[HN Gopher] Venice tests a 5-euro fee for day-trippers as the ci...
___________________________________________________________________
Venice tests a 5-euro fee for day-trippers as the city grapples
with overtourism
Author : geox
Score : 24 points
Date : 2024-04-25 17:13 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.npr.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.npr.org)
| subpixel wrote:
| I'd think only something like ten times that amount would deter a
| significant number of visitors _which is the goal_.
| siva7 wrote:
| Obviously that's not the goal but just to add an additiional
| revenue stream for the city while lying the local plebs
| straight in the face.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _while lying the local plebs straight in the face_
|
| Locals don't pay the fee. This is aimed at the cruise ships,
| whose denizens tend to wander around and not purchase
| anything of significance.
| shmeeed wrote:
| They're lying about the goal is what I suppose they meant,
| and I tend to agree.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _lying about the goal is what I suppose they meant, and
| I tend to agree_
|
| You think a city official needed to scrounge up some
| funding and came up with this, a highly visible and
| obstructive method, instead of raising it indirectly?
| shmeeed wrote:
| No. Locals were demanding officials do something against
| the rampant overtourism, so they needed to act precisely
| in a highly visible and obstructive way.
|
| But the main goal was of course to assure whatever they
| did wouldn't jeopardise tourism as the city's main
| revenue stream.
|
| 5EUR is equivalent to a short-term parking fee and won't
| deter many visitors, except a few that wouldn't have been
| valuable to the city anyway. It won't make a dent into
| the actual overtourism problem.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _the main goal was of course to assure whatever they
| did wouldn 't jeopardise tourism as the city's main
| revenue stream_
|
| The whole point is there are boatloads of tourists who
| contribute nothing to the local economy.
|
| > _5EUR is equivalent to a short-term parking fee and won
| 't deter many visitors, except a few that wouldn't have
| been valuable to the city anyway_
|
| This is a _lot_ of cruise ship visitors to Venice. I
| agree the rate is set too low. But that's different from
| judging the primary motivation as a money grab.
| xenospn wrote:
| I was just in Munich the other day - couldn't even move because
| there were so many tourists. I think tour groups need to have a
| hefty fee attached.
| constantcrying wrote:
| Why would anyone be a tourist in Munich? Seems utterly
| bizarre.
| dtmaurath wrote:
| Probably enroute to Neuschwanstein and the old town /
| shopping is something to do.
| constantcrying wrote:
| Unimaginable to me to be honest. Neuschwanstein is also
| literally a fake castle.
| op00to wrote:
| It was a delightful walk up hill and great views. Other
| people enjoy different things than you.
| petre wrote:
| During a major beer event once every ten years? Sure. Maybe
| for a concert as well.
| op00to wrote:
| Who WOULDNT want to be a tourist at the Deutsches Museum? I
| once got stuck in the mining exhibit there for a week.
| xenospn wrote:
| Architecture? Beer Putsch enthusiasts? /s
|
| It's a beautiful city. I'd love to go back.
| more_corn wrote:
| I came here to say this exact thing
| constantcrying wrote:
| Hopefully that is the goal.
| rtcode_io wrote:
| A lot cheaper than Bhutan where they were charging $65, then
| ~$200, and now ~$100 PER DAY!!
| sagz wrote:
| Still worth it, TBH
| stavros wrote:
| Is Bhutan that nice?
| mfuzzey wrote:
| Are they _only_ charging or also restricting the number of
| tickets available per day?
|
| Restricting the number of tickets is probably an effective way of
| handling overtourism.
|
| Just charging would probably be only be effective in reducing the
| numbers of tourists if the price were much higher. And then it
| would, righltly, be seen as unfair to poorer tourists.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-04-25 23:02 UTC)