Brooklyn Welcomes Cruise Ships!

"Sue and Kevin Mullen" wrote in message
...


Thomas Smith wrote:

Granted my New York geography is a bit lacking, but I pulled up maps of
the
area where the Brooklyn cruise ship terminal will be. If I am reading
this
right, it will be at Atlantic Ave. and Columbia St., right off exit 27
of
the BQE (I-278).

This sounds right, altho I don't know the exact street or exit for the
new terminal.

Folks from New Jersey can take I-278 across Staten Island
and the Verazano Narrows bridge, and end up going directly to the
terminal,

Those of us coming from NJ will go over the Outerbridge or Goethals
Bridges, both tolls and very often backed up. From there we take
I-278, better known locally as the Staten Island Expressway. This road
is also most often in lousy condition and very heavy, backed up
traffic. Then you get to the Verazano bridge, $7 toll last I remember
and backed up traffic most of the time. From there we go to the BQE
which is also famous for heavy congestion. It used to be in bad shape,
but that may of changes since I was last on it.


The Rand McNally Road Atlas shows the BQE under construction between the
Williamsburg Bridge and the junction with NY 27 (Prospect Expwy.)

The roads for us going to Bayonne or up to NYC are in better condition
and don't back up as much. Yes I know the Lincoln Tunnel can back up
and once you get to the pier in NYC you can sit for awhile in line.
This still is a much easier trip, then the one to the new Brooklyn
terminal will be.

unless traffic gets real fun at the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel (I-478)
right
there.

Coming from NJ, going through Brooklyn, you don't go thru the tunnel.
Traffic going to the tunnel can be fun, but I haven't experienced it
for many, many years.

Now, if you are coming from the north, you could take I-95 across
the George Washington Bridge, pick up the Deegan Expressway (I-87) south
to
the Grand Central Parkway (I-278) towards LaGuardia (is that the
Tri-Borough
Bridge?), and follow I-278 as it becomes the BQE.

I am not as familiar with this route, but from north Jersey I would
probably take the Lincoln Tunnel into Manhattan and then the Brooklyn
Battery Tunnel into Brooklyn.

sue

What about the Holland Tunnel, and then the Manhattan Bridge, the Brooklyn
Bridge or the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel to get across the East River?

--
I'm Tom Smith, and I approved this message.

Tom K wrote:

Areas can be built up and improved... but roads, tunnels and bridges are
still a mess.

This is why I have always felt a Brooklyn cruise terminal would be a
very bad idea.

sue

Tom K wrote:

"Sue and Kevin Mullen" wrote in message
...


Coming from NJ, going through Brooklyn, you don't go thru the tunnel.
Traffic going to the tunnel can be fun, but I haven't experienced it for
many, many years.

Now, if you are coming from the north, you could take I-95 across

the George Washington Bridge, pick up the Deegan Expressway (I-87) south
to
the Grand Central Parkway (I-278) towards LaGuardia (is that the
Tri-Borough
Bridge?), and follow I-278 as it becomes the BQE.

I am not as familiar with this route, but from north Jersey I would
probably take the Lincoln Tunnel into Manhattan and then the Brooklyn
Battery Tunnel into Brooklyn.



You may actually get regional differentiation.

You may find that the Brooklyn, Queens, Long Island crowd goes with
Carnival, Princess, Cunard. And the New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Upstate NY
crowd goes with RCI, Celebrity. Simply because of the ability to get to the
pier.

Very true, only problem is I live in NJ and I like Princess a lot. I
may not like the idea of going to Brooklyn, but that won't stop me
from sailing on the Crown Princess.

Thinking about it, other then cruise line transfers or cabs/limos
there is no public transit to the Brooklyn terminal. This should prove
interesting to see if they do something about that.

sue

Thomas Smith wrote:

The Rand McNally Road Atlas shows the BQE under construction between the
Williamsburg Bridge and the junction with NY 27 (Prospect Expwy.)

This has been the case for so many years it isn't funny. I don't know
the current status, cause we avoid those road and have been for many
years.

What about the Holland Tunnel, and then the Manhattan Bridge, the Brooklyn
Bridge or the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel to get across the East River?

From South or Central Jersey, that would be the long way around. I
would have to mapquest it, but I don't think it would be reasonable.

sue

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 17:56:05 GMT, Karen Segboer wrote:

Charles wants me to go to Red Hook now :-) Wal*Mart's was a safer
trip (I think.)

Heck, maybe I WILL take a ride over someday.
Call the police if you don't see any more posts from me.

Karens

I'll email Hans.

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 11:54:08 -0400, E.k.R. wrote:

Why bother having different brands
if all you are going to do is dilute them?

B/c, Ernie, it is much simpler to have one business plan for a hundred
ships than ot have 100 business plans for 100 ships. Economies of scale,
Ole Chap.

"Chrissy Cruiser" wrote in message
...
Back up. If they had not, where would we be now? With lower cruising
numbers? Probably. This is bad? No, I liked it much better in 2000 when I
first started cruising (for fun).

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:40:39 -0400, E.k.R. wrote:

Agreed. And I started cruising way before 2000 and it was even better yet.
Yes, cruises have become relatively cheap but at what cost? We are left
with large mega-ships that appeal to the masses and nickel and dime you
onboard to make up for lost ticket revenue.

Just like air travel, cruising has been opened up to the masses. This is
really a great thing for new cruisers that could never consider such a great
vacation before. Unfortunately there are some consequences for those of us
that cruise often and have been cruising for a long time. I'm usually an
advocate for change and I certainly understand how the cruise industry has
evolved, I just don't have to like everything about it. While cruising in
general is inexpensive compared to 25 years ago, my options have decreased
should I want anything more than a mass-market experience on a very large
mega-ship. For something smaller and more in line with the service I
received 25 years ago (on mainstream lines) I'm pretty much priced out of
the marketplace since I can't afford Silversea and Seabourn. That is how
times have changed.

Ernie

I feel for you Ernie, I really do. I can see a big chunk of your life has
melted away. You, Karens, Ben, others...sad, so sad.

Let's hope MSC saves the day.

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 18:19:40 GMT, Karen Segboer wrote:

That's what I resent most about the mega-cruise lines and the way they
treat the long-time cruiser, Ernie. There's simply no good median
options now. The bargain-basement "junk" product they offer at a low
price isn't always what a segment of the cruising public wants. I
don't always want to shop at Wal*Mart.

You're obsessed.

Even the newer cruisers who've just started taking these kinds of low
and moderately priced vacations may someday want something better.
All they have to do is step on a ship that doesn't push all the crap
RCI, HAL, Carnival, Princess, Celebrity et al pushes at their
passengers 24/7, and they'll be off, looking for better alternatives,
too. But where will they go if a couple of mega-giants have taken
over the cruise industry and are virtually saying "take it or leave
it" to the cruise consumer for anything but the very high-priced
cruises? We'll be left with nothing but the equivalent of Wal*Marts

You're obsessed.

OR Neiman Marcus to pick from.

I guess it's just easier for the lazy TA to lead the brain-dead new
cruiser to the ships that milk the most profit and earn the best
return. As always, money talks.

Karens

Yes it is. Remember, those are the ones on TV too.

"Chrissy Cruiser" wrote in message
...

I feel for you Ernie, I really do. I can see a big chunk of your life has
melted away. You, Karens, Ben, others...sad, so sad.



Well, let's not over exaggerate things. Life will go on with or without
cruise ships. I will always have my family, partner, friends, dog, etc.
with or without ships. Ships and cruising are merely a hobby, mind you one
I greatly enjoy.

I have always had a fascination with ships and this will continue. The ship
itself is more important to me then actual cruise experience. As long as
interesting ships continue to be built, then I will find the cruise industry
interesting. I will not always agree with the decisions that cruise
executives make (and sometimes I think they are amazingly short sighted),
but that is all part of what makes things interesting. You can rest assured
I don't lose sleep over what Carnival's next move is, but I do enjoy
discussing it.

Ernie

Do not have to sail out of philly to seethe SS US we can see that just
by driving across the bridge to the airport