The cruise market debate continues to flourish in Charleston, S.C., as a new study calls into question several widely accepted benefits that cruising has on the city and on regional tourism.
The study, called “The Cruise Industry in Charleston: A Clear Perspective,” was commissioned last fall by the Historic Charleston Foundation.
It suggests, for example, that only a small portion of an earlier estimate of the cruise industry’s economic impact on the region, $37 million, filters down to the city of Charleston.
“Because some of the impacts accrue to surrounding cities and towns, the direct economic impact on the city of Charleston’s historic district is minor,” Harry Miley, president of Miley & Associates, said in a statement accompanying the study on the foundation’s website.
The positive economic impact of the cruise industry, namely the homeporting of Carnival Cruise Lines’ Carnival Fantasy in Charleston, has been well publicized by the city and the South Carolina Ports Authority ever since four citizen groups filed a lawsuit against Carnival last year.
The citizen groups claim that the presence of the 2,000-passenger Fantasy in Charleston harbor violates local zoning regulations. The ship operates year-round from Charleston, bringing tens of thousands of visitors to the city annually.
The lawsuit is in the hands of the state Supreme Court, and the city and the ports authority are seeking to have the case dismissed. They have supported Carnival since the suit was filed last June.
Whether the Miley report will affect public perception of the cruise industry’s, and Carnival’s, operations in Charleston remains to be seen, but it does address several issues that theoretically could sway the opinions of local residents.
It notes, for example, that land-based visitors spend, on average, more than $700 on a Charleston vacation while cruise passengers calling at the destination spend $60. It does not, however, attach any time frame to the land-based visit expenditure, so it is unclear whether the $700 refers to a one- or two-night stay, or a two-week stay, for example.
Nor does it provide a comparison between the numbers of land-based visitors versus cruise passengers.
It nonetheless declares: “The major concern is that if the cruise business becomes too large it could choke off and displace other visitors to Charleston.”
The $37 million impact figure was contained in a 2010 report produced at the School of Business, College of Charleston. According to the Miley research, the earlier study used the “three-county area of Charleston, Dorchester and Berkeley counties,” and the Miley study suggests that the financial benefits to the city of Charleston are a fraction of that amount.
The Miley report also points to the future, suggesting that the city and the port authority begin charging a per passenger cruise fee, and postpone development of the city’s Union Pier Terminal until funding is secured.
The Miley study notes: “There is the risk of the cruise lines leaving Charleston as quickly as they have come,” and points to cities such as Mobile, Ala., and San Diego.
Carnival last year pulled its 2,000-passenger Carnival Elation out of Mobile, leaving the city with a $24 million cruise terminal -- built specifically for Carnival -- without a cruise ship.
Charleston officials have had no official response to the report, and Carnival doesn’t comment on topics related to litigation.
Follow Donna Tunney on Twitter @dttravelweekly