Distance from the centre
In Mediterranean Spain the cruise terminal lies 2.4 km from the historic centre in Malaga, 3.6 km in Barcelona and 3.7 km in Palma, distances the authors consider walkable for active people; Valencia is the farthest case, at 5.3 km.[1] In Barcelona the terminal shuttle is the main way to reach the city, used by 71.9% of participants in the GPS study.[6]
At the opposite extreme, Phu My Port lies 65 km from Ho Chi Minh City: according to the operators interviewed, peak-hour expressway traffic adds average delays of 45–60 minutes and the round trip can take up to three hours.[5] One operator says that after arriving from Hiep Phuoc Port there is barely time for two stops.[5]
The weight on traffic: small on average, strong at peaks
Assuming 2.7 daily trips per cruise passenger, estimated cruise trips in Barcelona equal about 0.35% of daily metropolitan mobility, with public transport at 25.1% of trips; in Palma they rise to 1.18%, where public transport covers only 7.2%.[1] The authors warn, however, that peaks computed from monthly averages fall short of reality: in Malaga, according to an earlier study, they reach about three times the average, up to 10,000 cruise passengers in one day.[1]
In five South American cities, vessel-position and navigation-app data for the whole of 2019 indicate that each ship arriving or departing is associated on average with roughly 12% more congestion within 2 km of the terminal; in Cartagena, with at least one ship in port, delay grows by almost 50%.[2] 91% of ships berth before noon and 81% leave after 3 pm.[2] In Callao, whose terminal is about 15 km from central Lima, no significant difference emerges.[2]
Public transport beyond the port city
Across 117 possible itineraries from the terminal to World Heritage Sites within 150 km in 17 Mediterranean ports, estimated travel times show that 95.73% of sites can be reached within two hours by direct means, but only 54.70% by public transport.[3] Only 37.61% of public-transport itineraries are simple, with a single vehicle plus walking, and just 11.97% are both simple and within one hour.[3] The train is the first or only means in 78.63% of itineraries, and in the authors' simulation covering the longest first and last legs by bicycle would raise the sites reachable within two hours to 74.36%.[3]
Inform before people choose
All the Spanish cities examined have a sustainable urban mobility plan, and the most frequent measure is better pedestrian links between port and historic centre.[1] In Trieste, where about one in five tourists in 2019 was a cruise passenger, the European CIVITAS PORTIS project placed an e-bike-sharing station opposite the pier and an app with seven themed routes starting at the maritime station.[4] Its targets (a 3% rise in public transport's share and a doubling of cycling) were never measured, partly because no cruise passengers arrived in 2020; the document also notes that all-in packages from agencies and cruise lines make it hard to steer passengers in time.[4]
In Ho Chi Minh City interviewees report signs only in Vietnamese and fragmented responsibilities among port authorities, operators and local government; the authors suggest inter-agency committees dedicated to cruising.[5]
What it means for ports and cities
- Coordinate disembarkation times with the port so that the peak does not coincide with the city rush hour.
- Terminal-station shuttles, accurate travel-time information and pedestrian links make public transport a credible option.
- Where the terminal is far away, bring the offer closer to the port and provide multilingual signage and information.
What we don't know yet
Cruise trips in Spain are estimated with a single parameter, and Mediterranean travel times are simulated with Google Maps on 2015 data, without observing actual behaviour. The South American study does not know the number of passengers per ship, and the Ho Chi Minh City travel times are reported by operators, not measured. The Trieste factsheet is a project document with no impact evaluation.
Every figure points, through the number in brackets, to the original study it comes from.
- Grindlay, A. L., Martínez-Hornos, S. (2022). Cruise ships and urban mobility in mediterranean Spain. International Journal of Transport Development and Integration, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 12–24 (WIT Press). Read the original study ↗ Study summary →
- Calatayud, A., Sánchez González, S., Marquez, J. M. (2022). Using big data to estimate the impact of cruise activity on congestion in port cities. Maritime Economics & Logistics (2022) 24:566–583 (Springer Nature). Read the original study ↗ Study summary →
- Perea-Medina, B., Rosa-Jiménez, C., Andrade, M. J. (year n/a). Potential of public transport in the regionalization of the main cruise destinations in the Mediterranean. Read the original study ↗ Study summary →
- CIVITAS PORTIS consortium (year n/a). Mobility Measure: Sustainable Mobility Modes for Cruise Passengers (Trieste) – CIVITAS PORTIS Transferability. Insights into the implementation of smart mobility measures. CIVITAS PORTIS consortium (progetto Horizon 2020, grant agreement No 690713). Read the original study ↗ Study summary →
- Tran, T. T., Nguyen, P. H., Mohamad, B., Nguyen, T. K. T., Nguyen, T. L. C., Le, T. H. (2025). Port-city mobility challenges in Ho Chi Minh City: cruise tourism infrastructure, stakeholder governance, and sustainable urban transitions. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 7:1679677. Read the original study ↗ Study summary →
- Delclòs-Alió, X., Arias-Sans, A., Tavafi, F., Mejía, V., Catalán, M., Gutiérrez, A. (2025). Stepping on the beaten track? Walking behavior and profiles of cruise passengers in Barcelona. Cities, vol. 159, 105760 (Elsevier). Read the original study ↗ Study summary →