departure time

Source: Own elaborations based on data from Lloyds Intelligence Unit.

What drives the competitiveness of cruise ports?
There is a fairly extensive body of academic literature on the competitiveness of cruise ports. One of
the first studies on cruise port competitiveness was Marti (1990). Based on a literature review from trade
journals, he established a ports typology differentiating ports of calls, home ports and all-purpose ports
and setting out their general characteristics. He also set out the differences between the “site” factors andthe “situation” factors. Both comprise a physical dimension, but “site” relates to infrastructure,
superstructure and services available at the port, whereas “situation” refers to attractions around the port,
the sea, land and air connections, which are elements the cruise port benefits from but that are not its
doing. Situation factors can evolve for political, cultural or economic reasons. These distinctions between
ports, site and situation elements and their importance for cruise lines when they choose ports was later
extended by McCalla (1998). He analysed information communicated at Seatrade Miami to weigh theimportance of site and situation in the communication of ports and established that the situation factors
were a more dominant factor in explaining the success of cruise ports. That is, it is more important that aport is located within a cruise region, in an area for which demand is high. If it is not the case, the port
will not attract cruise lines solely with appropriate infrastructure. Site elements such as infrastructure,services range and quality can always be created and improved upon by a port but are not the prime
determinants.
Other authors took slightly different perspectives. Gui and Paolo Russo (2011) applied the Global
Value Chain (GVC) approach to the cruise industry in order to introduce a framework for the analysis ofconnections between the global structure of the cruise value chain and the local structure of land-based
cruise services and related local economies. The GVC framework helps to envision how global industries
are organised by examining the structure and dynamics between different actors involved in a given
CRUISE SHIPPING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF DUBLIN — © OECD/ITF 2016

DUBLIN AS A CRUISE PORT – 15industry. When looking at relationships between ports and cruise lines they find that what matters mostto cruise lines are port charges and quality, the tourist experience, and security, which implies a wide
range of infrastructures and services. Corres and Papapchristou (2011) conducted a theoretical analysis of
the relationships between ports in cruise shipping and attempted to provide some sort of cruise guide forcruise designers, listing out the different factors that are taken into account by cruise lines when they
define their products and itineraries, such as time, space, profitability, services, etc. Some others focusedparticularly on some type of cruise ports. Lekakou, Pallis and Vaggelas (2009) defined determinants ofcompetitiveness of cruise home ports based on a literature study and then submitted the list to industry
professionals whom each ranked the criteria per order of importance. Baird (1997) looked at what it takes
to be competitive as a port of call by taking Leith in Scotland as a case study. Busby and O’Neill (2013)
tried to assess port of calls selection process by cruise lines. A recent ITF paper provides a synthesis ofthese various studies (Pallis, 2015).
Although these studies have their differences, they have certain common threads that make itpossible to derive an overview of main determinants for cruise port competitiveness. A commonality ofall studies is the central role they assign to cruise lines as the main actor deciding on cruise port calls,
evidently based on their perception of clients’ demands. An important element that stands out is the factthat location matters and that port site and infrastructure in itself is not enough to attract cruise lines.
Location of the port within a wider area attractive to cruising is essential and ports rely on other ports towork as cruise ports. They need to compete at the same time as it can be in their interest to co-operate
and market themselves together. Taken as a whole, these studies define a list of top criteria for each typeof cruise port (see Table 1).
Table 1. Essential criteria for cruise transit and home ports
Transit port









Proximity to other cruise ports
Attractiveness of city and/or region
Port site and accessibility for cruise ships
Proximity to the city centre and available transport
options
Port facilities and services offers for ships, crew
and passengers
Competitive port fees
Clean, safe and comfortable terminals, preferably
passenger-dedicatedPhysical capacity of the port and the city to hostlarge number of passengers

Home port







All elements needed for ports of call (lesser
importance of the attractiveness criteria)
Close to other attractive cruise ports
Extensive services for passengers, crew and ships
Great air and/or road, and/or train connections
Very efficient services and facilities to operate
turnarounds
Logistics and provisioning services

Source: Own elaboration.

Transit ports are ports where ships call, but where passengers do not start or end their cruise. This
generally means that cruise ships arrive in the morning and depart in the evening, allowing its passengers
time to visit the city in the meantime. Cruise transit ports are dependent on the presence of otherinteresting locations within short to intermediary distance. One of the main determinants for theattractiveness of ports of call is the attractiveness of the destination. Cruise clients often decide on a
cruise based on the attractiveness of the destinations, cruise lines seek to include several of such“marquee” ports in their itinerary. Marquee ports are destinations that present cultural, historical,
religious, or heritage value or other types of major attractions. Venice and Barcelona are examples of

CRUISE SHIPPING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF DUBLIN — © ITF 2016

16 – DUBLIN AS A CRUISE PORT

marquee ports. A cruise port is more attractive if it happens to be located in proximity to other cruise
ports in a cruise area, so that cruise lines can come up with attractive itineraries. Another determinant of
cruise port attractiveness is that ships can berth in close proximity to the city centre to minimise transport
time and provide passengers with attractive views on the city. It is considered an advantage if the port
has appropriate berths; when these are absent passengers need to be transported to land by small boats(tenders), which adds logistical complexity and less ease for cruise passengers. Ports are more attractive
to cruise passengers if the area where passengers disembark the ship is clean and safe, ideally dedicatedto passenger activities with enough capacity to handle at the same time a large number of passengers(potentially several thousands of them). Services such as shops, food and beverage, information points
provide additional advantages. Finally cruise lines also expect attractive fees from ports since they try tominimise their costs.
A home port is a port where passengers start or end their cruise; it is also called a turnaround port. It
implies that ships arrive to disembark and embark passengers. Disembarkation and embarkation areusually done within the same day so the port needs to provide very efficient logistics and passenger
facilities. The port and region have to offer attractive logistics for provisioning ships and ideally otherservices to ships like repairs. A home port must be well located to provide a starting and end point foritineraries. Being in close proximity to or very attractive for a particular source market is crucial to serve
as a home port. It is essential that a home port is very well connected to a wide international flight offer
and that the airport is located in close proximity to the port. Depending on its source market, it will also
matter a lot that the port is easily reachable by train or by car (with available parking space). It is better if
the home port is also an attractive destination for passengers but it is less crucial criteria for a port of call.
The port is more attractive as a home port if it has an appealing and well-organised terminal building, sothat it simultaneously processed people leaving the ship and those arriving. This implies the presence of anumber of passenger services such as baggage handling, security checks, customs, waiting areas, shops,
food and beverage. Space and services for ships’ crew adds to the attractiveness. Without such facility it
is much harder to satisfy both the passengers and the cruise line. The building could be designed as amulti-functional building if cruise tourism is seasonal, so that it can have year-round utilisation.

How competitive is Dublin as a cruise port?
Dublin is an interesting destination for cruise lines, as it is located close to other attractive
destinations in Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. The attractiveness of Ireland shows well inpassenger interviews: for almost half of the passengers, Ireland as a destination of the itinerary was very
important in the choice of cruise package, in particular for American tourists (Fáilte Ireland,2012).Within Ireland, Dublin is considered as a marquee destination since it offers a wide range ofcultural attractions. Within a short distance from the city centre, one can find luxuriant country side andheritage sites, such as Glendalough, Wicklow Mountains or The Boyne Valley.
The most important challenge to Dublin Port is the current lack of a dedicated cruise berth. This
provides a non-adapted environment for cruises that arrive at the working port. The current berths convey
a good capacity in terms of length and depth but the world’s largest ships are not able to call because of
depth restrictions. This is especially true the closer the ship wants to get to the city. Dublin port is locatedfairly close to the city centre, but is not well connected to it mainly due to the fact that ships currently
call in the working port that is an enclosed area under the International Ship and Port Facility Security(ISPS) regulations. This makes it more complicated for taxis and coaches to get access to the cruise
passengers, despite the fact that space is available at the main terminal. It offers parking capacity foraround 50 coaches, and seven to nine taxis at a time. Still, there is no direct public transport link to theterminals where cruise ships berth, apart from one public bus that goes around the port. Cruise lines
generally do not support such services since they compete with their own excursion offers. Going by footCRUISE SHIPPING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF DUBLIN — © OECD/ITF 2016

DUBLIN AS A CRUISE PORT – 17

to the city centre is not an easy option either. This however will change when the new cruise berths open
since the Luas train will be located only 150 metres away. Port facilities and services are currently
limited for passengers and crew since no dedicated superstructure is available at the port, given thatterminals are used for cargo the rest of the time. Excursion companies and the port make considerable
efforts to welcome passengers and ensure a pleasant stay even if the context is not optimal for cruise
ships. However, these situations will change in the near future thanks to the port’s redevelopment
project, outlined in more detail in the section on Policies and governance.
Figure 7. The share of each nation’s cruise passengers that went to “local” destinations (2013)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Source: Own elaborations based on data from CLIA, 2014.

The main obstacle for Dublin to develop as a cruise home port is the lack of interest of Irish
passengers to go on a domestic cruise. Irish cruise passengers hardly use Dublin, or any other Irish cruise
port for that matter. The cruise penetration rate in Ireland was 1.3% in 2010, which was almost half ofthe rate of the UK, the European leader in this respect. However, the rate was not far behind other
European countries with high cruise penetration rates, such as Germany and Italy, and was far ahead ofmany other European countries, including France, Denmark and the Netherlands (CLIA, 2012).
According to CLIA, there were approximately 35 000 Irish cruise passengers in 2013, but 77% of the
Irish cruise passengers go to the Mediterranean and the Caribbean; only 3% to the UK/West Europe, themain itinerary in which Irish ports are included (CLIA, 2014). This is strikingly different from othercountries. In most European countries the share of national cruise passengers to “local” destinations anditineraries – in which the local port is included – is substantially higher (Figure 7). This share is evidently
particularly high for countries in the Mediterranean, such as Greece, Italy and Spain. However, cruise
passengers of other smaller countries with similar climates to Ireland, such as Scandinavian countries,
Belgium and the Netherlands, also choose relatively more often “local” cruise itineraries in which thelocal port is naturally included. Dublin can only develop into a cruise home port if there is a larger
number of Irish residents going on a cruise that includes Ireland.
One of the strong arguments for home porting to Dublin is the international airport with reliable andfrequent flight connections. According to Lekakou, Pallis and Vaggelas (2009) this is the most important

CRUISE SHIPPING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF DUBLIN — © ITF 2016

18 – DUBLIN AS A CRUISE PORT

criterion for cruise lines when they consider home ports. Such facility and associated services are crucial
to facilitate access of passengers to the starting point of a cruise, especially when the planned cruise is far
from the origin country of the passenger. Dublin already markets itself as a home port for North
American passengers thanks to its airport, which has even more force considering the lack of such an
airport facility in Southampton, the largest UK cruise home port. Dublin Airport offers 268 flights toNorth America per week, so around 38 flights per day. It also provides many options for European
passengers through its connections to 100 other European airports. Another advantage is that the airport
is reachable from the port in 15 minutes by road, thanks the Port Tunnel that opened a few years ago. It isalso only 12 kilometres away from the city centre. The airport offers a pre-clearance check-in service forpassengers going to the United States as well, which is presented as advantage to attract them andAmerican cruise lines.2
Figure 8. Number of daily intercontinental air connections in selected European cruise ports (2014)

Daily intercontental flight connections

250

200

150

100

50

0
LondonAmsterdam

Dublin

North America

Copenhagen

LisbonStockholm

Hamburg

Other intercontinental

Source: Own elaboration based on data from Innovata Airlines Schedules.
Note: Data refer to week 32 (early August) in 2014; intercontinental flights include Russia and Turkey.

The lack of dedicated cruise berths and structures, indicated earlier in this report, is also more of aconstraint for home port activities than for transit passengers. The port of Dublin currently uses awarehouse at one of its multi-purpose terminals in case of turnaround calls but the facility is fairly basic.
As mentioned earlier, the new port’s master plan includes a dedicated cruise berth close to the city
centre. However, the project currently does not include a terminal building, even if it provides thepossibility to add such a building at a later stage. The cruise berth is located next to the city, which
increases the possibility of walking from the port to the city or taking public transport. The
redevelopment of the Dublin Docklands will also provide cruise passengers and crew with a number offacilities in close proximity to the cruise berth.

CRUISE SHIPPING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF DUBLIN — © OECD/ITF 2016

DUBLIN AS A CRUISE PORT – 19

What are Dublin’s prospects?
Within Ireland, Dublin is regarded as the major and first Irish port of call. As a capital city, Dublin
remains the most important stop for cruise lines and their passengers. When a cruise ship has one call in
Ireland it will very likely go to Dublin rather than any other cruise port in Ireland. Most other Irish ports
are rather complementary ports of call, like Waterford, and lack infrastructure for large vessels but havegood brand recognition. Cork could to some extent be considered as a competitor (at least according toBermello, Ajamil and Partners Inc., 2012), but it is not a marquee port to the same extent as Dublin.
Even though Ireland does not represent a large passenger source market, the penetration rate of
cruise tourism among the Irish is fairly high and could increase in the coming years. As mentioned, oneof the distinguishing elements of Irish passengers is their unlikeliness to go on a cruise in their own
country. This seems to be a first potential source of additional cruise passengers to Dublin and other Irish
ports, which could also cement a strategy of Dublin to have more home port calls.
The general idea in Dublin is that the port is particularly interesting for American cruise line’s
North-European cruise packages. This is due to its international airport with numerous flights to North
America as compared to others in the area (it offered over a million seats in 2014). Furthermore, it is also
due to the historic connections between Ireland and North America and to a considerable share ofAmericans with Irish origins. It could indeed be convenient and attractive for Americans to use Dublin asa fly-to home port for their cruise trips. It is however not the only market on which the Port of Dublin
could capitalise.
Dublin could market itself more as a destination for European cruise passengers. Some important
European cruise home ports are a starting point for European cruisers that do not necessarily come fromthe country’s source market. Barcelona, Venice and Piraeus are good examples since the Spanish, theItalian and the Greek market are not among the largest passenger sources in Europe. These ports are usedat the same time by locals and passengers from the rest of the world (mainly Americans and other
Europeans) that want to cruise in the Mediterranean. Considering the good air connectivity from Dublin
to the rest of Europe, Dublin could market itself as a home port for Europeans that want to cruise in the
British Isles or the north of Europe. Southampton currently is the dominant player in this market, with animpressive number of terminals, very good access for cars and dedicated infrastructure at each terminal
even if the services offered are limited. However, Southampton does not have Dublin’s advantage, which
is a well-connected airport from which the port can be reached very quickly.

CRUISE SHIPPING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF DUBLIN — © ITF 2016

THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF CRUISE SHIPPING FOR DUBLIN – 21

The economic impacts of cruise shipping for Dublin
Cruise shipping can generate local economic benefits which could include direct economic value
generated from port revenues, spending by passengers, crew, and the ship in the form of local
provisioning. Other benefits could result from cruise shipping such as job creation and the potential
increase in tourism traffic in general. For Dublin, the existing knowledge on the economic impact of
cruise tourism is very limited. The only reference is one study from 2010 commissioned by Tourism
Ireland that looks at spending from passengers and crew, and port tariffs. There are no studies on theemployment impact of cruise tourism in Dublin or in Ireland. The overview below is a fairly qualitative
assessment based on findings from a series of interviews with relevant actors in Dublin.

Passenger spending
Cruise passenger spending in Dublin represented around EUR 10 million in 2010, approximately
EUR 100 per day (Tourism Ireland, 2010). This study found crew spending of EUR 46 per day, andgenerally lower economic cruise impacts for Ireland as a whole, where average cruise passenger
spending in 2010 was EUR 71 per day and EUR 20 million in total. The amount of cruise passenger
spending was found to be similar for general tourists, which could be considered striking as spending by
these tourists also includes accommodation. These findings were based on 720 face-to-face interviews
with cruise passengers and crew on their spending patterns, conducted from August to mid-September
2010 at various Irish ports. These spending patterns are confirmed by more qualitative observations.
Businesses associations indicate noticing a difference when cruise passengers are in Dublin, which has apositive impact on the activity of their members, such as in shops, restaurants and attractions.
Passenger spending is in line with international practice. A meta-analysis of port impact studies thatcruise passengers spend on average around USD 100 per day in cruise ports (OECD, 2014), which iscomparable to the numbers for Dublin. However, evidence from various studies also indicates thatspending from home port passengers is usually much higher; on average six to seven times more thanfrom transit passengers, according to GP Wild and BREA (2007). Our comparison of spending by homeport and transit passengers in a selection of ports confirms the difference in spending, although with alarge variety in spreads (Figure 9), with big differences in Piraeus and Marseille, and more moderate
differences in Venice. The determining factor there is the extent to which home port passengers actually
stay in the city before or after their cruise journey. In the case of Venice around half of the home port
passengers do not stay in the city, so the revenues from these passengers are very low. However, in thecase that home port passengers actually stay in the city – which is the norm – increasing the share ofhome port passengers in Dublin might also translate into higher economic impact per passenger.
Cruise passengers and crew expenses generally benefit certain types of businesses in a city. The
main sectors of activity to which they contribute are hospitality through restaurants, bars and hotels; thetourism industry through local attractions, museums and other cultural sites; the retail sector, especiallythrough buying clothing, accessories and souvenirs; and the transportation sector whether it is public or
private transportation offer. Depending on the type of calls and visitors, expenses are generally not thesame. From the collection of various economic impact studies, it can be established that the expenses oftransit passengers, those of home port passengers and those of ship crews show that each group does notprioritise the same elements (Figure 10).

CRUISE SHIPPING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF DUBLIN — © OECD/ITF 2016

22 – THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF CRUISE SHIPPING FOR DUBLIN

Figure 9. Economic impact of home port vs. transit passengers
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Piraeus

VeniceMarseille

Spending per transit passenger (EUR)

Barcelona

Hamburg

Spending per home port passenger (EUR)

Sources: Corres, 2012; Handelskammer Hamburg, 2013; Marseille Provence Chambre de Commerce et d’Industrie, 2010,
Venice Passenger Terminal, 2013; Barcelona Catalonia, 2014.

Transit passengers tend to spend the highest share of their expenses on excursions and retailproducts. Home port passengers generally dedicate the largest part of their budget to accommodation
before or after their cruise and to food and beverages. Some studies also find that local transportation
expenses for these passengers are much greater than for crew and transit passengers. Crews generally
spend most of their money on food, beverage and entertainment when they are at cruise ports. They also
attach importance to affordable retail offer and tend to spend money on clothes and other necessity items.
They can also be looking for bank services for remittances and internet connection to keep in touch with
their family.
In Dublin, retail is the sector that currently benefits the most from cruise shipping, according toTourism Ireland (2012). It represents 50% of passenger expenses the ship is on call, and 65% of local
craft and souvenirs are included. Entertainment and cultural attractions are also an important part of thebudget with respectively 17% (other expenses and entertainment) and 3%. Food and beverages are thethird most important expense from cruise passengers, representing 14% of the daily budget.
Transportation only represents marginal expenses as it amounts to only 1% of passenger expenditures in
Dublin.
Our own observations confirm the local economic impacts of cruise shipping. Business associations
reportedly know from their retail members that the venue of cruise ships in the season can be felt in
stores, even if it is often hard for shops to distinguish cruise passengers from the other tourists andtherefore to evaluate their contribution. The top-end retail store Brown Thomas notices on average foreach day of a cruise call that its revenues paid in USD increases by 25%. Likewise, payments in CNY

CRUISE SHIPPING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF DUBLIN — © OECD/ITF 2016

THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF CRUISE SHIPPING FOR DUBLIN – 23

(People’s Republic of China yuan) at the store also increase by this percentage. The Guinness
Storehouse, one of the main tourist attractions, sees a clear impact from cruise tourism.
In some cases, the affluence of cruise tourists risks to undermine the attractiveness of certain of
Dublin’s assets. Various popular attractions, such as the Trinity College with the Book of Kells, getsaturated when large ships arrive and bring several thousand passengers that mix with land-based
tourists. If cruise tourism generates large revenue peaks for these attractions, it also has the potential todeteriorate the experience of visitors at popular sites of the city because of congestion and time loss. Thisis luckily not necessarily always the case. The Guinness Storehouse, one of the most affluent attractionsof Dublin, was designated Europe’s Best Tourist Attraction in 2015. This is particularly critical to cruise
tourism, knowing that passengers only get a few hours in town. In addition group entrance fees aremostly likely negotiated at a lower cost per head which means that cruise tourists bring less value tothese venues than regular tourists.
Figure 10. Cruise visitor expenses per spending category and visitor profile
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Excursions and transport

RetailOther purchases

Baltic ports

Home port

Transit

Caribbean ports

Crew

Home port

TransitVancouver (BC)Crew

All passengers

Crew

Lodging

Food and entertainment

Sources: BREA Baltic, 2014; BREA Caribbean, 2012; BREA Canada, 2008.

Local actors have undertaken initiatives to exploit the economic potential of cruise passengers to
Dublin. “We are Dublin Town”, a business association, goes on cruise ships to inform passengers about
the city’s attractions, answering frequently asked questions about things like shopping possibilities andtax refunds. The retail store Brown Thomas actively targets and provides specific services to cruise

CRUISE SHIPPING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF DUBLIN — © ITF 2016

24 – THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF CRUISE SHIPPING FOR DUBLIN

passengers, e.g. it offers delivery services to the ship for items bought at the store and tries to adapt theoffer to the type of clients that will be coming. Some top-end restaurants have also targeted cruise
tourists and have adapted their times (earlier lunches) and menus. They generally collaborate withexcursion companies so that everything is planned ahead and clients are satisfied.
Figure 11. Cruise passengers daily expenses while on a day visit to Dublin
Museums andart galeries
3%
Food andbeverage
14%

Ground transport
and taxis
1%

Shopping
30%

Local craft andsouvenirs
15%

Other spending(including
entertainment)
17%

Other retail20%

Source: Fáilte Ireland, 2010.

Dublin has the potential to maximise the economic benefits brought from its transit cruise
passengers. In the data provided by Fáilte Ireland, no distinction is made between the expenditures of
cruise tourists that join excursions and those of passengers that do not. Local businesses and associationsin Dublin believe that there is great economic potential to gain from the latter category, since everything
they spend goes directly into the city without going through cruise lines. This part of passengers can also
be increased given the fact that some of the passengers that did not book excursions would rather stay on
the ship. Better targeting of this population would enable an increase in the economic impact of cruise
shipping in the city. The association “We are Dublin Town” is pro-active in promoting the diversity that
Dublin has to offer in trying to convince people to go have their own personal tour in the city. It visits all
cruise ships to inform cruise passengers on the facilities in Dublin.
There is also great potential to increase expenditures from cruise ship crews in Dublin. Currently
there is no special offer for them, but this particular population is inclined to spend on specific items
when they are at a cruise port for a few hours. Since a lot of the services for crew are not free on the ship,
they are actively looking for services such as an internet connection when at berth. Since they spend longmonths on board as well, they also highly value quick access to good value-for-money retail brands. In
light of their preferences, it appears that the future developments and premises that will open in the
Dublin Docklands (such as the Point Village shopping centre) can be great places for crew and could
benefit from this client base.
Dublin would also gain greatly from receiving a larger number of cruise turnaround calls. The
potential extra revenues that would be generated from home porting would be particularly great for the
CRUISE SHIPPING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF DUBLIN — © OECD/ITF 2016

THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF CRUISE SHIPPING FOR DUBLIN – 25

hospitality sector, provided that sufficient hotel capacity is in place. Not all of turnaround passenger
decide to stay before and after their cruise but if they do the value to gain is great as the average expense
per passenger rises sharply. This implies that the city needs a strategy to attract these patrons in staying
for a few nights which would generate significant revenues for hotels, restaurants and transportationcompanies.

Cruise lines, local expenses and ship provisioning
Local provisioning by cruise lines is marginal. American cruise lines that reposition their ships in
Dublin send all the goods they need from the US, including fresh products. For instance Princess Cruises
would send 5 to 12 containers per cruise ship from Fort Lauderdale, half of which consists of reefercontainers with food. It is estimated by local actors that approximately 95% of supplies comes directlyfrom the US; the remaining 5% constitute emergency or last-minute needs that would have to be bought
locally.
Cruise shipping is not the most lucrative business for port-related actors in Dublin. Agents andstevedores recognise that the cruise industry is a particularly challenging one because it brings very large
volumes to the port but very small returns compared to other shipping activities. Cruise lines are
unpredictable and hard to rely on as they may switch from one contractor to the other or one port to theother from year to year. Despite these facts, port actors follow the position of the port and are willing tokeep operating cruise ships because they believe it benefits the city.
For excursion companies there is a lot of pressure from cruise lines and very little loyalty. Cruiselines are always looking at reducing costs to a minimum which makes it a challenge for excursion
companies to meet their requirements of service quality as well as the cost cuts they require and there isconstant fear that the contract will go to the competitor. Rules imposed by cruise lines are perceived asvery strict in terms of service efficiency and quality and come with huge mark-ups on local prices. Alsofor excursions companies, cruise ships represent a lot of work for relatively small returns. The
assignments related to cruise shipping, however, represent 100 to 115 jobs during the cruise season.

Revenues for the port authority
The revenues generated by cruise shipping for the port authority are limited compared to other typesof cargo. On the basis of 2010 and ports tariff policies, cruise revenues from port charges amounted to
EUR 3.2 million, of which EUR 1.3 million concerned calls at the port of Dublin (Tourism Ireland,2012). Dublin Port Company estimated cruise revenues at around EUR 1.2 million in 2014. The port
authority is willing to provide berthing for cruise ships because it acknowledges the value this form of
tourism generates for the city. It uses other commercial activities to cross-subsidise cruise activities andthe new developments that will enhance Dublin port’s capacity as a cruise port. Dublin Port Company
has illustrated this by assessing at which point the port’s capacity would be saturated given the forecasted
increase in cargo traffic at the port. Furthermore, they compared this to a situation in which the space forcruise shipping would be used for cargo handling, in order to identify the opportunity costs of cruise
shipping to the port authority. In the option whereby the port would give up cruise shipping, it would
gain six extra years of cargo handling before reaching capacity.

CRUISE SHIPPING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF DUBLIN — © ITF 2016

POLICIES AND GOVERNANCE FOR THE PORT OF DUBLIN – 27

Policies and governance for the port of Dublin
Dublin Port Company recognises the importance of developing new cruise facilities to enablefurther growth of the business for Dublin. This is reflected in the port’s Master plan for 2012-2040. The
plan sets out how the port will develop over the period and focuses on the optimisation of the current port
area to increase capacity and avoid land reclamation in order to minimise the environmental footprint of
the port and concerns around it. The most critical part of Dublin’s activity as a port is Ro/Ro shipping; it
represents a large part of the local business, for which capacity constraints were projected. The masterplan integrates this need for additional capacity with the desire to develop other activities, including
cruise shipping. Dublin Port Company would like to develop this activity because of the significant
revenues it generates for the local economy, even if the returns from the cruise business are not very
substantial for the port. Another aim of the master plan is to integrate the port with the city and its
inhabitants, by creating more linkages and enhancing the aesthetics of the port. Cruise tourism and therelocation of dedicated terminals closer to the city would contribute to this and benefit from it as well.

Towards a dedicated cruise terminal
The cruise ambitions of the Master plan 2012-2040 gave birth to the Alexandra Basin
Redevelopment Project (ABR). The ABR Project will facilitate two berths that can handle cruise ships of360 metres side-by-side, alongside a 230-metre cruise ship in the Alexandra Basin, which is adjacent to
the East-Link bridge across from the Luas light rail system and a 10-minute walk from the city centre.
These berths will have priority to the cruise ships during the cruise season, outside of that it will beutilised as a multi-modal facility. Its proximity to the city would make ships visible in the city centre
from the River Liffey quays and could provide better and faster connectivity with the city centre. The
three new cruise berths would give the port a capacity for 1 000 yearly calls. From current traffic trends,
Dublin Port Company estimates that at best, there will be no more than 200 calls from cruise ships per
year in the years after the new terminals are built, hence the multi-functionality of the terminal (Bermello
et al., 2012) The ABR Project will enable the visit of larger ships with longer, new berths and a
deepening of the river to 10.5 metres. It will also provide a more optimal environment, as passengers will
no longer have to embark and disembark in a cargo handling area. The new terminal will provide much
more attractive conditions for cruise lines and leave enough space to consider building facilities to easethe passenger handling process.
The new berths proposed by Dublin Port Company will require an investment of EUR 30 million
out of the EUR 230 million needed for the whole project. The port will be conducting large investments
to provide new infrastructure but is also seeking collaboration with other parties such as Dublin City
Council, Dublin Chamber of Commerce, Tourism Ireland and the national Department of Transport,
Tourism and Sport. The ABR project has been subject to approval for a planning permission by thenational planning authority (An Bord Pleanála),3 a procedure which also assessed possible impacts on theenvironment generally and specifically on protected Natura sites. The approval by the national planning
authority was granted in July 2015.

The need for an urban cruise strategy
The importance of cruise shipping is acknowledged by the City of Dublin. Within the 2011-2017
Development Plan the importance of cruise tourism for Dublin City Council is included in the goals set

CRUISE SHIPPING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF DUBLIN — © OECD/ITF 2016

28 – POLICIES AND GOVERNANCE FOR THE PORT OF DUBLIN

for city tourism as a contributor to the revitalisation of the local economy. Dublin City Council
acknowledged the need to formulate an assessment of the available berth options for cruise ship and toprovide recommendations for potential relocation and cultural tour options for passengers. This was donein the Dublin Region Action Plan (2009), which was formulated as part of the URBACT Cruise Tourism
and Urban Regeneration (CTUR) programme of the European Union (Box 1).
There is large potential interaction between city policies and cruise shipping. The development
plans of Dublin City Council integrate many objectives that have an impact on passenger experience inthe city and the successful development of the industry in Dublin. Conversely, the development of cruise
tourism in the city could enable achieving some of Dublin City Council’s development objectives. For
example, the last City Development Plan to date (2011-2017) took steps towards a long-term vision inwhich Dublin is a connected, compact, sustainable, green and liveable city of international reputation.
Economic growth and recovery, efficient transport connections, smart land use, regional integration andpromotion and greening the city are all priorities for the city. The previous development plan focused on
extending the inner city eastwards towards the Docklands; it was then complemented with a strategy forthe quality consolidation of the inner city, protecting heritage while promoting diversity.
While Dublin City Council has lacked a specific cruise strategy until recently, it now sees the valueof developing one. Most of the objectives and opportunities set out in the CTUR local action plan were
not implemented, apart from the project to develop dedicated cruise berths. The other ideas had been left
aside by most stakeholders that continue to work independently to handle the cruise business andstrategy. No comprehensive governance structure or marketing efforts are operated through collaborationof various stakeholders.
Dublin City Council is now working on the future City Development Plan (2016-2022), which
provides an opportunity to underline the importance of cruise tourism to the city. The City Council has
so far released an issues paper and opened to public consultation. Similar development lines as in theprevious plan are set in the document with a particular attention to the importance of tourism in the cityof Dublin. Nothing specific on cruise tourism was mentioned, but it is now on the agenda for the final
plan. The invitation by Dublin City Council to Dublin Port Company to make submissions for the future
development plan goes in the right direction to integrate cruise shipping as a strategic sector to develop
for the city of Dublin. Dublin City Council is generally supportive of Dublin Port Company’s projects, as
shown through its advocacy in favour of the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment Project.
The development of a joint cruise strategy by the city and the port and its active implementation
could increase its economic development potential. The ABR project will provide an impetus to theattractiveness of cruise shipping in Dublin that the city could build on. The beneficiaries of cruise
shipping are the city and the local businesses; these benefits could be substantially increased if Dublin
were to develop its position as potential home port. The port has understandably been hesitant to develop
such a function; the city is a logical actor to support home port development as it will generate positive
economic impacts for the city.

Underlining cruise shipping in the tourism policy
The tourism orientation of Dublin is expressed in a report, “Destination Dublin: A collective
strategy for tourism growth to 2020” released in late 2014. This is the work of the Grow Dublin
Taskforce, a body composed of tourism and business organisations in charge of defining a strategy forthe growth of tourism in Dublin, created in 2014 by Fáilte Ireland, the National Tourism Development
Authority. Among the findings of the preliminary research, the taskforce realised that Dublin had a great
potential for attracting more tourism but that it was lagging behind other major European cities in terms

CRUISE SHIPPING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF DUBLIN — © OECD/ITF 2016

POLICIES AND GOVERNANCE FOR THE PORT OF DUBLIN – 29of strategy. To remediate this, the report sets objectives to establish a strategy for identifying market
segments with great potential; creating a new brand and a more modern image for the city; andmaintaining and developing collaboration between different interests to ensure the realisation of Dublin
as a major touristic city in Europe.
Box 1. URBACT Network: CTUR Project and Dublin Local Action Plan
In 2010 Dublin participated in the URBACT Cruise Tourism and Urban Regeneration (CTUR) programmeof the European Union. This initiative gathered 11 member countries to identify how port cities can beproductive and not just seen as transit destinations for cruise tourism. The programme was therefore looking at
tensions between port and city functions and at governance to solve them and ensure better relationships andfulfil the aspirations of inhabitants. In many cities, the cruise industry plays an important role in the rejuvenationof waterfronts, the attractiveness of the city and in the integration between the port and the city as it creates aform of interface between the two. The project was led in Dublin by a local support group chaired by Dublin
City Council in partnership with Dublin Port Company and the Dublin Docklands Development Authority. It
was managed by the Southern and Eastern Assembly. The group also integrated consultation with research,education and tourism sectors (Dublin Institute of Technology, Dublin Tourism, and Fáilte Ireland), the private
sector (Excursions Ireland, Crosbie Properties, and MJM Marine), representative business organisations (Dublin
Docklands Business Forum, Dublin Chamber of Commerce, and Dublin City Business Association) and the Irish
cruise association Cruise Ireland.
The local action plan set out three main objectives:“to transform, regenerate and adapt the physical and environmental components of the port, inorder to improve connectivity between the port and the city centre”

“to maximise cruise traffic and port heritage as a means to achieving social and economic
regeneration”“to plan and manage the cruise traffic development within a global port city project”.

The outcomes of the project were to set guidelines and a vision for Dublin as a cruise port that could enable
better integration of the Docklands in the city, as well as the port and the city in general.
The report provides recommendations concerning terminal relocation at the North Quay Wall Extension, as
a way to better connect the port and the city, as well as to provide cruise passengers a better environment forembarking and disembarking, with views of the city. It also recognises the importance of landscaping at theterminal, of the provision of a terminal building in the latest completion phase and of the development of a highquality pedestrian and public transport connection from the city to the terminal. The project also highlighted thepotential to further develop the Docklands through planning for the quays, new transportation projects,preservation and utilisation of more industrial heritage buildings, the creation of a visitor centre in theDocklands.
The report also acknowledges the importance of ongoing collaboration between Dublin City Council,
Dublin Port Company and Dublin Docklands Development Authority and points out the need to establish anorganisation or agency to promote and increase the cruise traffic industry in Dublin with regular and formal
meetings in the shape of a forum. This forum would include the three parties as well as the tourism sector (Fáilte
Ireland, Cruise Ireland, etc.), potentially other members of the local support group and institutions like Dublin
City Centre Business Improvement District and City Council Departments to set out and implement objectives.
Finally the local action plan recognises the need to come up with a clear cruise marketing strategy for Dublin to
make it a world class destination. This will also require extensive collaboration from all parties and thedevelopment of a clear and common vision for Dublin as a cruise port.
Source: Dublin City Council (2011).

CRUISE SHIPPING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF DUBLIN — © ITF 2016

30 – POLICIES AND GOVERNANCE FOR THE PORT OF DUBLIN

The report identifies cruise tourism as an important target market for the development of tourism inthe city. It also preconises the creation of a “Cruise Dublin Forum” and highlights priorities such as
developing the attraction of the city for visitors and a marketing plan, maximising the infrastructure forcruise shipping and passenger spending at the shore-side and providing collaboration between actors forthe support of visitors and the enhancement of their experience in the city. Shortly after the report of the
publication the Grow Dublin Alliance was founded: a group in charge of implementing the strategy anddeveloping a new branding for Dublin in order to attract more tourists, increase revenues and pushforward job creation. Composed of public and private stakeholders from the Greater Dublin area invarious industries, the group will also be in charge of overseeing the creation and action of the Cruise
Dublin Forum in the near future. This is a promising initiative that deserves support, provided it manages
a common understanding and vision of the different actors on the opportunities and challenges of cruise
shipping for Dublin, including common and practical solutions to bottlenecks mentioned in this report.
All local actors acknowledge the benefits cruise shipping brings to the city and generally agree thatthe most profitable solution for the local economy would be to become a home port. However, this does
not necessarily reflect on their policy making. Several plans integrate cruise as an important element for
future development of the city and their other strategic goals can be related or achieved partly thanks toan increase in the cruise business.
Communication also remains one of the most important elements to make sure cruise shipping has agreat impact on the local businesses and tourism industry. There is still little promotion of the city as a
cruise port. The current communication efforts are mainly undertaken individually by actors that have aninterest in the benefits than can be generated by the arrival of cruise passengers in the city. They are quite
generally directed at enhancing the passenger experience while in the city and to inform them of thevariety of attractions Dublin offers. Local communication and city promotion is done mostly byorganisations like “We are Dublin Town” or the Dublin Business Improvement District, that assist
passengers on cruise ships when they are on call and to provide them with the relevant information tohave a great experience in the city. It is also important to raise tourists’ awareness about the diversity that
Dublin has to offer (attractions, dining, shopping, culture, sports, etc.).
There is a need to develop information about these elements and help people compose their own
excursions fitted to their interests. This should be done jointly by various actors, by creating a platform
with all the inputs available. By means of example, a website on which contributions by all stakeholders
could communicate and inform tourists before and during their cruise would also be very beneficial to
give incentives for them to start their own excursions. This could enable them to feel like they are having
a more authentic experience of the city which is increasingly praised by tourists. It could also potentiallygenerate more local value since their expenses would not be partly captured by cruise lines. Dublin
would also gain from more integration and involvement of the population with the city’s maritime
heritage and culture through by dedicating part of the communication or events to locals as well.
Enhancing the communication strategy also concerns developing more efficient marketing tools for
Dublin as a cruise destination. Building a complete team of different stakeholders in the industry would
be a good way to introduce Dublin at international cruise events such as Seatrade Miami and to promote
Dublin as a cruise port and potential home port to consider. Boosting international co-operation might bepart of this branding exercise. The Dublin City Council is leading the “AT Brand” project which is a
co-operation initiative and includes the cities of Cardiff and Liverpool in the UK, San Sebastian from
Spain, La Rochelle in France and Faro in Portugal. The overall aim of the project is to explore thefeasibility of a long-term strategy to co-brand the Atlantic area. Over the eighteen months of the project,through regional and local projects, partners will develop a roadmap for co-branding the Atlantic area. It
is hoped that this roadmap will play a key role in the development of integrated city branding throughout

CRUISE SHIPPING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF DUBLIN — © OECD/ITF 2016

POLICIES AND GOVERNANCE FOR THE PORT OF DUBLIN – 31

Europe. The project will help Dublin strengthen its position internationally as a world-class businesslocation, a top tourist location in Europe and a highly desirable location to study and live in Europe. Aninteractive digital platform will help showcase the city’s strengths to the wider public in a more
appealing format using new and innovative city branding techniques. It would make sense in this effort
to also promote Dublin as a cruise destination.

Considering a cruise terminal’s need for a terminal building
Cruise companies are concerned with quality and security issues for passengers. They demand andprefer dedicated infrastructures and services from cruise ports, such as customs and immigration
handling, docking and anchorage, transportation possibilities and connections, taxis, coaches and highlevel excursion services as well as port area infrastructure. A terminal building is an important part andfacilitates passenger handling and experience within ports.
However, the issue on terminal buildings on cruise terminals is entangled with various challenges.
First of all, there is the question of whether terminal buildings can help to increase the number or shareof cruise turnaround calls. Secondly, there is the question of who gets the benefits of investment. Cruise
shipping usually provides economic benefits for the city and its economic actors, but much less so forports. If terminal buildings decrease the extent to which cruise terminals can be used for other purposes
as well, they provide opportunity costs to ports, in particular in those areas where cruise shipping isseasonal. These split incentives raise the question of who should be responsible for financing cruise
terminal buildings. Since cruise ships are movable assets, they can easily be moved from one port to theother which makes infrastructure investments fairly risky as well, especially if cruise lines are notdirectly involved in the port’s cruise business, e.g. by operating a terminal or participating in financing
the infrastructure. In order to answer these questions, we assessed available terminal infrastructures athome ports in Northern Europe and Canada that present some similarities with Dublin, the findings ofwhich will be provided in Table 2.
There is a large variety between cruise home ports with respect to available infrastructure andservices, which makes it difficult to discern one single tendency. Rather, there seem to be a couple ofdifferent models. Some successful ports use a somewhat minimal approach while ports that have lessturnaround calls might have invested in flagship infrastructure at early times. These facilities arepermanent buildings in the great majority of cases. When ports do not have enough space orinfrastructure they often use tents or other multi-functional spaces such as warehouses as a temporary
solution. There does not seem to be any rule concerning the time at which a terminal building is required
to operate cruise ship turnarounds. If at some ports such buildings are created explicitly for new demand
from cruise lines at most others they come after there is already a significant interest from them and newinvestments are made in prevision of future capacity needs. Generally, it is not possible to show whether
or not building facilities increases the number of turnaround calls at cruise ports given that many otherfactors could explain growth in demand from cruise lines and that it has been growing with the size andoffer from the industry and passenger source markets (Table 2).
Most pure home ports, ports which cruise calls are almost exclusively turnaround calls, have had
available infrastructure to operate turnarounds for a long time. Southampton especially has a much
longer history with cruise shipping since the city was one of the most important ports in Europe forocean liners and already had facilities for passenger logistics since 1950 at the Ocean Terminal. Since
then the port never stopped developing and creating new infrastructure to accommodate ever larger ships
and demand from cruise lines. Vancouver started integrating cruise in the planning for Canada Place in1978 and the terminal was finally opened in 1986 as cruise holidays were already important in North
America. German ports of Hamburg and Kiel are the exception as they developed buildings more

CRUISE SHIPPING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF DUBLIN — © ITF 2016

32 – POLICIES AND GOVERNANCE FOR THE PORT OF DUBLIN

recently compared to the progression of cruise traffic in Europe. This can be explained by the fact that
before the early 2000s, there was only very little cruise traffic in Germany that was a rather small source
market. As the cruise offer grew in Europe, Hamburg developed as a cruise port to satisfy growing cruisedemand from German cruisers. Similarly, Kiel invested in two buildings in seven years following
potential demand of the German passenger market. Vancouver and Southampton have long been
strategic places to start cruise journeys and were the first home ports in their respective cruise regions.
Vancouver benefited from being located next to a large source market and an attractive cruise area.
Southampton was also ideally located close to the first important European source market and at good
distance from several cruise zones with great potential (Baltic, British Isles, North Sea).
Other large cruise ports in Northern Europe are rather hybrid in the sense as they have a morebalanced share of calls between turnaround and transit. These ports also tend to have terminal buildings
available for ship turnarounds but their experience with them varies from one port to the other. Dover has
two buildings available for cruise turnarounds to accommodate around 150 000 turnaround passengers ayear. It renovated an old port building that was already available and recently decided to invest in alarger and newer building to accommodate more turnarounds from larger ships. On the contrary,
Liverpool is just starting to gain cruise calls. While it has minimal infrastructure, it still has covered areas
and a few facilities dedicated to cruise passengers. There are discussions around the conversion of the old
Cunard Building into a passenger terminal but no development project has been validated. Amsterdam
invested in a multi-functional flagship terminal building and seems to have been successful at attracting
turnaround calls with it. Stockholm, a large transit port that still hosts a significant number of ship
turnarounds has many berths among which one has a modern cruise centre to operate them. Rostock has
invested in infrastructures similar to these two last ports and also uses them as multi-functional spaces tohost other types of events.
There is however one striking exception: Copenhagen has waited a long time to invest in a cruise
passenger terminal facility. While the port now has three terminal buildings, it first developed anefficient strategy to manage cruise turnaround calls without dedicated infrastructure and succeeded in
attracting a lot of similar calls. The port succeeded in becoming one of northern Europe’s leading home
ports with very limited means, which has inspired Dublin. The only facilities available for cruise
passengers before 2014 were one upgraded warehouse and two to three large tents (up to 2 500 m2) tohandle turnaround calls. Since May 2014 three new terminal buildings and new berths became available
after an investment of EUR 12.5 million.
Other important ports that have very little turnaround traffic generally have fairly minimal facilities
dedicated to operating cruise calls. Having a terminal building in this case is more an exception like atthe port of Le Havre. Helsinki, Oslo and Tallinn are all important passenger ports with a lot of ferry
connections to surrounding countries. They all host a large number of cruise ship stopovers as well. The
three of them have passenger terminal buildings dedicated to ferry traffic but they do not have specificinfrastructure for cruise passengers. However, in exceptional cases the passenger buildings can be used tooperate cruise ship turnarounds even though other alternatives such as tents can be preferred due to thefrequency of ferry trips and the need to maintain the service at passenger terminals. The presence of ferry
terminals still provides cruise passengers with a good environment and services at the port; it is more
adapted to cruise line requirements as opposed to having no infrastructure.
Various stakeholders in Dublin would support the development of Dublin as a cruise home port;
they believe that the presence of a terminal building is important to realise such an ambition. Ourassessment of practices elsewhere shows that there is no universal tendency in this respect and thatdifferent pathways are possible for ports aspiring to be cruise home ports. An attractive terminal building
might give an impetus to ambitions to become a home port, but also risks being underutilised for most of

CRUISE SHIPPING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF DUBLIN — © OECD/ITF 2016

POLICIES AND GOVERNANCE FOR THE PORT OF DUBLIN – 33

the time, especially if the number of turnaround calls would remain limited. This is the balancing act for
cruise ports wanting to attract more turnaround calls. The example of Copenhagen shows that it ispossible to develop into an important turnaround port without a dedicated cruise terminal building, but
this could be an exception rather than the rule.
Table 2. Terminal buildings at home ports in Northern Europe and North America

Port
Amsterdam

Share
home
porting(2014)

Terminal Buildings

In use since

52%

Passenger Terminal Amsterdam

2000

Helsinki

10%

Felison Cruise Terminal
None (3 ferry terminals)

2012
NA

Stockholm

16%

Stockholm Cruise Center Frihamnen

2008

Vancouver

100%

Canada Place

1986, renovation 2011

Copenhagen

41%

Ocean Quay Terminal 1

2014

95%

Ocean Quay Terminal 2
Ocean Quay Terminal 3
Ocean Terminal

2014
2014
1950-1983

Queen Elizabeth II Terminal

1966, modernised 2003

Mayflower Terminal

95%

City Terminal
Ocean Cruise Terminal
Berth 104
Hafencity

1960, renovated 2003, 2015 building
renovation
2003, modernised 2007
2009
2015
2004/2018 (new terminal building

Le Havre

2%

AltonaSteinwerder
Terminal Croisière Le Havre

2011
2015
2007 first elements, finished 2010

Dover

61%

Liverpool
Oslo
Kiel

38%
5%
86%

Rostock

54%

Terminal 1
Terminal 2
None
None
Ostseekai
Ostuferhafen
Warnemünde Cruise Center

1914, renovations 1996, 2014
2000
In discussion
NA
2007
2014
2005

Tallinn

4%None (3 ferry terminals)

Southampton

Hamburg

Source: Own data collection based on various interviews.

CRUISE SHIPPING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF DUBLIN — © ITF 2016

34 – POLICIES AND GOVERNANCE FOR THE PORT OF DUBLIN

Our analysis shows that one of the main causes of the limited number of turnaround calls in Dublin
could be linked to the limited number of Irish residents going on cruises in Ireland. If the home market
for cruises departing from Dublin were nto be targeted, this might already increase the number ofturnaround calls in Dublin. The ABR project will improve the passenger experience of cruise shipping in
Dublin and also provide the momentum to develop a terminal building structure. The design of theterminal should be done in such a way that a building structure could still be added at a later stage, andreflections should start on what such a structure could be. An attractive solution could be a temporary,simple and cheap roofed structure, functional for passenger embarkation and disembarkation, including
facilities for checking, luggage handling, information and food and beverage options, sitting areas andsecurity checks. The terminal could be used for other purposes, such as events or other activities that
require such space. Hamburg has had experience with a similar infrastructure at its HafenCity Cruise
Center 1(see Box 2).
Box 2. HafenCity Terminal Hamburg: Simple and efficient
The HafenCity terminal building in Hamburg is an example of a simple modular terminal building. The
architecture of the 1 200 m2 Terminal 1 was inspired by the cargo container and the white sail. Like the container
facade made of stacked containers, the interior is also of modular construction, with flexible divider walls
facilitating individual adjustment of the space to the differing requirement parametres of each vessel being
handled. It is possible to bring in everything necessary to operate average size cruise ship turnarounds, as well as
temporary food and beverage facilities. Everything is addable or removable so that the space can remain one
large room without separation for events. In 2014, the building hosted eight events, gathering a total of 3 300
guests, which is an accomplishment, but also an illustration of the difficulty to use cruise terminal buildings forother purposes, even if designed in a flexible way.
Cruise calls were handled at this location beginning in the early 1990s. The port then gave the area back to
the city, after the unsuccessful application for the Olympic games, to facilitate new planning for the HafenCity
area and to re-integrate the cruise berths and terminals. The HafenCity Cruise Center was built in 2004 as
temporary structure in this fast developing and attractive area of the city. Its primary function is to handle
visiting cruise ships. But when no cruise ships are in port, it provides a platform for special functions andfestivities for up to 800 attendees, such as corporate gatherings, galas, conferences, trade fairs and cultural
events. The cruise terminal in HafenCity is currently operated by HCC Hanseatic Cruise Centers GmbH. The
company is owned by HHLA for 51% and AIDA Cruises by 49%. The wharfage (quay areas including the quay)
and the temporary terminal building belong to the city and harbour through the Port City Hamburg GmbH
(HCH). From 2016 Cruise Gate Hamburg GmbH will take over operations at HafenCity that is currently rented
out on a daily basis by HCC. A new Cruise Center HafenCity will be rebuilt in the framework of thedevelopment of Überseequartier-Süd and is thus aligned to the HafenCity project. The works are expected tostart in 2016 and the new building should be in operation in 2018. The new project incorporates the terminalbuilding within a larger complex that also comprises a hotel. The available space will be 3 000 m2 and large
parking areas for cars and buses will also be available (respectively 7 200 m2 and 3 000 m2).

With the extent of investments required locally to accommodate cruise ship turnarounds in major
cruise ports, the financing of infrastructures and operations at cruise terminals is giving rise to interesting
new types of collaborations. Since the cruise business does not only concern ports and have an impact on
a lot of other actors and institutions in a city it makes sense that cruise terminals are the result of theirjoint efforts in support of the port.
One trend is the participation of cruise lines in the financing of infrastructure and their operations at
cruise ports. For instance Carnival Corporation invested in two cruise terminals in Barcelona andoperates them directly. Since ports often do not have the means to finance such heavy projects
CRUISE SHIPPING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF DUBLIN — © OECD/ITF 2016

POLICIES AND GOVERNANCE FOR THE PORT OF DUBLIN – 35

individually they find new ways to create projects with successful outcomes. A few examples arepresented in Table 3. Passenger Terminal Amsterdam is a company owned by the Amsterdam Port
Authority (49%) with the Dutch National Railways as a majority shareholder (51%). The construction of
the new cruise turnaround Terminal Steinwerder in Hamburg gave rise to the creation of the company
Cruise Gate Hamburg GmbH to oversee the construction of the building and operate the terminal. CGH
is owned by Hamburg Port Authority as a majority shareholder (51%) and the Hamburg Airport
company, Flughafen Hamburg GmbH (49%). Venice is also an interesting example with the Venice
Passenger Terminal company owned by five shareholders from the Veneto region (Box 3).
Table 3. Cruise terminal companies
Port

Cruise terminal company

StatusRole

VeniceVenice Passenger
Terminal S.p.A.

Joint-Stock
Company

Ownership andoperation of cruise
terminal

Hamburg

Cruise Gate Hamburg
GmbH

LimitedLiability
Company

Ownership andoperation of cruise
terminal

Amsterdam

Amsterdam Passenger
Terminal

Ownership andoperation of cruise
terminal

Owners and shares
Venice Port Authority(44%), Finpax (grouping of
Veneto Investors, 22.18%),
Save (Company owning
Marco Polo Airport,
22.18%), Veneto Sviluppo(7%) and the Venice
Chamber of Commerce(2.64%)
Hamburg Port Authority(51%) and Flughafen
Hamburg GmbH (Airport
Company, 49%)
NS Stations (Dutch
National Railways, 51%)
and Amsterdam Port
Authority (49%)

Source: Own data collection based on various interviews.

Box 3. Venice Passenger Terminal Consortium
Venice is Europe’s leading home port for cruises and the second largest in Europe after Barcelona in termsof passenger throughput. Achieving this position required significant infrastructure investments and efforts
which led the port of Venice to delegate the cruise activity to a consortium that would take care of the terminals,
the berths and the passenger buildings. Venice Terminal Passageri was created in 1997 to take care of designatedmissions: investing in infrastructure for the terminals, operation of terminals and buildings, and maintenance ofinfrastructure.
What is particularly interesting in the structure of Venice Terminal Passageri is the fact that it is owned in
majority by the Venice Port Authority (APV). The two other major shareholders are the Marco Polo Airport
Company (SAVE) and a grouping of Veneto Investors (Finpax). Finally the Veneto Region and the Venice area
are also represented through Veneto Sviluppo and the Venice Chamber of Commerce. This structure enables
them to work for the common interests of the region and the city. Since it was created, the Venice Port Authority
and Venice Passenger Terminals have joined efforts and invested over EUR 165 million to renovate and improve
the infrastructure and to provide the best services for lines, passengers and crews at the Marittima Terminals.
The port now comprises six state-of-the-art terminal buildings for cruise ships. Some are renovated warehouses;
others are brand new infrastructure built in the early 2000s.

CRUISE SHIPPING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF DUBLIN — © ITF 2016

36 – POLICIES AND GOVERNANCE FOR THE PORT OF DUBLIN

The potential for enhanced transport connections
Coach transport will remain an important way to move around cruise passengers. This is because ofage, culture and expectations in the context of a cruise, namely to pay a premium to have everythingtaken care of. However, this might evolve as profiles of cruise passengers are changing and if repeat
visits increase, thus bringing more passengers likely to choose to have their own experience of the city.
Walking from the current cruise berths to the city centre takes a fairly long time (around45 minutes); the new cruise berths will shorten the distance somewhat, but more importantly it will
create a more attractive experience. Another possibility would be increased use of the Dublin bike-share
program, with bicycles already available at The Point, next to the future cruise berths. Currently not
many cruise passengers use these, but this could change as some cruise lines have bicycle-mindedclients; e.g. AIDA has bikes on their ships that passengers can use to discover the destinations. Dublin
Port Company is looking at putting another station next to the new berths once they are completed. This
could allow passengers to directly use the dedicated bike lanes created on the river banks. Use of thelight rail connections of Luas could make sense, since The Point Village, located next to the port, is thelast stop; the tramway is empty for cruise passengers and their arrival would run counter the flow of the
tramway that in the morning mainly brings commuters from elsewhere to the Docklands where theywork. The new cruise berths will be located much closer to the station than they are now, making it
easily accessible by foot for cruise passengers. A public bus going to the terminal would also be an
option to get passengers closer to the city centre, similar to what is offered in some other ports such as
Barcelona or Marseille (Box 4). Water taxis do not seem to have been considered for transport of cruise
passengers from the terminal to the city. There is currently one water taxi functioning, a tailor-made ship
adapted to the low tides of the river, but it does not seem to offer a lot of capacity. The very limited depthof the River Liffey at low tide is generally considered a constraint for more intensive use of rivertransport.
Box 4. Port shuttle in Marseille
In 2013 the Port of Marseille (GPMM) decided to introduce a free shuttle bus between the Môle Léon
Gourret and Joliette station for cruise passengers. Since the different parts of the port are rather spread out along
the coast, Marseille already had its own coaches to move employees from one terminal to the other. Because thiswas already available, the port decided to offer this service to cruise line passengers as well. One bus is allocatedto getting the passengers from the terminal to the city centre when cruise ships are calling at the port. It drops
passengers at a point in the city where the public transport network enables passengers to access all parts of thecity. It arrives at pick up points every 30 minutes and is completely free of charge. The shuttle is due to continue
indefinitely, even though cruise lines are not actively promoting this transport mode that competes with theirown shuttle buses.

The new cruise terminal at the city-side boundary of the port will provide new and better
opportunities for cruise passengers to reach the city on their own which could be greatly boosted by someadjustments by the Transportation Department of the local government. Dublin City Council is looking at
removing the roundabout between the quays – currently an obstacle for pedestrians – for which thebudget allocation should arrive in 2016. On a longer-term basis (10-15 years), the city is looking atbuilding a tunnel and a new bridge parallel to the East-Link to bury and deviate slightly the East-Link sothat there remains only a small road separating the port and the city, with the current toll bridge
converted for more pedestrian and bike space. This would hugely benefit cruise tourism since this precise
location is where passengers will arrive after the new terminals are finished. Another option would be to

CRUISE SHIPPING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF DUBLIN — © OECD/ITF 2016

POLICIES AND GOVERNANCE FOR THE PORT OF DUBLIN – 37

create a bridge over the East Link or an underground passage instead of building an underground tunnel.
Yet another option would be the prolongation of the Luas red line, by creating an extra stop at the cruise
passenger terminal. These all seem sensible solutions to improve the connectivity of the new cruise
terminal with the city centre. As the ABR project progresses, substantial advances should be made inparallel on the transport connections, so that optimal conditions are in place when the new cruise
terminal becomes operational.
Transportation regulation and operation is also an essential element for smooth operation of cruise
tourism in the city. Dublin City Council is working on reducing the congestion generated by shuttles
taking care of cruise passengers for their excursion tours of the city. Designating a square for parking is
the main step forward by the City Council towards that purpose. The city is also working on moregeneral schemes to reduce congestion in the city overall. This is not an easy task as the centre lacks thespace needed to accommodate traffic. When a cruise ship arrives there is also important congestion at
main tourist attractions in the city like Trinity College or the Guinness Storehouse. This is an issue
pointed out by local tourism organisations that would like to divert part of this traffic towards otherattractions and activities in the city and its surroundings, also preconising that cruise passengers canmake their own tour a more authentic and personalised experience.

The governance of cruise shipping in Dublin
Dublin Port Company is in charge of the infrastructure and regulation concerning the cruise
business at the port. It owns all of the terminals and rents some berths for use by cruise lines when theywant to call at the port. The main regulatory framework is Dublin Port Company’s marine-related
by-laws and the port’s charging schedule for the use of the services and facilities required by cruise lines.
Expenses for the cruise terminals and berths, with the exception of additional security costs when cruise
vessels are berthed, are included in general maintenance costs as outlined in the Dublin Port Company’s
annual budget. Dublin City Council does not have a dedicated budget to cruise-related infrastructure or
activities. There are no concessions for terminal operation. Dublin Port Company is in charge ofproviding the berths, pilotage services, tugs and the hire of ramps and fenders if required. Other private
entities involved in the cruise business are ship agents, stevedores and excursion companies that lookafter passengers when they leave the ship to go on tours around Dublin. There are two stevedoring
companies at the port and they both take care of cruise as well as other types of cargo. According to the
Irish Competition Authority a lack of competition between stevedoring companies leads to theoverpricing of services imposed by these companies in Dublin, which is an issue not specific to cruise
shipping in Dublin.
Dublin Port Company collaborates with other actors for the promotion of the Port of Dublin as a
cruise port. It is a member of Cruise Europe, along with over a hundred other Northern and Atlantic
European Ports. In Ireland, the main partnership it holds is with Cruise Ireland, a non-profit organisation
involved in promoting the island of Ireland as a destination for cruises. Membership to the organisation
gathers other ports on the island and other interested parties like ship agents, stevedores and groundhandlers. More locally, the port has relations with excursion companies and promotion associations sothat they can communicate directly with cruise passengers at the terminals or on board the ships.
Several other important stakeholders have a role in promoting the city as a cruise tourism
destination but they generally play an individual roal to serve their own purposes without any particularco-ordination or co-operation. The establishment of a joint strategy and more co-ordination, e.g. byregular meetings or an institution gathering all parties, would be beneficial for the future of cruise
tourism in Dublin.

CRUISE SHIPPING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF DUBLIN — © ITF 2016

38 – POLICIES AND GOVERNANCE FOR THE PORT OF DUBLIN

At the core of such co-operation would be more formal collaboration between the port and the city.
In various cruise ports, the port and the city collaborate together, and with numerous other actors, toelaborate strong and coherent strategies and become attractive cruise brands. The co-ordination of several
actors would enable better use of available resources thanks to each of them and to coherently develop
Dublin as a cruise port. The creation of an institution in charge of defining the strategy andcommunicating with all actors could enable Dublin to weight more heavily on the international scene of
the cruise industry. Team work and taking advantage of each actor’s assets would help Dublin become asuccessful cruise destination. Many other European Cruise Ports have cruise networks or associations incharge of bringing all cruise actors together with this objective. Hamburg provides an interesting
example of a joint cruise strategy and governance through Hamburg Cruise Center (Box 5).

Developing an environmental cruise policy for the port
Dublin Port Company has neither a specific green port strategy in relation to cruise ships, nor adeveloped framework for assessment and mitigation of the environmental impact of port activities. In
terms of infrastructure and energy consumption, the port has yet to invest in environmentally friendly
options to mitigate the impact of shipping on the city. Currently the port’s actions facilitate the storage ofgalley waste from cruise ships. The vision is that environmental mitigation is the responsibility of thecruise ship. It is via their ships’ agent that cruise lines ensure their waste is collected. Dublin Port
Company is a member of ESPO’s Eco Ports Network.4 Other than this and due to Irish regulation, fullenvironmental impact assessments are required for all infrastructure development projects such as theAlexandra Basin Redevelopment Project. Ongoing works on air emissions noise, waste impacts fromships or cruise ships at the port do not seem to exist.
Integrating environmental issues and solutions in the context of port projects would also be a step inenhancing the relationship between the port and the city and to develop mitigation strategies. Dublin City
Council's last development plans have emphasized making Dublin a greener and more sustainable city,
especially through infrastructure improvements and smart energy consumption. The environmental
impact of cruise tourism on port cities is an important topic that might need to be dealt with in a morestructural manner by Dublin Port Company. More efforts on that topic could also serve as a facilitator ofa potential collaboration between the port and the city on cruise matters as well.
In many port cities, the redevelopment of old port areas in the form of attractive urban waterfronts
has been accompanying the development and the success of cities as cruise ports. Dublin is no exception
to this trend with The Dublin Docklands that are a strategic area for both the port and the city that could
foster the co-operation between the two entities. On the one hand, this means the development of anurban neighbourhood is highly critical for the city and would have great potential for the future in termsof residential, commercial and office real estate. Many lots north and south of the River Liffey still haveto be developed. These are essential for the city’s image and potential as an appealing city where people
want to live and work. On the other hand, the Docklands are located very close to the port, an area that ismarked by the marine heritage from the old port of Dublin. The neighbourhood has the potential to
become a real link between the city and the port by valuing its relationship. It could also provide cruise
passengers and crew with an attractive environment within walking distance from the ship and takeadvantage of cruise calls to generate more revenues for local businesses. As expressed by the local
support group created in the context of the URBACT CTUR Project, it is essential that the Dublin
Docklands are integrated as strategic in the definition of Dublin’s strategy for cruise shipping.
The Docklands present an opportunity for the city to connect with its maritime culture and to takeadvantage of the river and its banks to attract ships, water activities and social or leisure life. There areseveral locations and ways available to host these. The Grand Canal Basin could be converted into a

CRUISE SHIPPING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF DUBLIN — © OECD/ITF 2016

POLICIES AND GOVERNANCE FOR THE PORT OF DUBLIN – 39

marina with a hosting capacity of 200 ships. The lock would need to be fixed so as to let ships in, but thiswould bring great vibrancy to the area that is still waiting for a boost. Along the River Liffey there is also
potential to develop small cruise and other types of ships, at least up to the Samuel Beckett Bridge, andfurther water activities and events. The quays could be used for pop up events and simple removableinfrastructure, in combination with a strategy to inform Dubliners and tourists about the city’s maritime
heritage and to provide educational activities for children.
Box 5. Hamburg Cruise Center
Hamburg Cruise Center emerged in 1998 as an association composed of twelve members ranging fromshipping lines, port companies to catering enterprises and hotels. The idea was to revive the cruise business inthe city of Hamburg in a joint effort. Now the association counts over a 100 members and has been recognised“best practice” in the cruise industry for destination marketing and its continuous efforts to make Hamburg on
the Northern Europe’s biggest home ports over the last two decades. In 2000, Hamburg was hosting less than
20 000 passengers. In 2014, it had close to 600 000 of them with a share of 95% turnaround calls and 5% transit
calls.
Hamburg Cruise Center is a platform that brings together actors and businesses that might gain from thecruise activity in the city. It is financed by fixed membership fees and individual non-monetary contributions
from members. The main actions HCC undertakes are marketing the city to cruise lines and raising publicawareness about the economic benefits the cruise industry brings locally. Its structure is such that it is governedby a wide range of actors which facilitates a coherent cruise development strategy for the city, enables to boost
cruise tourism demand and increases the benefits generated in the city by the cruise business. The executive
board of the association is composed of leaders from cruise lines (Tui Cruise and Aida Cruises), from ports andlogistics services (HHLA), from the Hamburg Chamber of Commerce and from city planning (HafenCity
Neighbourhood Management). It is completed by an advisory board mixing representatives of local tourism
institutions (marketing and business association), cruise experts, the port authority (through its CEO), terminal
operators, other cruise lines and port companies association (representing stevedores, agents, etc.). Since 2011,
Hamburg Cruise Center is also in direct collaboration with the Hamburg Chamber of Commerce and theHamburg Tourism Association to establish a cruise development plan, to continue its marketing efforts, to use
the synergies between the three institutions and push forward policy making and conditions for cruise tourism inthe city.

Recommendations for strengthening Dublin as a cruise port
A joint cruise strategy could help to maximise the potential of Dublin as a cruise port, bringing
together the visions of stakeholders such as Dublin Port Company and Dublin City Council. Cruise
shipping must become part of the city’s tourism agenda, in collaboration with the port. Dublin is alreadyan attractive port for cruisers. It offers a large variety of tourist attractions, proximity of the port to thecity centre as wells as a close-by and well-connected international airport. Further co-operation forbranding Dublin as a cruise destination would help value its assets to attract more traffic and maximise
cruise benefits. Recently approved infrastructure redevelopments (Alexandra Bay Redevelopment
Project) will also provide state of the art cruise berths enhancing the cruising experience. In this context,
the inclusion of passenger reception facilities at the terminal needs to be considered if Dublin aims tobecome a turnaround port. Each actor also has individual responsibilities to strengthen the cruise
strategy, with beneficial effects on the port city relationship. Dublin Port Authority should develop
environmental impact mitigation measures such as assessments, incentives and greening infrastructure.
Dublin City Council also has steps to take to better integrate the port into transport and spatial plans forthe city, in order to reduce urban traffic bottlenecks related to cruise shipping.

CRUISE SHIPPING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF DUBLIN — © ITF 2016

REFERENCES – 41

References
Baird, A.J. (1997), “An Investigation of the Suitability of an Enclosed Seaport for Cruise Ships: The
Case of Leith”, Maritime Policy & Management, Vol. 24/1, pp. 31-43.
Barcelona Catalonia (2014), “Cruise Activity in Barcelona; Impact on the Catalan economy andsocioeconomic profile of cruise passengers”, Port de Barcelona, Barcelona Turisme
Bermello, Ajamil and Partners Inc. with Consult DC (2012), Preparation of a Plan for the Developmentof Cruise Tourism in Dublin, Final Report, 10 June 2012.
BREA Baltic (2014), “Overview Economic Impact of Cruise Tourism Baltic Sea Region”, BREA and
G.P. Wild
BREA Caribbean (2012), “Economic Contribution of Cruise Tourism to the Destination Economies”,
Prepared for Florida-Caribbean Cruise Association
BREA Canada (2008), “The Economic Contribution of the International Cruise Industry in Canada
2007”, Prepared for NorthWest CruiseShip Association, Cruise Newfoundland and Labrador,
Cruise the Saint Lawrence, Atlantic Canada Cruise Association, Cruise BC
Busby, G. and J. O’Neill (2013), “Ports of Call: In Search of Competitive Advantage”, European
Journal of Tourism, Hospitality and Recreation, Vol.4/1, pp.123-160.
CLIA (2014), “Contribution of Cruise Tourism to the Economies of Europe, 2014 Edition”, Cruise Lines
International Association.
CLIA (2012), “Contribution of Cruise Tourism to the Economies of Europe, 2012 Edition”, Cruise Lines
International Association.
City of Dublin (n.d.), Cruise Traffic and Urban Regeneration of City-Port Heritage as a Key for
Sustainable Economic, Social and Urban Development.
Corres, A.J. and Y. Papapchristou (2011), Competitive and complementary cruise ports: The case of theEastern Mediterranean.
www.academia.edu/2629816/Competitive_and_Complementary_Cruise_Ports
Dublin City Business Improvement District (2013), Annual Report 2013.
Dublin City Council (2011), Local Action Plan City of Dublin: Cruise Traffic and Urban Regeneration ofCity-Port Heritage as a Key for Sustainable Economic, Social and Urban Development, Dublin
Port Company, Dublin Docklands Development Authority.
Dublin City Council (Economic Development Unit) (2009), Economic Development Action Plan for the
Dublin City Region Dublin Regional Authority, South Dublin County Council, Fingal County
Council and Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown County Council, July.

CRUISE SHIPPING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF DUBLIN — © OECD/ITF 2016

42 – REFERENCES

Dublin City Council Planning Department (2013a), Docklands SDZ: Views and prospects analysis.
Dublin City Council Planning Department (2013b), North Lotts and Grand Canal Dock Planning
Scheme, Interim Publication.
Dublin City Council (2014a), Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022 Issues Paper, November.
Dublin City Council (2014b), Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022, Background Papers,
November.
Dublin Port Company (2014), Alexandra Basin Redevelopment Project: Project Rationale.
Dublin Port Company (2012), Masterplan 2012-2040.
Dublin Port Company (2011), Internal Report #3 Analysis of Options for Cruise Facilities.
Fáilte Ireland (2012), Cruise Tourism to Ireland Research Report – 2010.
Gardner B., P. Marlow and S. Pettit (2006), “Full Cost Recovery in EU Ports Operating as Commercial
Undertakings”, Transport Policy, Vol. 13, pp.2–21.
G.P. Wild (International) Ltd and Business Research and Economic Advisors, (BREA) (2007),
Contribution of cruise tourism to the economies of Europe, February.
Grow Dublin Taskforce (2014), “Destination Dublin: A collective strategy for Tourism Growth to 2020”.
Gui, L. and A. Paolo Russo (2011), “Cruise ports: A Strategic Nexus Between Regions and Global
Lines: Evidence from the Mediterranean”, Maritime Policy & Management, Vol. 38/2, pp. 129150.
Handelskammer Hamburg (2013), “Wertschöpfung der Kreuzschifffahrt in Hamburg “, Hamburg,
Germany, September 2013
Lekakou, M., A. Pallis and G. Vaggelas (2009), “Which Homeport in Europe: The Cruise Industry’s
Selection Criteria”, Tourismos: An International Multidisciplinary Journal of Tourism, Vol.4/4,
pp. 215-240.
Marseille Provence Chambre de Commerce et d’Industrie (2010), “Le Marché de la Croisière à
Marseille”, March 2010
Marti, B.E. (1990), “Geography and the cruise ship port selection process”, Maritime Policy &Management, Vol. 17/3, pp.157-164.
McCalla, R.J. (1998), “An Investigation into Site and Situation: Cruise Ship Ports”, Tijdschrift voor
Economische en Sociale Geografie, Vol.89/1, pp.44-55.
Mola Architecture and Southgate Associates (2014), Conservation Strategy for the Alexandra Basin
Redevelopment Project: The Design Framework.
Moore, N.M. (2002), “From Indigenous Industry to Foreign Finance: The Changing Face of Dublin
Docklands”, Land Use Policy, Vol. 19, pp.325–331.

CRUISE SHIPPING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF DUBLIN — © OECD/ITF 2016

REFERENCES – 43

Morrissey, K. and C. O’Donoghue (2013), “The Potential for an Irish Maritime Transportation Cluster:
An Input-output Analysis”, Ocean & Coastal Management, Vol. 71, pp. 305-313.
OECD (2014), The Competitiveness of Global Port-Cities, OECD Publishing, Paris.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264205277-en
O’Reilly, E. (2014), “Dublin Port and the Soft Values”, Presentation 5 November 2014, Dublin Port
Company.
Pallis, T. (2015), “Cruise Shipping and Urban Development: State of the Art of the Industry and Cruise
Ports”, International Transport Forum Discussion Papers, No. 2015/14, OECD Publishing, Paris.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jrvzrlw74nv-en
Socio-Economic Aspects of the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment Project (2014), Jim Power Economics(Dublin Port Company), 6 March 2014.
Venice Passenger Terminal (2013), “Il coinvolgimento del Tessute Produttivo Veneziano nella
Crocieristica”Riposte Turismo.

CRUISE SHIPPING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF DUBLIN — © ITF 2016

44 – REFERENCES

Notes

1

Based on 82 cruise calls, excluding three outlier values of port stays of more than 2.5 days.

2

The United States Customs and Border Protection (USCBP) allows US-bound passengers to undertake
all immigration, customs and other inspections at Dublin before departure. Dublin Airport is also one of
only airports outside North America to offer such service.

3

As the port is considered strategic infrastructure it is not subject to local planning permissions andrequires national approval.

4

The aim of the network is to share knowledge and experience for port environmental management inEurope. It brings together port professionals from several European ports committed to exchanging
views and practices and to commonly working towards the improvement of the sector’s environmental
performance. Each port voluntary engages in self-regulation. EcoPorts also provides in the form of a
Self-Diagnosis Method (SDM) and the Port Environmental Review System (PERS) for which Dublin
Port has a certification. PERS is the only port-sector specific environmental management standard. It
incorporates the generic requirements of other environmental management standards (e.g. ISO 14001 forwhich Dublin also has certification), yet its implementation can be independently certified. PERS aims todeliver effective port environmental management.

CRUISE SHIPPING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE OF DUBLIN — © OECD/ITF 2016

CPB

Corporate Partnership
Board

Cruise Shippingand Urban Development
The Case of Dublin

This report analyses Dublin’s attractiveness as a cruise port andassesses the impacts of cruise shipping on the city. It evaluates
policies in place and provides recommendations to increase thepositive impacts of cruise shipping for the city of Dublin. Over thelast decade, Dublin has grown as an important port of call for cruises
in Northern Europe. Cruise tourism generates significant economic
benefits for the city of Dublin. The value cruise tourism brings could
be further increased by developing Dublin into a cruise home port,that is a port from which cruises start and where they end. Under
which conditions could this be achieved? Which policy measureswould be needed? Which stakeholders would need to be involved?
This report is part of the International Transport Forum’s Case-Specific
Policy Analysis series. These are topical studies on specific issues
carried out by the ITF in agreement with local institutions.

Cruise Shippingand Urban Development
The Case of Dublin

International Transport Forum
2 rue André Pascal
F-75775 Paris Cedex 16
T +33 (0)1 45 24 97 10
F +33 (0)1 45 24 13 22
Email: contact@itf-oecd.org
Web: www.itf-oecd.org

2016-12/Photo credit: Port of Dublin

Case-Specific Policy Analysis